Mighty Thor #705 *Spoliers*

[brettc1]

The female Thor story that led to big sales. It's all over now.

And for the most part, it was a good story. I believe it just lost it's way in the last act, thought there is still one more issue in which things might turn around.

Thor being angry at the start, I could understand. Losing that hammer would be a massive mind-frak.

But Aaron's efforts to 'dirty up' Thor a bit fell flat with me. I suppose I'm mean to think that Thor cheating on Jane was about him being younger and less mature and he would do things differently if he had the chance.

Except, this is Thor, and he's already lived at least a thousand years. I get there are things you can show in comics now that you couldn't back with Lee and Kirby were writing the book, things like Thor and Jane being physically intimate. But I didn't see any need to take the Thor they wrote and turn him into someone that had 'dalliances' when he is in love with someone else.

Then there's the whole 'women are great, men suck' theme which has sadly grown stronger as the story has gone on. Instead of showing that men and women can work together as equals and everyone can bring something to the table, the far easier and more fractional trope was used where men do everything wrong and need women to help them function.

Odin is a gigantic idiot who throws his own wife in jail for treason even though he's obviously in the wrong.

Later he disrespects Jane by telling her she would not even serve as his sex-toy, a statement so reeking in misogyny it made me wince reading it.

When Cul is sent in the Destroyer to regain the hammer, the slug fest that follows is all about the Marvel women siding with Jane. It's basically women vs idiot men, with Thor there as a sort of token nod to guys who are not idiots.

Cul refuses to help Jane against the Shiar while Sif leads the way in convincing him and the Asgardians to intervene.

It's just... to much. Just because the book is about a hero with a magic hammer doesn't mean the writer has to use the story to beat the reader over the head with a blunt instrument.

Sigh.

[marge_23]

And for the most part, it was a good story. I believe it just lost it's way in the last act, thought there is still one more issue in which things might turn around.

Thor being angry at the start, I could understand. Losing that hammer would be a massive mind-frak.

But Aaron's efforts to 'dirty up' Thor a bit fell flat with me. I suppose I'm mean to think that Thor cheating on Jane was about him being younger and less mature and he would do things differently if he had the chance.

Except, this is Thor, and he's already lived at least a thousand years. I get there are things you can show in comics now that you couldn't back with Lee and Kirby were writing the book, things like Thor and Jane being physically intimate. But I didn't see any need to take the Thor they wrote and turn him into someone that had 'dalliances' when he is in love with someone else.

Then there's the whole 'women are great, men suck' theme which has sadly grown stronger as the story has gone on. Instead of showing that men and women can work together as equals and everyone can bring something to the table, the far easier and more fractional trope was used where men do everything wrong and need women to help them function.

Odin is a gigantic idiot who throws his own wife in jail for treason even though he's obviously in the wrong.

Later he disrespects Jane by telling her she would not even serve as his sex-toy, a statement so reeking in misogyny it made me wince reading it.

When Cul is sent in the Destroyer to regain the hammer, the slug fest that follows is all about the Marvel women siding with Jane. It's basically women vs idiot men, with Thor there as a sort of token nod to guys who are not idiots.

Cul refuses to help Jane against the Shiar while Sif leads the way in convincing him and the Asgardians to intervene.

It's just... to much. Just because the book is about a hero with a magic hammer doesn't mean the writer has to use the story to beat the reader over the head with a blunt instrument.

Sigh.

I really agree. I though this story could've been good if the agenda behind it wasn't so obvious. I had hoped the ending would consist of Jane / odinson and Odin/freyja fighting the mangog together to represent all of them working together since in the beginning there was a parallel between the conflict between odin/freyja and the conflict between jane/ odinson. But I guess not, whatevs

[whiterabbit]

And for the most part, it was a good story. I believe it just lost it's way in the last act, thought there is still one more issue in which things might turn around.

Thor being angry at the start, I could understand. Losing that hammer would be a massive mind-frak.

But Aaron's efforts to 'dirty up' Thor a bit fell flat with me. I suppose I'm mean to think that Thor cheating on Jane was about him being younger and less mature and he would do things differently if he had the chance.

