Mighty Thor #705 *Spoliers*

[JKtheMac]

You know you aren't a mod right?, You have a bad habit of trying to hold court in these threads.

Are you familiar with the standard etiquette of a thread? I opened it to discuss a specific topic. This comes up a lot mostly because not many thread openers take that responsibility, not because it is purely the role of a moderator. We should all be moderate and we should all be on topic. We certainly shouldn't need moderation if we remain on topic and polite.

[Mr Reader]

Are you familiar with the standard etiquette of a thread? I opened it to discuss a specific topic. This comes up a lot mostly because not many thread openers take that responsibility, not because it is purely the role of a moderator. We should all be moderate and we should all be on topic. We certainly shouldn't need moderation if we remain on topic and polite.

I fail to see how people saying Thor and his mythos are being denigrated to elevate Jane Foster is anywhere near off topic, if the thread was called "Jason Aaron's Thor, praise only" you'd have a point

[JKtheMac]

I fail to see how people saying Thor and his mythos are being denigrated to elevate Jane Foster is anywhere near off topic, if the thread was called "Jason Aaron's Thor, praise only" you'd have a point

It is off topic to open up old arguments about entirely different writers on entirely different books. That would potentially derail the thread. I know from experience this is a hot button topic in-and-of itself. If anyone wants to discuss those books those threads are still available. I was an active member of those discussions and would perhaps be again, although I already made my position clear on those threads so maybe not.

This is a discussion about the latest issue of Mighty Thor. A discussion that is hard enough to keep on track without degenerating into a premise examination of the run (which it always seems to do). The last thing I opened this thread for was to be a secondary "appreciation" thread. I am not shutting down attacks on Aaron, I am debating them, but technically they are not quite on topic.

The real purpose of the thread is to examine what happened in this issue and to reflect upon the wider run, both past and future, in that context. There is even a thread for not appreciating Aaron's Thor, but funnily enough I was not a part of that discussion.

I also don't want to derail the thread talking about what the thread is about. It should be clear.

[brettc1]

So you don't really mind that the lead is somebody else, but you also hate it at the same time because Odinson is INEVITABLY sidelined by the story? I can understand if you genuinely are conflicted over this but your points don't come accross that way. They come across as not wanting this at all.

For those of us that are enjoying this run we never stopped reading the book as a reflection of who Thor is, who Odinson is and by extension who Blake was. This is a book about Thor Odinson. He hasn't been reduced or moved aside, he is a key element to every story that has been told, even when he was missing for most of the volume. If one reads it this way, and I would encourage you to do that, one can see how far from messing up Thor canon, Aaron is carefully examining Thor canon. He is taking parts out of the box, polishing them up, looking at them in the light, and then placing them carefully back in a more pleasing position. This is what I mean by deconstruction, it's all a process of reflection and examination about the wonderful curiosity that is Mighty Thor. The metatext is all What makes Thor an interesting comic? What are the key elements that make it work? Who is this guy Thor? Why is he important?

This book is considered by many to be an important and vital work. Aaron is being talked about as one of the most important voices in comics today, and this book is the key reason. That isn't my assertion that's the assertion of podcasts, critics, fellow writers and many readers.

First, lets be clear we are still talking about a comic book. Important and vital seems a bit of a stretch. Cancer research is vital and important.

Early on in the arc, Thor was not sidelined by Jane. I liked that part of the story, which I think falls under the category you described above as 'the wider run'. But as time has gone on that seems to have happened more and more.

Aaron could have written about the two of them working as more or less equals, but that is not what has happened. Your questions of who is this guy Thor and why is he important seem to answered as "a great big sulk who can't win for losing", and ... well, we need a title character once Jane Foster dies.

I've read the books and we see them differently. I don't see how one car logically argue that Thor has not been reduced when he has failed in his endeavors over and over while Jane has gone from strength to strength. But if I'm wrong, then show me Thor's truimphs. In his own book, show me his success stories - not some intangible heroic effort, but something he did where he actually had a tangible goal and worked to see it achieved. The last one I can recall was helping to stop the Destroyer taking Mjolnir. That was... what? Two years ago?

