Avengers #9 Spoilers and Review

[JKtheMac]

clearly some people have different appreciations than others

that's ok

And where am I saying otherwise in that post? I am pointing out that there is no reason to insist that a writer writes to the taste of those who want a purely heroic character. Marvel’s success is built upon the exact opposite premise. The rest is just me passionately putting my personal perspective forward to demonstrate Aaron is not universally hated by all fans of Thor.

[kilderkin]

And where am I saying otherwise in that post? I am pointing out that there is no reason to insist that a writer writes to the taste of those who want a purely heroic character. Marvel’s success is built upon the exact opposite premise. The rest is just me passionately putting my personal perspective forward to demonstrate Aaron is not universally hated by all fans of Thor.

I didn't say you were

Where did I say that

I quoted you to point out that everyone can have different perspectives, think what they like, say it, and still be cool

I was actually trying to support both those who don't like how thor is currently and those that do

Yours was the most recent post related to my point so hence I quoted you

That said, I do find it interesting that some perspectives seem to be interpreted as being balanced and fair, and those that disagree must therefore not be

which is a general observation and not aimed at any perspective or post specifically

[Wall-Crawler]

"What specific continuity is Aaron ignoring in this book?

From my perspective he put in a lot of continuity that he didn't need to. There's like ten or so people that give a crap about Stingray and the character has been perfect fodder for someone for a villain to kill to show how seriously we should take them so what he does here is unsurprising, what is surprising is that in (what we can assume is) his last appearance we get a references to the characters relationships with Tiger Shark and Namor. He didn't need to do that, no one bar ten aforementioned fans of the character would care but he referenced obscure continuity.

The issue also referenced Black Panther's attack on Atlantis during Hickman's New Avengers which I think most writers would forget and most or all of the Defenders of the Deep are all really obscure pre-existing characters. He didn't need to do that either, he could have Namor and Tiger Shark surrounded by entirely new cool characters but he obviously plunged into the depths of Marvel's continuity to find suitable ocean based characters for Sub Mariner's team.

So I don't buy that a writer who is going out of his way to reference continuity doesn't care about it."

He does indeed references continuity, which makes it all the more jarring and bothersome that he chooses to ignore some of it while referencing other parts that suit his story, it's not that he doesn't know about continuity, because he clearly does, it's the fact the he willingly chooses to ignore the continuity that doesn't fit with his narrative or even goes as far as to modify said continuity so he can tell his story.

What I think you mean is you disagree with his characterizations of characters and feel they would never act that way but I can't help but think of all the melt downs of his portrayal of She-Hulk and how it ignored the ending of Tamaki's run when even early it was hinted that Jennifer Walters had returned to her more iconic Hulk form but there was something about the Final Host which was bringing out her transformations into the savage She-Hulk then we had it all but confirmed one issue ago. I would wager you think the same about Namor, right? That his characterization here contradicts all his previous depictions (even though he's killed land dwellers before) but have you ever wondered if the same deal isn't happening with Namor, that the Final Host attack or some other force isn't influencing him? Maybe wait till we get deeper in to the story before reaching those conclusions. Even if it's not what a lot of fans think I'd argue this issue presents a good case for why this particular destruction of Atlantis is the one that makes Namor snap and turn against his allies.

Thor as Hercules? C'mon a long running character like Thor has been portrayed in a number of ways to the iconic noble space-god-super hero who speaks in thees and thous to a modern speaking warrior to the classic speaking but played for humour, Johhny Bravo is he were a space-viking-super hero. Aaron't current take isn't new and is no less valid that any other take. Aaron understands this hence when he began his Thor run he started off with something akin to the classic Thor and went overtime to where he is now.

You don't have to like any the above but the idea that it is flouting continuity is wrong.

I don't care much about She Hulk so my problem is not there, my problem is with all the other characters he uses without respecting any of their previous history or behavior, such as Namor, who seemed plain evil in this issue, killing a former friend with no mercy in a brutal way for no reason at all, then there is the worst of all portrayals, which is his Thor, for example, in the previous issue he got all clumsy around Jennifer and she said "it's good to know gods can blush too".....I mean wtf, when have we ever seen Thor blush to a woman, let alone a mortal whom he's never really cared for before, it's hard to believe this is the same writer that a few years ago had Frigga say that Thor is used to every single woman he meets falling in love with him.
Aaron isn't consistent, we all know that, but he isn't even consistent with his OWN work, and this isn't the first time he contradicts his own stuff, I mean, just look at Mangog dying in the sun and Thor being afraid of it, despite him already fighting in the sun against a skyfather level being a few years back.

Then you have his portrayal of characters in the Thor book, the most notable one being Odin as a bigot dicator whom I'd never guess he gave an eye for wisdom, or Hela using terms like "are you breaking up with me" and then crying like a little girl because Thanos left her, that was painful to see, she is not a goddamn teenager yearning for love.

Don't even get me started on his butcher of all the asgardian mythos and his clear resentment towards gods and godly characters, and the worst retcon of all, almost on par with One More Day, was his bullshit Mjolnir origin story that contradicts the 50+ years of Thor history.