Except, this is Thor, and he's already lived at least a thousand years. I get there are things you can show in comics now that you couldn't back with Lee and Kirby were writing the book, things like Thor and Jane being physically intimate. But I didn't see any need to take the Thor they wrote and turn him into someone that had 'dalliances' when he is in love with someone else.

Then there's the whole 'women are great, men suck' theme which has sadly grown stronger as the story has gone on. Instead of showing that men and women can work together as equals and everyone can bring something to the table, the far easier and more fractional trope was used where men do everything wrong and need women to help them function.

Odin is a gigantic idiot who throws his own wife in jail for treason even though he's obviously in the wrong.

Later he disrespects Jane by telling her she would not even serve as his sex-toy, a statement so reeking in misogyny it made me wince reading it.

When Cul is sent in the Destroyer to regain the hammer, the slug fest that follows is all about the Marvel women siding with Jane. It's basically women vs idiot men, with Thor there as a sort of token nod to guys who are not idiots.

Cul refuses to help Jane against the Shiar while Sif leads the way in convincing him and the Asgardians to intervene.

It's just... to much. Just because the book is about a hero with a magic hammer doesn't mean the writer has to use the story to beat the reader over the head with a blunt instrument.

Sigh.

This is a very well put together critique of the books failings. And I don't feel like it's coming from a biased perspective. But hey, it's a new era, new hammer coming, new adventure. Maybe the direction will become more hopeful and generous to Odinson as a character and less about a message.

[JKtheMac]

Aaron clearly meant for the scene to convey that Thor had cheated on Jane. It takes enormous twisting to suggest otherwise.

No. That is neither the narrative point nor the consequential outcome of the scene.

I have said this before, but much of this kind of criticism comes down to choice. You either choose to belive Aaron is in the business of degrading Thor canon or you don't. If you choose to do this you will see it everywhere. All those of us that don't choose to do this can ask is why choose to do that? What purpose does it serve aside from personal discontent. It isn't true so the whole thing is pointless.

[JKtheMac]

I know you're a staunch defender of this run but come on. The fact that she is above it all is only meant to reinforce the idea that she's the better person and he's being petty.

No, I read this scene from the perspective of a narrative purpose to the scene. It is supposed to show how the two are not on the same page. They can't communicate, they have totally different perspectives on what is happening. It's a classic 'talking past each other' scene, where we gain insight into their relative perspectives but nothing is technically being resolved.

On this technical point. Modern writing (since Mamet) is so focused on every scene between two characters as having a single easy to indentify point, in which somebody gets something from somebody else, that it is sometimes hard to notice when a scene isn't structured like this. This scene is not about that, it is a character illuminating scene. A scene designed to show us that their relationship has been damaged by Odinson being absent and depressed, to show Jane being unjustly but understandably angry, and to show Odinson being self reflective and out of step with events.

If you try and impose a Mamet style meaning to the scene it is possible to come away with the idea Jane is somehow putting Odinson in his place. She really isn't. You can tell this because from the perspective of a health professional she is in the wrong in that scene. She should know that being angry with somebody for being depressed is not helpful.

[JKtheMac]

It's just... to much. Just because the book is about a hero with a magic hammer doesn't mean the writer has to use the story to beat the reader over the head with a blunt instrument.

Sigh.

Perhaps reflect that Too Much to you appears to be a few things you personally find challenging. Notably only a very small number of things, all of which have alternative ways of looking at them.

To tackle the idea of gender in comics full on, when it comes to a female perspective on canon we have had decades of material entirely focused upon a male power fantasy set in the context of a male power structure, and often resulting in women being harmed. Jane is one of those characters that considers herself harmed by this. She has been making this point about her own life since Roy Thomas, and apart from a brief period where Jurgens dropped the ball, (which probably said more about Jurgens than Jane) this perspective has remained true. She has been all but destroyed by Odin and his attitude to who is worthy of his son. Her life was turned upside down and twisted into a parody of itself.

Somehow for Jane, this wasn't too much.