I like Aaron's storytelling style but what he has done with certain characters for the sake of plot leaves me unimpressed. Considering I've paid my money to buy the book, I am okay with saying I didn't enjoy it as much as I could have.

[JKtheMac]

First, lets be clear we are still talking about a comic book. Important and vital seems a bit of a stretch. Cancer research is vital and important.

I have no illusions that we are talking about an importance based upon comic book proportions. However, I think we are finally getting to the point with this post of yours so I will try and answer as best I can from my perspective.

Early on in the arc, Thor was not sidelined by Jane. I liked that part of the story, which I think falls under the category you described above as 'the wider run'. But as time has gone on that seems to have happened more and more.

But he isn't the protagonist of the book so of course his part is reduced. He was completely moved out of the book once his part was no longer relevant, and moved back in when it became so again.

Aaron could have written about the two of them working as more or less equals, but that is not what has happened.

That isn't the story he wanted to tell. Why should he? There really isn't a lot of fun to be had with a character that is still depressed and undergoing a crisis. But we still have a Thor. One that can be used differently and with a different narrative purpose.

Your questions of who is this guy Thor and why is he important seem to answered as "a great big sulk who can't win for losing", and ... well, we need a title character once Jane Foster dies.

I don't mean my questions in a literal sense of who is the character currently. I am referring to a process of exploration via storytelling. An examination via meta-text and thematic resonance.

I've read the books and we see them differently. I don't see how one car logically argue that Thor has not been reduced when he has failed in his endeavors over and over while Jane has gone from strength to strength.

I don't really care if he fails as long as he tries. I don't care if he is depressed as long as he is identifiable. To me he is still the great character I have always followed. As somebody that has gone through anxieties and existential issues I can assure you the depiction is very true to life. Maybe that helps me identify, but I don't think you need to have 'been there' to understand this.

But if I'm wrong, then show me Thor's truimphs. In his own book, show me his success stories - not some intangible heroic effort, but something he did where he actually had a tangible goal and worked to see it achieved. The last one I can recall was helping to stop the Destroyer taking Mjolnir. That was... what? Two years ago?

Again you are talking about the type of thing a protagonist does in a story. Odinson isn't the protagonist. In your own words he is more akin to a side-kick. Those are not words I would choose to use but they are close enough. He is a secondary character at the moment, and necessarily cant be used in the way you would seem to want without destroying the entire premise of Aaron's story. I don't see a problem with that, just as I was happy to see him off the book for a few months.

But importantly, to more directly address why, at no point in the story is Aaron deliberately holding up Jane as Thor and Thor Odinson for comparison even if you do feel that he is. He is deliberately avoiding this as part of his premise. If he wanted to do this he would do it explicitly, not in the ways you list. This is why I just see a overly sensitive reaction, because this is not the intent of the writer and it isn't how he is going about his writing.

I like Aaron's storytelling style but what he has done with certain characters for the sake of plot leaves me unimpressed. Considering I've paid my money to buy the book, I am okay with saying I didn't enjoy it as much as I could have.

I can only say don't buy things if you don't think they are worth your money. The only way to add value to this book is to put aside this feeling of character identified persecution and enjoy it for what it is. A deep and nuanced exploration of a comic that we both enjoy.

[kilderkin]

Imo

The books creative have systematically broken thor and the gods mythos down, especially to elevate janes run as Thor and because another external perspective affected their work

Jane didn't need thor to be so ruined to look great, she was a good enough character and idea all on her own

JA decided this was needed, he decided this was the way to go, it's what he felt was needed

Even the very notion of the whisper was designed to bring thor low, for whatever reason

I can only imagine how long it will take to recover the mythos as I feel it's terribly damaged

Thor still not being shown as worthy of a now retconned rather selfish hammer prison still feels chalky in the mouth given its been years, years since this all started and thor hasn't really moved on since it started, at all

The thing that kept me interested, jane holding her turn as weilding mjolnir is gone, this book and mythos is so far from where it needs to be to be a leafing book about a major marvel character I actually can't see how it can recover under the current writer

