BREAKING: Marvel Debuts Female Thor on "The View"

[Prof. Warren]

I'm all for a female Thor and I'm sure that Aaron will write the hell out of it but, damn, I can't get too excited knowing that this is going to mean the end of Thor: GOT! That is one of the flat-out BEST comics out right now from any publisher and it feels like there's so much more gas in the tank on that book. What's going to happen with all the plot threads that have been set up? It just seems criminal to cut that book short. I'm hoping that Aaron will also be writing another book that will continue on from GOT because, you know, I can't be suddenly deprived of that fix!

[vitruvian]

The fact that people can tell the difference between the doctors makes my point entirely. Taking over a title/mantle does not erase identity even in cases where the shift is the same person with a different appearance. Logic....busted.

I don't necessarily agree that a new Thor's own identity is erased, either.... but you have no logic on your side either. The same character changing appearance but keeping the same name and identity is not remotely like a new character taking on an existing character's identity.

[Rheged]

Thor is whatever Marvel says it is. If its a title and mantle, then so be it.

Apparently, the title of Thor is no longer male-exclusive. So says Marvel. That is pretty definitive.

Thor isn't a title, it's a name. And this character is always going to be known as female Thor, just like the rest of the female characters derived from established male characters are, no matter what Marvel insists on naming them.

[Maven]

Ok...this seriously begs to be asked, and not that I'm for the idea of this character and title (quite frankly am going 'Bzuh?!' at all I've read/heard about this topic today ), but shouldn't her name be Thrud? That is essentially the feminine form of the Thor name.

[vitruvian]

Ok...this seriously begs to be asked, and not that I'm for the idea of this character and title (quite frankly am going 'Bzuh?!' at all I've read/heard about this topic today ), but shouldn't her name be Thrud? That is essentially the feminine form of the Thor name.

Not exactly. Thordis is the female form of Thor, and is a name that real women in Scandinavia have on their birth certificates and everything. Thrud, which means power, is the name of Thor's daughter in mythology.

[Ravin' Ray]

Will Thor now be known as Fulgora? <--- Fulgora is the female personification of thunder in mythology

Interesting, I had to google "Fulgora" and learned she is the Roman personification of lightning. Meanwhile, Marvel already has a female deity of thunder and lightning, Anitun of the Diwatas (Philippine deities), and Thor even attended the funeral of her human host in Invincible Iron Man.

[lilyinblue]

This is not true and the comparison is note accurate. This character will always be known as the "female" Thor. So she will never have her own identity. She will be "considered" lesser because of her name. She will be the "other" not "real" Thor. And that is why it is disappointing.

If you think that way then you are part of the problem. I know I won't be thinking that way.

If you aren't thinking that way, that's great. But understand... this is a frequent issue/criticism that both Marvel and DC face. In the zillions of threads that have been made regarding the state of women as heroes in the Marvel Universe, one subject that comes up time after time is the idea of the 'offshoot' hero and whether or not that's helpful or harmful. (She-Hulk, Ms/Captain Marvel, the various Spider-Women, etc.) Both of the big two are often criticized for relying on that in the past rather than simply developing more original characters with identities purely their own. Any character in this category is inextricably linked with the original. It often carries the subtext that they aren't willing to risk something original and standalone, and feel safer launching a book about a woman if she's at least a part of an established hero's franchise. (And to Marvel's credit... they've gotten better at it. But the issue won't ever go away since these characters are all here to stay with fanbases of their own now.)

She-Hulk is a perfect example of the concept of the female as "other" - a concept that is pervasive throughout western culture and is ingrained in the english language itself. If female is "other" - male is default. "Hulk" is both the default form and the male form. "She-Hulk" is feminized and specific. "Hero" is both the default and the masculine. "Heroine" is the feminine. Entire books have been written on this subject. It's a big thing.

I do find it hard to have much faith than in future discussion of this character, she won't constantly be labelled as "the female Thor"... not because that's what I want, or how I think it should be, but just because that's how it usually goes.

(And I do find this whole thing a bit peculiar... suddenly treating "Thor" as a title and not just the guy's name. In truth, I'm pretty sure I don't like it.)

[vaf2675]

I don't necessarily agree that a new Thor's own identity is erased, either.... but you have no logic on your side either. The same character changing appearance but keeping the same name and identity is not remotely like a new character taking on an existing character's identity.

That was what I said. But he completely disregarded it anyway.

[LorrieK]

I'm apparently somewhat ignorant about Thor. Is Thor is just a title? I thought it was his name.

[neonrideraryeh]

Jason Aaron says that she is just "Thor", so... Shocker was right about them all being Thors :P

[TheMerc]

You assume that Marvel chose The View first, then make editorial decisions to fill that commitment.......that makes absolutely no sense.

