Loki Appreciation 2019

[Raye]

That story does seem very dour but is somewhat hopeful in showing Loki's relentlessness towards that one thing he now wants more than beating Thor/the Avengers and that's freedom. As long as he keeps pursuing it, I won't worry too much about that fatalistic nature of his pursuit. It's not great but then again, it could be so much worse.

Yeah, at least he is still trying. Say whatever else you like about him during this time, he hasn't given up. Had a few backslide moments where it seemed he might, but he came through it. and trying is better than not. But i still hope he can actually make progress rather than be stuck spinning his wheels because fate won't allow him to make the change.

[Prof. Aegis]

I kind of see it as Loki confirming for himself that he's not stuck. He can move forward and create the life and future he wants. He's not tied down or controlled by others. But because his life has been so controlled or he's seen it that way and felt he was what everyone else thought he was, then he has to remind himself over and over to reinforce this hope.

[Rosebunse]

Well, I think there was always this question about how much a literary character like Loki could really change.

Remember, Gillen is the one who talks about "they won't let you win" and stuff about the House winning way back in Journey into Mystery. Even at the time, there was some question on if that meant Marvel, Disney, or something more abstract. Of course, it's been partially Disney's involvement that has allowed Loki to change and for that change to stick, mostly because the change has been profitable and rather popular among fans.

That being said, I still think that Gillen himself is a bit more pessimistic than many writers, especially since he's the one who penned what is one of the most depressing stories in Marvel history. So people like Ewing, Kibblesmith, and maybe even Aaron might have a more hopeful interpretation, especially since they have sort of grown as writers with this Loki around.

Taking with consideration with Eternity, I still think that Loki is being targeted because he's in a very vulnerable place and while he's a very tricky god, Eternity or his children know that he has one major weakness, which is his wanting to change and be accepted for that change.

[Raye]

Literary characters change all the time, sometimes that's the entire point of the story, it's usually expected that a character change by the end of a story. It's just characters in serialized fiction that sometimes face this particular problem. Even if they have a desire to change, the creatives are hesitant to let them actually achieve that, because the story can't end once they achieve their goals like happens in a lot of other fiction. You have to either drag it out and have them continually strive for the same thing, but end up just kinda treading water, or give them new goals, (which is what they did with Loki, he wen from a goal of getting revenge on Thor to wanting to take control of his own fate. They gave him new goals, which allowed him to change from what he was, since he still had something to work towards. I just don't want him to get stuck here) or they end up in a place where Loki is at right now, (quite intentionally I'm sure) where he doesn't feel like he has any place left to go. there is no 'happily ever after' in most superhero comics, there can't be, because they never end.

As for the 'house winning' I mean, that was a multiple meanings, I think. It meant a few things. In universe, it meant fate. Out of universe, in our world, it just meant the pull of nostalgia, the audience and writers wanting the characters to remain in a familiar form, (we are the 'house' ) and some of the above where due to comics not having real endings, characters end up stuck with an illusion of change.

I think it's time for comics to move past the illusion of change, though. In the past, it was done for two main reasons, in addition to the above about no real endings. One, merchandising was based on the comics versions of the characters, and they wanted the comics to match the merch. Two, trade paperbacks etc. were relatively rare up until the early 2000's when they began being published in greater numbers. A lot of editors/writers felt like characters should stay at their most 'iconic' so that every batch of new readers could experience that characterization. With the only option for reading old issues being the tedious process of back issue collecting, (which the publishers didn't see a dime from) it was in most people's best interest to do the whole illusion of change thing, where any changes were only temporary. But now, the merch is mostly movie based, so the comics aren't going to match the merch anyway, and we have trades and digital making it super easy (and pretty cheap for some options, especially Marvel Unlimited giving you instant access to most of their back catalog for a monthly fee) for people to read past stories, and the publishers have an interest in promoting that, because they make money off of old digital issues and trades. There is no need to keep characters in stasis any more.

