Thor #1 Spoilers

[DurararaFTW]

So by what right does old Loki have to kill young Loki? If they're the same being, why does kid loki have less right to exist?

It's not old Loki and young Loki. Kid Loki and Ikol both sprung from the death of the Loki in Siege. Kid Loki's body, memories and magic are part of the being created when he bit down on Ikol.

[stormphoenix]

I did not enjoy this......

[Alpha to Omega]

No I just don’t read the stories the way you do and I am honestly shocked that anyone would. I am pretty sure neither Gillen nor Ewing would actually agree with you either.

He lies! He was the god of stories in that story. He told a story that contained a truth. The very essence of storytelling. He wanted the lie detector to think he was telling the truth. That was part of his plan.

Your argument would hold more weight if you could actually correctly remember the events of the story you claim to have read. He wasn't the God of Stories when he said he murdered Kid Loki (while mystically unable to lie due to the previous arc). And it was made clear throughout the entire series that he couldn't lie to Verity at all.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Your argument would hold more weight if you could actually correctly remember the events of the story you claim to have read. He wasn't the God of Stories when he said he murdered Kid Loki (while mystically unable to lie due to the previous arc). And it was made clear throughout the entire series that he couldn't lie to Verity at all.

Why are you going about bringing facts into this discussion?

[Prof. Warren]

Why are you going about bringing facts into this discussion?

It has nothing to do with facts.

It's about differing interpretations of a fictional story.

More than that, it's about differing opinions on how much weight a story or stories should have on future stories.

It's up to writers, in tandem with editors, to make their own selective choices. If they don't make the same choices as you, it doesn't mean they're the wrong choices.

[The Cool Thatguy]

It has nothing to do with facts.

It's about differing interpretations of a fictional story.

More than that, it's about differing opinions on how much weight a story or stories should have on future stories.

It's up to writers, in tandem with editors, to make their own selective choices. If they don't make the same choices as you, it doesn't mean they're the wrong choices.

Which I guess is your way of saying you have no proof that the death of Kid Loki wasn't murder?

Because unless you can point to a retcon I'm unaware of, the word of Loki himself, while unable to lie and verified by a mystical human lie detector should be enough to confirm as fact that Kid Loki was murdered.

[JudicatorPrime]

Cosmic Wolverine Phoenix? Oh, good grief.

[Prof. Warren]

Which I guess is your way of saying you have no proof that the death of Kid Loki wasn't murder?

Because unless you can point to a retcon I'm unaware of, the word of Loki himself, while unable to lie and verified by a mystical human lie detector should be enough to confirm as fact that Kid Loki was murdered.

In this case, I'm saying I don't care.

If I was heavily invested in proving a particular point of view in regards to Loki, sure, I'd call up examples to make an argument.

What I'm saying is that 1) stories can be interpreted in different ways. And, more importantly, 2) that all stories are not weighed equally.

Given the amount of stories that a character like Loki accumulates over the span of decades, at the hands of a long line of succeeding creative teams, some stories are going to matter more than others. It's up to whoever's writing the character at the moment to decide what parts of that preceding history should or shouldn't inform their current story.

For a writer to not explicitly address an aspect of a character's history that you, personally, deem to be important isn't the same as a writer being uninformed or being neglectful of continuity. Carrying continuity forward is a selective process. Some stories happen and are never mentioned again. Some are acknowledged, but maybe not to the satisfaction of some readers. It is not an exact science and there's no way to please everyone.

[The Cool Thatguy]

In this case, I'm saying I don't care.

If I was heavily invested in proving a particular point of view in regards to Loki, sure, I'd call up examples to make an argument.

What I'm saying is that 1) stories can be interpreted in different ways. And, more importantly, 2) that all stories are not weighed equally.

Given the amount of stories that a character like Loki accumulates over the span of decades, at the hands of a long line of succeeding creative teams, some stories are going to matter more than others. It's up to whoever's writing the character at the moment to decide what parts of that preceding history should or shouldn't inform their current story.

For a writer to not explicitly address an aspect of a character's history that you, personally, deem to be important isn't the same as a writer being uninformed or being neglectful of continuity. Carrying continuity forward is a selective process. Some stories happen and are never mentioned again. Some are acknowledged, but maybe not to the satisfaction of some readers. It is not an exact science and there's no way to please everyone.

If you don't care, that's fine.

Just don't go around telling me that I'm wrong

[MaximoffTrash]

Wait, I only remember that Cyttorak only. supposedly gave him so much power that he could kill Cyttorak himself, but Marko never actually did that.

[Username taken]

I enjoyed this.

Thought it was a solid enough start.

[Materiel]

When he says "Allow me to introduce myself, Knave. My Name is Thor.", all I could think of is Jay-Z saying Allow me to re-introduce myself, my name is Hov'.

[Rosebunse]

Cosmic Wolverine Phoenix? Oh, good grief.

Yeah, I know it was stupid, but it was also sort of funny. And let's remember, Aaron was known as THE Wolverine writer for a few years. The man likes to write Wolverine. In fact, I wonder if Marvel would be bringing back Logan quite this doom if Aaron wasn't writing Thor.

Also, my interpretation of Loki is that all of the Lokis we have seen are still Loki, just different parts of him made alive. They're like different branches on a tree, with some acting more independent than others.

[brettc1]

I totally agree. I loved it. Aaron's run on THOR: GOD OF THUNDER was amazing, and I dug Jane's arc with the hammer. This feels like a modern, slightly jaded-but-optimistic and righteously angry Thor, ready to take on all challengers!

I liked it too. Nice to see Thor FINALLY able to accomplish something positive.

But I don't understand why there is no longer an afterlife. Seems dumb.

[Materiel]

I liked it too. Nice to see Thor FINALLY able to accomplish something positive.

But I don't understand why there is no longer an afterlife. Seems dumb.

My first thought was it somehow gets destroyed during the war of the realms.