The treatment of Freyja is a reflection of this. A thematic choice, and one that is very interesting to some of us, and is nowhere near being resolved. This makes it difficult to critique because we can't be sure of the arc yet. The parts are there and the reasoning for each action are below the surface right now. I believe they will be revealed to be the work of Cul, who is perhaps being used thematically as a god of modern male anxiety.

Male anxiety removes agency from Odin. Oh woe, a male character with reduced agency, how will we cope!


P.S. Fair warning, Odin is unlikely to be let off the hook on this, so those thinking Aaron is being hard on Odin will probably be challenged further.

[brettc1]

No. That is neither the narrative point nor the consequential outcome of the scene.

I have said this before, but much of this kind of criticism comes down to choice. You either choose to believe Aaron is in the business of degrading Thor canon or you don't. If you choose to do this you will see it everywhere. All those of us that don't choose to do this can ask is why choose to do that? What purpose does it serve aside from personal discontent. It isn't true so the whole thing is pointless.

I agree it's about choice - whether you choose to see what's right in front of you or not.

I'm sure in his mind Aaron is not into degrading Thor, but sometimes even the most accomplished writer cannot step back from the story and look at it critically and objectively until after the fact. Look at the Ms Marvel story from the 80's where she is effectively raped and it's played off as a love story. The writers and editors didn't see what was happening in the story for what it was until it was pointed out to them after the fact.

As for truth, it's always a matter of perspective. I'm more interested in facts, and the facts are on the page in print.

No, I read this scene from the perspective of a narrative purpose to the scene. It is supposed to show how the two are not on the same page. They can't communicate, they have totally different perspectives on what is happening. It's a classic 'talking past each other' scene, where we gain insight into their relative perspectives but nothing is technically being resolved.

On this technical point. Modern writing (since Mamet) is so focused on every scene between two characters as having a single easy to indentify point, in which somebody gets something from somebody else, that it is sometimes hard to notice when a scene isn't structured like this. This scene is not about that, it is a character illuminating scene. A scene designed to show us that their relationship has been damaged by Odinson being absent and depressed, to show Jane being unjustly but understandably angry, and to show Odinson being self reflective and out of step with events.

If you try and impose a Mamet style meaning to the scene it is possible to come away with the idea Jane is somehow putting Odinson in his place. She really isn't. You can tell this because from the perspective of a health professional she is in the wrong in that scene. She should know that being angry with somebody for being depressed is not helpful.

Quoting different styles and such doesn't change the effect the story has on its readers.

I think the problem here is you are overthinking it. The purpose of the scene as a matter of plot and character or whatever philosophical criteria one want's to apply to it are not the issue. People don't like cheating Thor.

[JKtheMac]

I agree it's about choice - whether you choose to see what's right in front of you or not.

I'm sure in his mind Aaron is not into degrading Thor, but sometimes even the most accomplished writer cannot step back from the story and look at it critically and objectively until after the fact. Look at the Ms Marvel story from the 80's where she is effectively raped and it's played off as a love story. The writers and editors didn't see what was happening in the story for what it was until it was pointed out to them after the fact.

As for truth, it's always a matter of perspective. I'm more interested in facts, and the facts are on the page in print.



Quoting different styles and such doesn't change the effect the story has on its readers.

I think the problem here is you are overthinking it. The purpose of the scene as a matter of plot and character or whatever philosophical criteria one want's to apply to it are not the issue. People don't like cheating Thor.

I am simply pointing out a perspective from somebody that writes, that reads deeply, and that has read Aaron widely. Somebody that is not actively seeking to dismiss him and see fault in anything that encroaches upon gender.

I am also questioning the idea that this run is not allows to be challenging but equally is not placing Jane upon a pedestal despite the accusations.

I would also stress that it is not possible to overanalyse Aaron.

[brettc1]

Perhaps reflect that Too Much to you appears to be a few things you personally find challenging. Notably only a very small number of things, all of which have alternative ways of looking at them.

To tackle the idea of gender in comics full on, when it comes to a female perspective on canon we have had decades of material entirely focused upon a male power fantasy set in the context of a male power structure, and often resulting in women being harmed. Jane is one of those characters that considers herself harmed by this. She has been making this point about her own life since Roy Thomas, and apart from a brief period where Jurgens dropped the ball, (which probably said more about Jurgens than Jane) this perspective has remained true. She has been all but destroyed by Odin and his attitude to who is worthy of his son. Her life was turned upside down and twisted into a parody of itself.