[Wall-Crawler]

He's not. I've read Scalped and Southern Bastards and he's pretty damn good.

But honestly, I find his superhero stuff incredibly lacking. I liked the first arc of his Thor run with the God killer stuff and some of the earlier arcs in Wolverine and the X-Men, but everything else... it's just kind of boring. Hulk bored me to tears, Punisher was generic (though, pretty much all Punisher comics are), most of his Thor stuff went in and left the moment I was done reading, Original Sin I keep having to remind myself ever existed, and Dr. Strange... was just kind of there. I don't know what about it, but his superhero comics are just boring and none of his characters are written in a way I find compelling.

His Indie stuff is great, but his Marvel stuff is lacking. I think his strength lies in writing smaller, down-to-earth characters and stories that are human and relatable.

And what do Scalped and Southern Bastards have in common ? That they do not have pre-established characters so Aaron has complete freedom to make them behave, act or do whatever he wants and that would be the way the characters are, because they are his creation, whereas on Marvel he has to respect previous stories and characterization, which if he ignores, makes a lot of people to dislike the stories.

I may be phrasing things wrong or may be speaking out of anger, Jason Aaron is not "one of the worst writers around", he has some solid stuff and his action is pretty good, but that doesn0t change his other 70% bs superhero stories where he takes continuity and throws it into the trash.

[Oberon]

Ahhhhh- chooooo! * I've got the same cold! *

[Prof. Warren]

He does indeed references continuity, which makes it all the more jarring and bothersome that he chooses to ignore some of it while referencing other parts that suit his story, it's not that he doesn't know about continuity, because he clearly does, it's the fact the he willingly chooses to ignore the continuity that doesn't fit with his narrative or even goes as far as to modify said continuity so he can tell his story.

I don't care much about She Hulk so my problem is not there, my problem is with all the other characters he uses without respecting any of their previous history or behavior, such as Namor, who seemed plain evil in this issue, killing a former friend with no mercy in a brutal way for no reason at all, then there is the worst of all portrayals, which is his Thor, for example, in the previous issue he got all clumsy around Jennifer and she said "it's good to know gods can blush too".....I mean wtf, when have we ever seen Thor blush to a woman, let alone a mortal whom he's never really cared for before, it's hard to believe this is the same writer that a few years ago had Frigga say that Thor is used to every single woman he meets falling in love with him.
Aaron isn't consistent, we all know that, but he isn't even consistent with his OWN work, and this isn't the first time he contradicts his own stuff, I mean, just look at Mangog dying in the sun and Thor being afraid of it, despite him already fighting in the sun against a skyfather level being a few years back.

Then you have his portrayal of characters in the Thor book, the most notable one being Odin as a bigot dicator whom I'd never guess he gave an eye for wisdom, or Hela using terms like "are you breaking up with me" and then crying like a little girl because Thanos left her, that was painful to see, she is not a goddamn teenager yearning for love.

Don't even get me started on his butcher of all the asgardian mythos and his clear resentment towards gods and godly characters, and the worst retcon of all, almost on par with One More Day, was his bullshit Mjolnir origin story that contradicts the 50+ years of Thor history.

The fact that Namor seemed evil in this issue is probably what should be prompting us to ask the question "why?" rather than jumping to the immediate conclusion that Aaron doesn't "get" Namor.

It's not a writer's job to explain every aspect of an ongoing storyline right out of the gate. This is the problem that some comic readers have. They don't seem to understand that sequential storytelling is about doling out parts of a story over a long period of time. It's very possible, indeed almost certain, that Aaron has an answer for Namor's behavior and that answer is part of the long game that he's playing.

As for Thor's reaction to Jen, no matter how much of a player a guy is, no matter how well versed in romance, eventually there's always a girl that leaves him as flustered as a school boy. That's just life.

That isn't Aaron forgetting what he previously wrote, it's showing that something is potentially different with his relationship with Jen.

As for the rest of it, like Aaron's depiction of Odin or Hela, a writer can read the same stories about a character and come away with a different take on what that character would or wouldn't do than some readers. It doesn't mean they don't understand the character, just that their read on them may not match up with others.

[tliscord]

I agree, I think Namor’s abrupt savagery is a big part of this story. I will admit it was pretty shocking. I might’ve enjoyed a little bit more intrigue, a little more lead up before having the entire crew assemble against Namor but I seem to keep showing up every month for the next installment.

[Ezyo1000]

I mean, it's pretty clear that something is up with Namor, the fact that everyone kept making mention that he was stronger then before and Namors inner monologue practically scream this to the reader's. So I will wait and see what Aaron does. I just wish he had Tchalla properly respond to the comment about what Wakanda did to Atlanteans

[GodThor]

I feels like you are talking about an Aaronism I'm not aware of. Can you explain it?

he was asked on Twitter about Mjölnir getting destroyed in the Sun despite the fact it was casually in the core of the Sun.

his replies were IT'S THE SUN.

[Vishop]

he was asked on Twitter about Mjölnir getting destroyed in the Sun despite the fact it was casually in the core of the Sun.

his replies were IT'S THE SUN.