So I mean, I get the 'why' I just don't agree with it, and think it's time to allow characters to achieve some of their goals and actually change, even if it does mean a bit of extra work when it comes to setting up their next set of goals. I'm not saying it has to happen rapidly, I'm not looking for dramatic status quo changes every other year or anything, or changing for the sake of it when it doesn't actually make sense, some characters work fine with relatively little growth, and i wouldn't force it on them. I just want for some progress to be made when it makes sense, and not have it reverted later.

I do agree that Kibblesmith seems to be more hopeful. As mentioned he's actually using the fact that a character getting a 'happily ever after' can't really work in comics, turning a disadvantage of the medium into an advantage, by posing the question of 'what happens after happily ever after?' and is having Loki's new goal to be to.... find a new goal, a new purpose to his existence after apparently having at least partially achieved his previous goal, of breaking free of his role as a villain. He can at least go around doing hero things now, he's apparently no longer pulled to do villain things, even if his past actions have made it so that a lot of the other characters aren't really buying his new status. But 'doing hero things' is a pretty weak character motivator, he needs more.

Gillen I think is middle of the road. He wasn't sure Loki could change, because he was the one who got the ball rolling, and it was entirely possible the next person would want him to be a villain again. At the time, having a 'it could go either way' attitude was perfectly reasonable. And sure, he had that bit about Kid Loki telling Ikol he couldn't win, but then he himself was the one who started him on his journey to actually change in YA. He just wasn't sure where the next writer would go, but he always kept the path open for change.

but I think with this page, he's kind of responding to what Aaron had just done with the character, which was more pessimistic. I liked what Aaron did, but he did make it much harder for Loki to change, he made fate a big deal again, he had him do bad things, even if he was sad about it, he had the 'god of Stories' thing not stick, and he has evil Loki at the end of time. He didn't revert him which i am glad for but i think he took a more glass half empty approach, compared to Ewing and Kibblesmith's glass half full, and Gillen's neutral take.

[Rosebunse]

I think part of the issue is that you do have editors and people who genuinely believe that these characters shouldn't age. They believe that it's best for the characters to stay in stasis and, honestly, they like it. That isn't wrong and it's an approach that has worked for Marvel before. The issue is that it wasn't working for Loki as a character. It wasn't making him popular and it wasn't helping the Thor comics.

And, OK, you're right, maybe "literary character" is the wrong phrase. Calling him a "Marvel comic book character" makes more sense. Because, honestly, at this point, that it's own character type by itself since they're unique from other comic book characters and unique even from DC characters.

We're seeing more and more that despite what the Marvel editors say, there has been some attempt to age the Marvel Universe. You have younger characters like the Young Avengers and Miles Morales and Kamala Khan making a splash, which means that the older characters have to act their age a bit more. Of course, we have seen this in the past with characters like Justice and Speedball, so let's see how this goes or if they are regulated to guest appearances in a few years. But as you say, it's easier more than ever for people to connect with others and find these characters. And these younger characters do have their online fans.

Loki more than anyone else has benefited from these rabid online fans. These fans buy merch, they buy the books, and they want more of the Loki they want. It's more than anything old Loki got.

But at the same time, you have people who are still not quite sure if this is going to last. And I'm not sure that that's a bad question to ask, especially since, as I just said, we have seen trendy characters fade into obscurity before. Loki has a lot going for him, but he isn't immune to that.

I don't really think that Aaron's take is entirely pessimistic. He is still the one to set Loki's current series up and he does give him some good and downright heroic moments. Rather, I think he just really makes Loki way too damn depressed. We saw this with not only his Thor, but even on some of his X-Men work. Aaron just overdoes depression.

One thing that would be really interested to see is Thor realize that he's doing to Loki what Odin did to him, maybe even worse because Thor is so happy that he's "saving" Loki, that he's providing him a good future.

[Raye]

Oh, I know some writers and editors feel that way. I've seen them say it. I just don't agree with them. I think it's an attitude that is rooted in the past and with the way comics work now, with digital and trades added to the equation, that way of thinking is antiquated. So far Loki has been lucky to be handled by people who are more forward looking though.