Somehow for Jane, this wasn't too much.

The treatment of Freyja is a reflection of this. A thematic choice, and one that is very interesting to some of us, and is nowhere near being resolved. This makes it difficult to critique because we can't be sure of the arc yet. The parts are there and the reasoning for each action are below the surface right now. I believe they will be revealed to be the work of Cul, who is perhaps being used thematically as a god of modern male anxiety.

Male anxiety removes agency from Odin. Oh woe, a male character with reduced agency, how will we cope!


P.S. Fair warning, Odin is unlikely to be let off the hook on this, so those thinking Aaron is being hard on Odin will probably be challenged further.

Yes, there are always alternative ways of looking. It's certainly difficult to have a reasonable discussion when one has the feeling that any points one raises are being neatly dismissed as 'male anxiety.'

"Oh, you have criticism of a story where the main character is a female and most of the guys are bumbling, swaggering idiots. You must be suffering from male anxiety, you poor insecure caveman, you."

LOL

I could be offended by such words, but I only have to look a few posts up to see that I am not alone in my opinion of how different genders have been portrayed in this run and there are even female readers who share it.

I'm a woman and considering how much of an awful, hypocritical, cruel, manipulative, unlikable woman Freyja is, I wish we got back Frigga. Better yet, I wish we got MCU's Frigga, she was loving and badass. She cared about her husband and her sons and refused to give up on either of them. Now that's a Queen I would follow, not this lame excuse for a "strong female character" writers think we girls want to read about.

Well... some girls might like these kinds of characters, but I personally don't.

I don't see how you can blame all this on Cul when he has just got blasted by Odin for being an abject failure in his role as Asgard's regent.

As for Odin, how can I blame him for anything when his character has been twisted to far out of what readers are used to in order to serve the plot? Simonson managed to remove agency from Odin without turning him into a complete dick.

In regards to how writers had him treat Jane, I would agree that he comes off looking badly. But his problem with Jane was NEVER about the fact that she was a woman. His prejudice came from her being mortal and not a warrior. That is a flaw in his character, and all good characters need them, but it doesn't make him the unrepentant misogynist that Aaron has written. Like his power level, Odin's very character have been significantly altered for the purposes of the overall plot. He might not have ever been a true hero like his son [who sadly now cheats on his girlfriends] but he was never a borderline villain who had the rest of Asgard baying for his blood.

[brettc1]

I am simply pointing out a perspective from somebody that writes, that reads deeply, and that has read Aaron widely. Somebody that is not actively seeking to dismiss him and see fault in anything that encroaches upon gender.

Are you saying I am? Because besides seeming like an implication that others do not write as well nor read as deeply, that would seem to be an accusation of sexism, and I want to be clear I understand what you are saying.

[JKtheMac]

Are you saying I am? Because that would be an accusation of sexism and I want to be clear I understand what you are saying.

I am pointing out that your objections are very clearly focused upon gender. They are literally a list of gender specific issues that you find overstep a subjective mark you are defining as misogynistic. I have no reason to assert anything about your motives I have no idea why you are doing this. I don't know you well enough. I am certainly not going to start throwing around terms like sexist, because how would that get to the heart of the issue or promote any dialogue? As a male I am often forced to self-reflect on gender issues. Does this make me sexist? Perhaps, but not actively.

I would go further and suggest that Aaron is deliberately challenging gender, and that this is a good thing. I see nothing wrong with that. If that makes some readers feel challenged then how is this wrong? Self reflection is a good thing.

Personally, when I go back and look at Avengers comics where Janet is flirting with Thor I find that uncomfortable, I consider those the very definition of the gender loaded term 'dalliance' and I see Thor objectivised and women being painted as only interested in men as sex-objects or marriage candidates. When I see every woman that gets a speech or thought balloon in early Thor is swooning over him, or actively trying to seduce him I cringe. That makes me reflect upon the gender issues of Marvel comics from my childhood. The messages I was being fed as a child were suspect.