What do u mean by the "core in the Sun" ? as far as i vaguely remember it was never been explained what happened to Mjölnir after it was thrown in to Sun and then it was all about Aaron's hammers

[Username taken]

What do u mean by the "core in the Sun" ? as far as i vaguely remember it was never been explained what happened to Mjölnir after it was thrown in to Sun and then it was all about Aaron's hammers

It was destroyed.

It's pieces fell out of the sun.

[JKtheMac]

That said, I do find it interesting that some perspectives seem to be interpreted as being balanced and fair, and those that disagree must therefore not be

My main theme in these discussions is that it is not OK to attack the writers, accuse them of being ignorant, or claim to understand the characters better than them. These things are not only untrue they are entirely selfish in their perspective. There is a big difference between subjectiveness and cynicism.

Especially when the writers often have a clear and coherent perspective on said characters and have a track record of success. It comes across as a huge misunderstanding of what the writer’s job is, and is cynical in that the opinion of the individual is placed above the work with little attempt to take in other perspectives or acknowledge that taste has anything to do with it (unless challenged when suddenly it is all about personal opinion.)

It is OK to say “I don’t like this or that” but it is important to not point at everything as external and other people’s fault.

“I prefer this other perspective on this character for these reasons...” is considered criticism but it doesn’t actually say a lot about the work in front of you. It is rare for this to develop into a contrast between the two styles that doesn’t just elevate the older more preferred work.

“The writer is wrong to use this character in this way because it isn’t like my favourite or ideal version” says nothing about the work and very little about the writer. Especially when comic characters change constantly.


“This has never been how the character has been written before” is slightly more considered but it lacks actual contrast. Given the huge range of writing on some of these characters it seems odd to singe out the current novel ideas in the face of a bookshelf full of them.

[kilderkin]

My main theme in these discussions is that it is not OK to attack the writers, accuse them of being ignorant, or claim to understand the characters better than them. These things are not only untrue they are entirely selfish in their perspective. There is a big difference between subjectiveness and cynicism.

Especially when the writers often have a clear and coherent perspective on said characters and have a track record of success. It comes across as a huge misunderstanding of what the writer’s job is, and is cynical in that the opinion of the individual is placed above the work with little attempt to take in other perspectives or acknowledge that taste has anything to do with it (unless challenged when suddenly it is all about personal opinion.)

It is OK to say “I don’t like this or that” but it is important to not point at everything as external and other people’s fault.

“I prefer this other perspective on this character for these reasons...” is considered criticism but it doesn’t actually say a lot about the work in front of you. It is rare for this to develop into a contrast between the two styles that doesn’t just elevate the older more preferred work.

“The writer is wrong to use this character in this way because it isn’t like my favourite or ideal version” says nothing about the work and very little about the writer. Especially when comic characters change constantly.


“This has never been how the character has been written before” is slightly more considered but it lacks actual contrast. Given the huge range of writing on some of these characters it seems odd to singe out the current novel ideas in the face of a bookshelf full of them.

If it's creator owned stuff I would absolutely agree

With characters from a long running creative history, like much of marvel, I do think many readers have just as valid a perspective as the writers

Not always, and they can be biased

but so can the writers, many writers have said they are writing "their version" of a character

the idea of a story revising history facilities this, perhaps to add but often just to tidy things up to make it easier for them

The notion that the writers of long established characters with many creative in their history, have a more coherent and more correct appreciation of them than a reader, by virtue that they are the writer, is entirely false imo

They will certainly know the version they want to write correctly, that really can't be argued, but in most regards their knowledge I feel isn't that much different to any avid fan

Nor do I think it's less biased, Aaron himself said he would have to come up with a way to write Thor whilst also considering his own real views (I admit I can't cite that)

I'm ok with that, it just crystallises my point for me

Most writers have a style, by this virtue they will always present a somewhat tilted view of a character

a disagree, I think many avid readers have a perfectly valid view of the subject biased by what they like, just as a writer will be biased by their style and what they like

They may have a mandate from editorial but I feel marvel are rather loose with that in the last few years, no one is jim shooter in style for hood or bad

Given the mandate I think they have much freedom to work, which is ok

In short I suppose I'm saying it's perfectly ok, imo, to say you think the creative is doing a bad or good job, coz in most times, I don't think they have a much better view than most avid readers

but one should be civil about it

[ExodusCloak]

This was Black Adam vs the Avengers

[Prof. Warren]

With characters from a long running creative history, like much of marvel, I do think many readers have just as valid a perspective as the writers

No.

In short I suppose I'm saying it's perfectly ok, imo, to say you think the creative is doing a bad or good job, coz in most times, I don't think they have a much better view than most avid readers

...And no.

Readers have their own opinions on characters, yes.

But some fans also think that their opinions give them actual entitlement as to telling writers how these characters should be written. They don't.

And some readers don't understand - even though they should, because it happens all the time - that the writer has a better perspective on the story they're writing because they know where it's going. How often do fans fly into a rage because of some development in a story and proclaim that character x can never come back from action y only to see down the road, once the story has played out, that there was a plan in place from the start to take this character on a particular journey and they came back from it just fine. Writers have an omniscient view of where these characters are going. Readers don't but frequently try to argue, to poor effect, as though they do.