That's not what I meant. Recognizing the existence of a precedent of the Big Two making comic-book-related announcements on more generalized media (the Death of Cap, Superior Spider-Man, Gay Alan Scott, Superman and Wonder Woman becoming an item, Clark Kent quitting the Daily Planet, etc.), I only meant to say that Marvel picked this up and ran with it. Maybe Aaron presented Marvel with the idea of a Female Thor, maybe Marvel pushed that idea on him (just speculating), but whichever the case, I don't doubt that someone at Marvel looked at it and said "hey, you know what, Thor is a big-name character now, with Chris Hemsworth and the movies, and people now know who he is. Since we're making him a woman, why not go wide with this and make the announcement on The View". Obviously they didn't say "hell, we've got a slot during The View and nothing to announce there. Quick, let's have Ribic draw a female Thor, say that that's what we'll be doing and call it a day"...

What happened is that Marvel wanted to do a full female Thor and chose the proper venue to announce that, period, no controversy.

I don't know if it's necessarily the proper venue. It'll probably reach more people than it would if the announcement was made during SDCC, but will those people pick up issue 1 when it comes out? Personally, I think this type of announcements more often than not produces the effects of "hey, check out what these comic book companies are doing! Neat, huh? Now, in other news, here's Miley Cyrus' latest scandal".

[lantian1]

Well if she is someone who is inspired by Thor then she has to have a birth name. Which means this is more just like calling Tony Stark Iron Man

Than it is actually being Thor

The name Thor will have to give way to the persons true name eventually

[Rheged]

If you aren't thinking that way, that's great. But understand... this is a frequent issue/criticism that both Marvel and DC face. In the zillions of threads that have been made regarding the state of women as heroes in the Marvel Universe, one subject that comes up time after time is the idea of the 'offshoot' hero and whether or not that's helpful or harmful. (She-Hulk, Ms/Captain Marvel, the various Spider-Women, etc.) Both of the big two are often criticized for relying on that in the past rather than simply developing more original characters with identities purely their own. Any character in this category is inextricably linked with the original. It often carries the subtext that they aren't willing to risk something original and standalone, and feel safer launching a book about a woman if she's at least a part of an established hero's franchise. (And to Marvel's credit... they've gotten better at it. But the issue won't ever go away since these characters are all here to stay with fanbases of their own now.)

She-Hulk is a perfect example of the concept of the female as "other" - a concept that is pervasive throughout western culture and is ingrained in the english language itself. If female is "other" - male is default. "Hulk" is both the default form and the male form. "She-Hulk" is feminized and specific. "Hero" is both the default and the masculine. "Heroine" is the feminine. Entire books have been written on this subject. It's a big thing.

I do find it hard to have much faith than in future discussion of this character, she won't constantly be labelled as "the female Thor"... not because that's what I want, or how I think it should be, but just because that's how it usually goes.

(And I do find this whole thing a bit peculiar... suddenly treating "Thor" as a title and not just the guy's name. In truth, I'm pretty sure I don't like it.)

Thank you for this post.

[krazijoe]

Brienne of Tarth???

[vitruvian]

If you aren't thinking that way, that's great. But understand... this is a frequent issue/criticism that both Marvel and DC face. In the zillions of threads that have been made regarding the state of women as heroes in the Marvel Universe, one subject that comes up time after time is the idea of the 'offshoot' hero and whether or not that's helpful or harmful. (She-Hulk, Ms/Captain Marvel, the various Spider-Women, etc.) Both of the big two are often criticized for relying on that in the past rather than simply developing more original characters with identities purely their own. Any character in this category is inextricably linked with the original. It often carries the subtext that they aren't willing to risk something original and standalone, and feel safer launching a book about a woman if she's at least a part of an established hero's franchise. (And to Marvel's credit... they've gotten better at it. But the issue won't ever go away since these characters are all here to stay with fanbases of their own now.)

She-Hulk is a perfect example of the concept of the female as "other" - a concept that is pervasive throughout western culture and is ingrained in the english language itself. If female is "other" - male is default. "Hulk" is both the default form and the male form. "She-Hulk" is feminized and specific. "Hero" is both the default and the masculine. "Heroine" is the feminine. Entire books have been written on this subject. It's a big thing.

I do find it hard to have much faith than in future discussion of this character, she won't constantly be labelled as "the female Thor"... not because that's what I want, or how I think it should be, but just because that's how it usually goes.

(And I do find this whole thing a bit peculiar... suddenly treating "Thor" as a title and not just the guy's name. In truth, I'm pretty sure I don't like it.)

The whole thing about women being 'other' is a fair point, although in this instance at least they're not naming her Thor Girl or She-Thor or Thor-Woman or anything like that. Of course, even without a name change from the 'default male', legacy heroes can be kind of iffy, especially when the audience believes for various reasons that the new status quo is likely to be temporary rather than a permanent replacement... think of how Rhodey was the 'black Iron Man' to many readers until eventually getting his own identity as War Machine/Iron Patriot, or how long it took Jon Stewart to be regarded seriously as an ongoing Green Lantern over on the DC side. It comes down to exactly how it's handled, but I'm willing to give this instance a chance, certainly.

As for using the name 'Thor' as a mantle, at least in addition to it being Thor Odinson's actual name... I'm pretty okay with that, considering that there's precedent for it. I mean, everybody remembers Eric Masterson, who continued to be Thor for a good while after he was no longer attached to the original Thor's consciousness in addition to his powers, right?