[brettc1]

I am pointing out that your objections are very clearly focused upon gender. They are literally a list of gender specific issues that you find overstep a subjective mark you are defining as misogynistic. I have no reason to assert anything about your motives I have no idea why you are doing this. I don't know you well enough. I am certainly not going to start throwing around terms like sexist, because how would that get to the heart of the issue or promote any dialogue? As a male I am often forced to self-reflect on gender issues. Does this make me sexist? Perhaps, but not actively.

I would go further and suggest that Aaron is deliberately challenging gender, and that this is a good thing. I see nothing wrong with that. If that makes some readers feel challenged then how is this wrong? Self reflection is a good thing.

Personally, when I go back and look at Avengers comics where Janet is flirting with Thor I find that uncomfortable, I consider those the very definition of the gender loaded term 'dalliance' and I see Thor objectivised and women being painted as only interested in men as sex-objects or marriage candidates. When I see every woman that gets a speech or thought balloon in early Thor is swooning over him, or actively trying to seduce him I cringe. That makes me reflect upon the gender issues of Marvel comics from my childhood. The messages I was being fed as a child were suspect.

Yes, they were. But the very fact that they were is what should make us wary that the messages we are being fed now are not equally suspect.

My issues focus on gender because Aaron, either deliberately, incidentally, or both, has made it a central focus of his narrative. When you have Hildergarde shouting out "Down with the patriarchy!" it is impossible not to see that as a main them of his writing here.

Stories like the Wonder Woman movie challenge established ideas as well, but IMO they do it more successfully than in this story arc. It is possible to write a story which is pro-equality without wandering into the blasted waste's of anti-male - a place where the female characters are unassailable paragons and every male character is something damaged that has to be either fixed or removed.

[Panic]

No. That is neither the narrative point nor the consequential outcome of the scene.

I have said this before, but much of this kind of criticism comes down to choice. You either choose to belive Aaron is in the business of degrading Thor canon or you don't. If you choose to do this you will see it everywhere. All those of us that don't choose to do this can ask is why choose to do that? What purpose does it serve aside from personal discontent. It isn't true so the whole thing is pointless.

Well lets look at the scene:

It's very carefully done - look at the choice of artistic viewpoint: every shot in the scene emphasises the size and strength imbalance between the small, terminally ill Jane, and the tall and powerful figure of the immortal Thor. The "camera" looks down on Jane's frail form in shots that centre on Jane, emphasising her vulnerability, whilst shots centring on Thor look up to his face from a lower perspective, emphasising his physical domination and aloof stance. The visual of the power-dynamic between the two is really well done, beautifully thought out, and totally unambiguous as to what it is trying to convey.

The dialogue naturally is in the same vein as the pictures, with Jane baring her feelings, her fears and her insecurities, in heart-breaking fashion; Thor, on the other hand, is shown to be petty and mean-spirited, and is, unlike the reader, totally unmoved by Jane's plight. Not only does he ascribe petty motivations to her acts, but he also throws in the fact that he cheated on her back in the Lee/Kirby years. Now I'm sure most of us, mainly when we were young, have been in an argument with someone (usually a parent) where we were feeling petty and self-pitying, and accused the other party of doing things out of petty reasons, flipping motivations around in order to keep the high ground - this is immature, but basic human nature; what you NEVER do in those situations is make up a lie that puts yourself in the wrong, because that actively goes against the whole point of suggesting it is the other person who is being petty whilst you have the high ground. It just doesn't happen.