I'll try to hold on for trades to support the character I love, but that's really just blind loyalty to past treasure coz this thor is a shadow of himself

by deliberate design

In my opinion

[JKtheMac]

Imo

The books creative have systematically broken thor and the gods mythos down, especially to elevate janes run as Thor and because another external perspective affected their work

Jane didn't need thor to be so ruined to look great, she was a good enough character and idea all on her own

JA decided this was needed, he decided this was the way to go, it's what he felt was needed

Even the very notion of the whisper was designed to bring thor low, for whatever reason

I can only imagine how long it will take to recover the mythos as I feel it's terribly damaged

Thor still not being shown as worthy of a now retconned rather selfish hammer prison still feels chalky in the mouth given its been years, years since this all started and thor hasn't really moved on since it started, at all

The thing that kept me interested, jane holding her turn as weilding mjolnir is gone, this book and mythos is so far from where it needs to be to be a leafing book about a major marvel character I actually can't see how it can recover under the current writer

I'll try to hold on for trades to support the character I love, but that's really just blind loyalty to past treasure coz this thor is a shadow of himself

by deliberate design

In my opinion

But all I can say to this is that isn't what is actually happening. Of course it is by design to make Thor unworthy, of course it is by design to remove his ability to wield Mjolnir and not have consistent access to his powers, but none of this is being done to wilfully denigrate or undermine Thor Odinson as a character. It is being done to examine those very elements more closely and without reference to Odinson.

The exploration of worthiness is the major theme of the entire run, from day one of Thor God of Thunder. He chose to make him unworthy to better explore this. He chose to make a mortal worthy (it took a while for him to settle upon Jane, it could theoretically have been anyone) to examine that concept in the light of the earliest stories and to separate out this worthiness from the idea of familial legacy. He wanted a non-deity to wield it because his entire examination is focused on how gods are relevant (even worthy ones).

[kilderkin]

But all I can say to this is that isn't what is actually happening. Of course it is by design to make Thor unworthy, of course it is by design to remove his ability to wield Mjolnir and not have consistent access to his powers, but none of this is being done to wilfully denigrate or undermine Thor Odinson as a character. It is being done to examine those very elements more closely and without reference to Odinson.

The exploration of worthiness is the major theme of the entire run, from day one of Thor God of Thunder. He chose to make him unworthy to better explore this. He chose to make a mortal worthy (it took a while for him to settle upon Jane, it could theoretically have been anyone) to examine that concept in the light of the earliest stories and to separate out this worthiness from the idea of familial legacy. He wanted a non-deity to wield it because his entire examination is focused on how gods are relevant (even worthy ones).

It is happening and it has happened

it's very easy to see

I can accept it was not malicious, but that does not make it less so

Sure he did it to look at what you said, big deal, it was done in such a negative and excessively long way imo it's lost all point

He rendered thor unworthy to explore it? That's old rope done before in a much less harmful way

With all due respect, and I do respect that your view us a considered one, I could not disagree more

I do think it was done by design to make a point about gods and worship , not just in the mythos but otherwise too

It's been used as an allegory to explore real views I feel

Of course this is my opinion, I could be wrong

but either way, the product comes out as a destructive abasement of a solid character that needed no such treatment and that is no better off for it

Nothing but harm done to thor by this run in my opinion

[brettc1]

I have no illusions that we are talking about an importance based upon comic book proportions. However, I think we are finally getting to the point with this post of yours so I will try and answer as best I can from my perspective.

But he isn't the protagonist of the book so of course his part is reduced. He was completely moved out of the book once his part was no longer relevant, and moved back in when it became so again.


That isn't the story he wanted to tell. Why should he? There really isn't a lot of fun to be had with a character that is still depressed and undergoing a crisis. But we still have a Thor. One that can be used differently and with a different narrative purpose.

Ah, now we get to the point.

You're right, and you're wrong. If you look back at other stories where a hero is temporarily replaced, by the time they need to resume their mantle they are already starting to rise again. But in this story, Thor is still very much in the depths. You can talk about structuralism all you want, there are certain things that stories do require.