You are literally the only person I have seen who has said that Thor was lying about cheating on Jane. Last time I asked for a show of hands, I think all but you thought the writer intended the reader to feel Thor was being honest. It's a retcon, and one that makes little sense other than to further remove sympathy for Odinson from the reader. One of the basic themes that has come out of this run is juxtaposing how Jane deals with setbacks with how Odinson deals with setbacks, with Jane generally shown to be positive, brave and classy, whilst Odinson has been shown to be petty, self-pitying, and entitled. In Aaron's writing Thor is not the noble and admirable hero of Lee/Kirby, but someone clearly shown to be lacking in the qualities that made Jane popular, qualities that Thor used to have. Aaron's Thor is a poster boy for toxic masculinity. And this is not Aaron suggesting that this is just Thor going through a rough patch, we can see from the flashbacks to Thor's younger days, and the aforementioned cheating confession, that Aaron is telling us that Thor has always been like this at his core. This isn't just me reading what I want to see in the writing, because God knows this is not what I want to see in a Thor comic, but it is what is down on the page. You spin more than an industrial drill-bit in order to cast Aaron's writing of Thor Odinson in a positive light and try to make it the reader's fault he/she isn't happy with the characterisation, but it isn't going to happen.

Jane's Thor is popular because she is easy to empathise with, heroic, admirable, smart, and powerful; in short the reader is put in her shoes and feels empowered. that has always been the trick to making super-heroes popular. Aaron has deliberately moved away from those qualities in Thor Odinson, the qualities that made him popular, going so far as to pretend he was never like that in the first place. Why would he do that? How does making Odinson so much less than he was, so much less relatable, so much less empowering, help him and his popularity as a hero? I don't think it does. You can get very positive things out of temporarily removing a hero's advantages in a story - Thor:Ragnarok used the loss of Thor's hammer to make him a sympathetic underdog, help him grow as a hero, showing that he could be greater than ever without his trademark hammer, and that worked great; similar things have been done in comics with Captain America losing his heroic identity and shield, even losing his super-soldier powers, all to showcase that those things are not what makes the character a hero, but the way they rise above their problems and deal with the setbacks life throws at them. Aaron has deliberately avoided doing these things with Thor Odinson. We could have had Odinson exercising his storm powers without the hammer - it would have been logical to do so - but no. We could have had Thor showcase his thousands of years worth of fighting experience, of strategy, of adaptability. Nope. I don't think Aaron is comfortable writing Thor as the kind of hero I want to see, the kind of hero he used to be, and that's why I want him off the book and away from Thor as a character.

His Odin sucks too.

[JKtheMac]

Yes, they were. But the very fact that they were is what should make us wary that the messages we are being fed now are not equally suspect.

My issues focus on gender because Aaron, either deliberately, incidentally, or both, has made it a central focus of his narrative. When you have Hildergarde shouting out "Down with the patriarchy!" it is impossible not to see that as a main them of his writing here.

Stories like the Wonder Woman movie challenge established ideas as well, but IMO they do it more successfully than in this story arc. It is possible to write a story which is pro-equality without wandering into the blasted waste's of anti-male - a place where the female characters are unassailable paragons and every male character is something damaged that has to be either fixed or removed.

But these are very clearly subjective issues. Personally I find Wonder Woman quite poorly written, it is also very couched and unthreatening. Just the kind of boring female-led story we have had to put up with for decades for want of offending men. It really isn't very challenging, and yet even the hint of lesbianism made the internet explode.

[JKtheMac]

Well lets look at the scene:

It's very carefully done - look at the choice of artistic viewpoint: every shot in the scene emphasises the size and strength imbalance between the small, terminally ill Jane, and the tall and powerful figure of the immortal Thor. The "camera" looks down on Jane's frail form in shots that centre on Jane, emphasising her vulnerability, whilst shots centring on Thor look up to his face from a lower perspective, emphasising his physical domination and aloof stance. The visual of the power-dynamic between the two is really well done, beautifully thought out, and totally unambiguous as to what it is trying to convey.

Clearly there is ambiguity if you think it is trying to convey a choice of sympathy. I don't believe it is.

The dialogue naturally is in the same vein as the pictures, with Jane baring her feelings, her fears and her insecurities, in heart-breaking fashion; Thor, on the other hand, is shown to be petty and mean-spirited, and is, unlike the reader, totally unmoved by Jane's plight. Not only does he ascribe petty motivations to her acts, but he also throws in the fact that he cheated on her back in the Lee/Kirby years. Now I'm sure most of us, mainly when we were young, have been in an argument with someone (usually a parent) where we were feeling petty and self-pitying, and accused the other party of doing things out of petty reasons, flipping motivations around in order to keep the high ground - this is immature, but basic human nature; what you NEVER do in those situations is make up a lie that puts yourself in the wrong, because that actively goes against the whole point of suggesting it is the other person who is being petty whilst you have the high ground. It just doesn't happen.