I don't mean my questions in a literal sense of who is the character currently. I am referring to a process of exploration via storytelling. An examination via meta-text and thematic resonance.

I don't really care if he fails as long as he tries. I don't care if he is depressed as long as he is identifiable. To me he is still the great character I have always followed. As somebody that has gone through anxieties and existential issues I can assure you the depiction is very true to life. Maybe that helps me identify, but I don't think you need to have 'been there' to understand this.

Again you are talking about the type of thing a protagonist does in a story. Odinson isn't the protagonist. In your own words he is more akin to a side-kick. Those are not words I would choose to use but they are close enough. He is a secondary character at the moment, and necessarily cant be used in the way you would seem to want without destroying the entire premise of Aaron's story. I don't see a problem with that, just as I was happy to see him off the book for a few months.

Yes. There it is. Thor cannot be allowed to succeed while Jane lives. THAT is the premise of Aoarons story, as you yourself say here.

It baffles me, and I suspect others, that you cannot see how damaging that is.

But importantly, to more directly address why, at no point in the story is Aaron deliberately holding up Jane as Thor and Thor Odinson for comparison even if you do feel that he is. He is deliberately avoiding this as part of his premise. If he wanted to do this he would do it explicitly, not in the ways you list. This is why I just see a overly sensitive reaction, because this is not the intent of the writer and it isn't how he is going about his writing.

I have said before and will do so again: intentions mean far less than results on the page.

If Aaron couldn't see how his writing held these two up to comparison then he made a serious error in judgement IMO. If you yourself cannot see then I have no idea why not, because it is very very plain. Not just subjectively, but objectively.

When you've go two characters having a direct dialogue while one is frail, dying and reasonable and the other is strong, vital and petty, of COURSE there is a comparison! I find it absurd to suggest otherwise. That is not being "overly sensitive". An eleven year old in my class could see the obvious contrast.

Similarly, Thor and Jane could have worked as equals to rope Mangog. Aaron could chosen to have her throws the hammer at the very last moment without Thor realising what she intended. He could have had Thor tell Jane to keep the hammer and live. And THAT would have been powerful because it would mean he valued her more. That he had finally given up any sense of ownership, the cardinal sin of Tolkiens LOTR themes.

Sadly for me and maybe other that didn't happen. And you can say "that's not the story he wanted to tell. Okay, well he makes his choices as a writer about what the story is and I make a choice as a reader about if I like it.

I can only say don't buy things if you don't think they are worth your money. The only way to add value to this book is to put aside this feeling of character identified persecution and enjoy it for what it is. A deep and nuanced exploration of a comic that we both enjoy.

I've dropped titles before for that reason - dropped Wonder Woman for the first time in 30 years because I didn't like Azarello's treatment. But that early on.

Comic runs are like movies. You only know if you like it after you've bought your ticket. In this case Aaron kept me hoping right to the end, and then lost me in the last act. Next issue might reverse that. My LCS requires you have a book ordered 2 months in advance, because they need to keep their books balanced and is harder for small businesses. So I will keep met fingers crossed.

But something can be deep and nuanced and still not appealing.

[kilderkin]

Ah, now we get to the point.

You're right, and you're wrong. If you look back at other stories where a hero is temporarily replaced, by the time they need to resume their mantle they are already starting to rise again. But in this story, Thor is still very much in the depths. You can talk about structuralism all you want, there are certain things that stories do require.



Yes. There it is. Thor cannot be allowed to succeed while Jane lives. THAT is the premise of Aoarons story, as you yourself say here.

It baffles me, and I suspect others, that you cannot see how damaging that is.



I have said before and will do so again: intentions mean far less than results on the page.

If Aaron couldn't see how his writing held these two up to comparison then he made a serious error in judgement IMO. If you yourself cannot see then I have no idea why not, because it is very very plain. Not just subjectively, but objectively.

When you've go two characters having a direct dialogue while one is frail, dying and reasonable and the other is strong, vital and petty, of COURSE there is a comparison! I find it absurd to suggest otherwise. That is not being "overly sensitive". An eleven year old in my class could see the obvious contrast.

Similarly, Thor and Jane could have worked as equals to rope Mangog. Aaron could chosen to have her throws the hammer at the very last moment without Thor realising what she intended. He could have had Thor tell Jane to keep the hammer and live. And THAT would have been powerful because it would mean he valued her more. That he had finally given up any sense of ownership, the cardinal sin of Tolkiens LOTR themes.

Sadly for me and maybe other that didn't happen. And you can say "that's not the story he wanted to tell. Okay, well he makes his choices as a writer about what the story is and I make a choice as a reader about if I like it.





I've dropped titles before for that reason - dropped Wonder Woman for the first time in 30 years because I didn't like Azarello's treatment. But that early on.

Comic runs are like movies. You only know if you like it after you've bought your ticket. In this case Aaron kept me hoping right to the end, and then lost me in the last act. Next issue might reverse that. My LCS requires you have a book ordered 2 months in advance, because they need to keep their books balanced and is harder for small businesses. So I will keep met fingers crossed.

But something can be deep and nuanced and still not appealing.

I love the idea that jane throws the hammer to send mangog away

Thor wanting to save her catches it, showing his worth, tosses it back saving her

Both worthy their power combines to drive mangog away

sadly the strain is still too much jane falls, Freya and odin rise her as a valkyrie some time later

[JKtheMac]

Ah, now we get to the point.

You're right, and you're wrong. If you look back at other stories where a hero is 'temporarily replaced, by the time they need to resume their mantle they are already starting to rise again. But in this story, Thor is still very much in the depths. You can talk about structuralism all you want, there are certain things that stories do require.

Thanks for the permission, you know I will anyway. The point is this isn't a normal 'temporarily replaced' story, you are just seeing it that way because you have read a few others and expect certain things. In those stories the guy being 'replaced' is still kind of the protagonist, in the background he is undergoing some hero's journey thing (yawn). This isn't one of those stories. Not every story has to be about the title character slaying a bloody dragon that represents his inner dilema. That's messed up pseudo scientific nonsense invented by an intelligent and thoughtful guy who was unfortunately listened to far too closely.

In this story Jane is the protagonist. So to have Odinson wandering around learning his lesson and slaying his dragons would entirely distract us from the point of the story.

One of the reasons I was able to predict that Odinson wasn't getting a hammer when they solicited Unworthy Thor is because of the structure of this story. It's something I am good at. It is also very tricky with comics so just like everyone else I can also be wrong. But with Aaron I know pretty much how he thinks. It's the kind of storytelling I most enjoy and most often analyse. I am as familiar with this kind of story as you are with structuralism (which is most comics anyway).

This isn't to say I know exactly how the story will go. Aaron definitely thinks differently to me. I wouldn't even try to write like him for example. He can still surprise and delight me. I am pretty sure he doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about deconstructionist theory.

Yes. There it is. Thor cannot be allowed to succeed while Jane lives. THAT is the premise of Aoarons story, as you yourself say here.

It baffles me, and I suspect others, that you cannot see how damaging that is.

Because deep down Jane IS Thor on a fundamental level that is not reflected in any other legacy story. This is a Thor story. It is exploring the same ideas and themes as any Thor story, it owes an awful lot to the work of Kirby and Simonson, it hits a sweet spot of what a Thor story should be. AND we don't need Odinson to be the figure in the middle. That is the thing we are supposed to take away. We are supposed to question what it is that makes a successful Thor. Odinson is supposed to reflect on this. He is supposed to eventually think "what would Jane do" precisely because there is a lesson here. That isn't a reflection on Odinson not being as good as Jane. Nobody has tried to assert that apart from fans trying to make a case that this is what Aaron is trying to do. He isn't. And he won't actually be asserting this even if someone like Odinson says it at some point. We know that on one level she was just a different kind of Thor that can point the way to fixing Odinson's problems. One without a bloody dragon.

I may address some of your other points later but I am struggling to do that on a phone and some of it is just repetition anyway.