Sorry, are you suggesting Thor is lying? I can assure you Aaron is not trying to convey this as a lie. He is reflecting on the sexist attitudes of early Thor comics and placing some of that upon the character. You may not like this but Aaron is within his rights to do it.

You are literally the only person I have seen who has said that Thor was lying about cheating on Jane. Last time I asked for a show of hands, I think all but you thought the writer intended the reader to feel Thor was being honest.

I haven't ever said he was lying. When have I said this? I have said the words are being taken out of context. I have suggested by using a term that contains within its standard usage 'flirtation' Aaron is allowing some more sensitive readers the option of reading this as not having had sex with other women while he was courting Jane. The term is open to deliberate interpretation. In my own reading of this word it is a word that specifically couches the idea of sexual or innuendo-heavy interactions with females as not being important. So, by my reading Aaron is showing Odinson reflecting upon his own sexist attitudes some years ago. The word itself suggests it isn't important and that in-and-of-itself is a damning word. I just don't see that as being a problem. I don't think it lessens Odinson as a character, and I don't think the point of the scene is to do that.

It's a retcon, and one that makes little sense other than to further remove sympathy for Odinson from the reader. One of the basic themes that has come out of this run is juxtaposing how Jane deals with setbacks with how Odinson deals with setbacks, with Jane generally shown to be positive, brave and classy, whilst Odinson has been shown to be petty, self-pitying, and entitled.

Again, how is this not true? Thor is an entitled character. That's who he is. Self-pity isn't a negative thing in the context of an existential crisis. Not seeing any pettiness myself. There hasn't been a single moment I havn't identified with Odinson. I don't believe we are supposed to see him in a negative light and I don't believe Aaron sees him in a negative light either.

In Aaron's writing Thor is not the noble and admirable hero of Lee/Kirby, but someone clearly shown to be lacking in the qualities that made Jane popular, qualities that Thor used to have. Aaron's Thor is a poster boy for toxic masculinity. And this is not Aaron suggesting that this is just Thor going through a rough patch, we can see from the flashbacks to Thor's younger days, and the aforementioned cheating confession, that Aaron is telling us that Thor has always been like this at his core. This isn't just me reading what I want to see in the writing, because God knows this is not what I want to see in a Thor comic, but it is what is down on the page. You spin more than an industrial drill-bit in order to cast Aaron's writing of Thor Odinson in a positive light and try to make it the reader's fault he/she isn't happy with the characterisation, but it isn't going to happen

Jane's Thor is popular because she is easy to empathise with, heroic, admirable, smart, and powerful; in short the reader is put in her shoes and feels empowered. that has always been the trick to making super-heroes popular. Aaron has deliberately moved away from those qualities in Thor Odinson, the qualities that made him popular, going so far as to pretend he was never like that in the first place. Why would he do that? How does making Odinson so much less than he was, so much less relatable, so much less empowering, help him and his popularity as a hero? I don't think it does. You can get very positive things out of temporarily removing a hero's advantages in a story - Thor:Ragnarok used the loss of Thor's hammer to make him a sympathetic underdog, help him grow as a hero, showing that he could be greater than ever without his trademark hammer, and that worked great; similar things have been done in comics with Captain America losing his heroic identity and shield, even losing his super-soldier powers, all to showcase that those things are not what makes the character a hero, but the way they rise above their problems and deal with the setbacks life throws at them. Aaron has deliberately avoided doing these things with Thor Odinson. We could have had Odinson exercising his storm powers without the hammer - it would have been logical to do so - but no. We could have had Thor showcase his thousands of years worth of fighting experience, of strategy, of adaptability. Nope. I don't think Aaron is comfortable writing Thor as the kind of hero I want to see, the kind of hero he used to be, and that's why I want him off the book and away from Thor as a character.

His Odin sucks too.

Seriously, I would recommend rereading this with a little more generosity of spirit.