[JKtheMac]

I love the idea that jane throws the hammer to send mangog away

Thor wanting to save her catches it, showing his worth, tosses it back saving her

Both worthy their power combines to drive mangog away

sadly the strain is still too much jane falls, Freya and odin rise her as a valkyrie some time later

You may love this idea, but it wouldn't work with what Aaron is writing. It reflects an entirely different perspective on what the story is about.

[brettc1]

Thanks for the permission, you know I will anyway. The point is this isn't a normal 'temporarily replaced' story, you are just seeing it that way because you have read a few others and expect certain things. In those stories the guy being 'replaced' is still kind of the protagonist, in the background he is undergoing some hero's journey thing (yawn). This isn't one of those stories. Not every story has to be about the title character slaying a bloody dragon that represents his inner dilema. That's messed up pseudo scientific nonsense invented by an intelligent and thoughtful guy who was unfortunately listened to far too closely.

In this story Jane is the protagonist. So to have Odinson wandering around learning his lesson and slaying his dragons would entirely distract us from the point of the story.

One of the reasons I was able to predict that Odinson wasn't getting a hammer when they solicited Unworthy Thor is because of the structure of this story. It's something I am good at. It is also very tricky with comics so just like everyone else I can also be wrong.

Like with Jane's face under the helmet

But with Aaron I know pretty much how he thinks. It's the kind of storytelling I most enjoy and most often analyse. I am as familiar with this kind of story as you are with structuralism (which is most comics anyway).

This isn't to say I know exactly how the story will go. Aaron definitely thinks differently to me. I wouldn't even try to write like him for example. He can still surprise and delight me. I am pretty sure he doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about deconstructionist theory.

I would venture to say he isn't the only one.

Because deep down Jane IS Thor on a fundamental level that is not reflected in any other legacy story. This is a Thor story. It is exploring the same ideas and themes as any Thor story, it owes an awful lot to the work of Kirby and Simonson, it hits a sweet spot of what a Thor story should be. AND we don't need Odinson to be the figure in the middle. That is the thing we are supposed to take away. We are supposed to question what it is that makes a successful Thor. Odinson is supposed to reflect on this. He is supposed to eventually think "what would Jane do" precisely because there is a lesson here. That isn't a reflection on Odinson not being as good as Jane. Nobody has tried to assert that apart from fans trying to make a case that this is what Aaron is trying to do. He isn't.

This is so self contradictory as to be mind boggling.

Jane is not better than Thor, but he is supposed to learn from Jane how to be Thor. Someone else has to TEACH THOR HOW TO BE THOR.

AND - we are not supposed to compare Thor to Jane, but he has to compare his actions to Jane's would do in order to know what the right thing to do is.



You're a successful Thor is the writer lets you be. And he decides you have to fail again and again and again, you're screwed.

[JKtheMac]

Like with Jane's face under the helmet

How many times have I got to say that wasn't a reveal we already knew she was a blonde Nordic woman and she doesn't look like Jane at all to me. When she was first revealed she looked like this too. A round faced Nordic. That isn't Jane's genetic make-up.

You are completely ignoring my point that this is not the same kind of story. Do you see how it is or not?

This is so self contradictory as to be mind boggling.

Jane is not better than Thor, but he is supposed to learn from Jane how to be Thor. Someone else has to TEACH THOR HOW TO BE THOR.

You do realise teachers don't need to be better than you? How do you think a sports coach works for example. It is not a value judgement to learn from somebody. In this case it teaches a perspective and a key to the worthiness issue. In that regard Jane is worthy and Odinson isn't so if you really want some kind of hierarchy that's it, but Odinson isn't unworthy because of deed or will, so he cant learn from her in a 'better than him' way.

This is only contradictory if you continue to insist that Aaron is seeking to make Odinson a bad character or a weak character. The character is just as strong and identifiable, his abilities are tied to his mindset and that is where his learning needs to take place. His self-healing will come form the example of a mortal sacrificing herself to Thor.

AND - we are not supposed to compare Thor to Jane, but he has to compare his actions to Jane's would do in order to know what the right thing to do is.

No that isn't what I am saying. If that is what you are hearing I am simply not explaining what I mean.

Essentially Thor has often looked externally for his power. His birthright and the enchantment, but neither of those things make him legitimate. He is Thor by deed and action not by dint of his father and his father's enchantments. This has to be reinforced every so often. He is in a position right now where he needs to relearn this. He needs to learn it from a different perspective, from a perspective of unworthiness and crisis.

You're a successful Thor is the writer lets you be. And he decides you have to fail again and again and again, you're screwed.

He hasn't really been tested at all. He has just acted in circumstances that are not really trials. Why? Because the book wasn't about him.

[JKtheMac]

I have said before and will do so again: intentions mean far less than results on the page.

I can only read his intentions from the page. His interviews are few and far between and don't really add anything I hadn't already gleaned on that page.

If Aaron couldn't see how his writing held these two up to comparison then he made a serious error in judgement IMO. If you yourself cannot see then I have no idea why not, because it is very very plain. Not just subjectively, but objectively.

It isn't plain. You are singling out tiny inferences and you are magnifying their importance. That isn't how to analyse a work and especially not when you go in with a preconception like for example "Aaron is damaging one of my favourite characters." or "Aaron cant write Thor." That will result in an extremely biased view of the text. Every little thing that supports you will be magnified, everything that is ambiguous will be twisted to mean what you want it to, and every thing that doesn't support you will be totally ignored. That is what I see happening with your examples. Because the book is primarily about Jane as Thor the very few pages that contain Odinson are being taken out of proportion.

When you've go two characters having a direct dialogue while one is frail, dying and reasonable and the other is strong, vital and petty, of COURSE there is a comparison! I find it absurd to suggest otherwise. That is not being "overly sensitive". An eleven year old in my class could see the obvious contrast.

And I neither see her being reasonable or Odinson being petty. They are not communicating with each other that is all I see. Of course Jane is frail, she is dying. Doesn't make her right to be angry with him for storming off. Soon she is apologising to him for getting angry with him. We don't actually see him getting angry. We don't see the argument or him running off. There is so much more context here than you are bringing to it. And that is the entire problem. You need to read the whole book in context not take tiny things and magnify them.

CONTEXT:
Odinson has only just learned who Thor actually is. Let that sink in for a moment. She is supposed to be his friend. They were lovers. But she didn't tell him. That has made Odinson understandably angry. I certainly get where he is coming from, that seems identifiable don't you think? The reason he even starts to consider his 'dalliances' is because his inner voice is going back to that time, reflecting on it, wondering if that failed relationship was a reason for this failure to tell him. Then he latches onto the idea she is telling him to get back at him. That is excatly the kind of thing people say and think when still angry after an argument. Thor doesn't want to talk to her, he feels hurt. That is why he is being dismissive. She has run after him to explain. Was she right to do that? Probably not.

But then we get the real reason she finally told him. And as she does Odinson's body language totally changes. He drops his weapon, he actively listens, his eyes show attentiveness. He positively looks sad on the next page after they get interrupted.

How is this Odinson being in the wrong? Was he wrong to be angry? No. Was he wrong to start thinking about their old relationship and putting this in that context? Maybe but it is understandable and natural. Was he wrong to start listening when Jane opens up to him? Clearly not.

Why would anyone want to magnify the word 'dalliance' out of all proprtion and think that this scene is all about Odinson being in the wrong in the past? This is a reference to something (as discussed before), there are layers there, but that is not the intent of the scene.

Odinson isn't being painted as any worse or better. Jane should have trusted him before, when he was searching for an answer. She should have told him. Odinson should have kept his head and not got angry when he found out. On the flip side Jane was naively trying to save his feelings. The whole "bad choice of words" thing reflects on her treating him with kid gloves when she chose not to tell him. She never needed to exclude him, that was all her. And this isn't a 'negative that is really a positive' by trying to save his feelings she potentially made things much worse between them.

Now if Odinson had stayed mad and continued the argument when Jane explained her closeness to death THEN he would have been portrayed in a negative light. But to the contrary he gets very protective of her from that point on. Wishing to shield her from the burden of his old mantle. He calls out Mjolnir, and he organises a guard at her bedside.