I think you are overestimating the impact of his crazy fanbase. By a lot. The really rabid ones are movie fans, not comic fans, for the most part, and most of them are perfectly happy to be reading movie based fan fic or whatever. As we have seen time and time again, the movie fans generally don't buy the comics. Some make the jump, sure, but not in huge numbers. and before the overship, Jane's book sold more than Loki's, remember. His was 34.5k before the overship, 52k after. while hers was 43k with no overship. His book sold low to average numbers for a lower tier character. I did some figuring the other day, with Miles Morales' book. I was curious after I saw it had many second printings, and issue 1 was on its 4th printing, so had a closer look at the estimates. It started at about 57k before reprints, at about 64k after reprints. So even with the overship Loki's book got, and before reprints, it started out about 6,000 more than Loki's book. (Since Loki's issue 1 got a second printing though let's be optimistic and say the 51k number is closer to reality in terms of what fans bought for the sake of argument here.) As mentioned, Miles' book got many second printings, every single issue has has at minimum a second printing, sometimes a third, which has helped it see a fairly slow attrition rate compared to most other books. But even with its slow attrition, issue 8 is down to 27k. Plenty good enough to continue for a good while yet, but still like half of issue 1, give or take, depending on if you count the reprints, so let's just call it half to make things simple. Since Loki is also getting second printings we can hope his attrition will also be fairly low, so let's say his book will, also be down by half by issue 8, so it would be at about 23 to 25k. That is likely too optimistic, the overprint will likely result in a somewhat larger drop-off, but for the sake of argument. Again, this is good enough that it could last to issue 20, since attrition by issue 10 is likely gong to be a thousand or less every issue and it will likely find its dedicated fan base by then that will stick with it. So good enough to continue, especially if it does well digitally and in trades as I suspect it might, but this is not exactly setting the charts on fire, he's not wildly popular. And I mean this is extrapolation, we don't know how large the second printing was or how large the drop will actually be... But just saying i suspect he will be in the 20k ballpark by issue 10, and that is only 5k above the death zone. That's good enough to sustain itself if it finds its level by then, and has decent digital and trade sales, but it doesn't equal him being wildly popular. On the other hand, he could have his book bomb like the latest volume of Ms Marvel, which unless digital and trades come to the rescue (a good possibility with her, to be fair) it's circling the drain, after debuting at around Loki's (pre-overship) numbers. And I mean look at this thread, we have 3 or 4 regular participants, with a handful of irregular posters. it's a dedicated fanbase, not a large one.

But I do think the change was good for him, and made him more able to support a solo. Just not solely because of the fans you see online. They're part of it, but not everything, and I think it would be terribly limiting if Marvel just pandered to that one particular segment so it was fanservicey fluff. I think more importantl, it made him more able to support a solo story because he got motivations that were more sympathetic and were not entirely wrapped up in causing harm to Thor. There are only so many ways you can spin someone trying and failing to get revenge. His motivations are more universal now, it's easier to empathize with his position, you can root for him now, it's easier to root for a character that is trying to better themselves than it is with someone who continually plays to their worst instincts. and he can do more things because his motivations can be applied in a broader sense. It makes him easier to write solo stories for, that people would be interested in reading about. It's been good for him even if you completely remove the fans from the equation, he's just more well rounded and interesting now. It also helps that JiM in particular was extremely well received critically, not just among the rabid fans, but just people in general who appreciate good storytelling. THAT more than the rabid fans is why he is seeing more attention lately. Yeah, the new take has its fans, obviously, we are some of them. And without that he would have reverted by now, probably, because money talks. But I think the fact that the changes simply allowed for new types of stories counts for more than anything else, honestly. He could not carry a solo book as a villain, the character as he was before just wasn't designed for sustained solo stories, the new version can carry solo stories. And it's more important that he appeal to a broad audience, not just the small group of superfans, whose desires, let's be honest, would drive off the larger audience if they got pandered to too much, when you get into the weird stuff. It's the same reason we will not ever see Stucky become a reality on the comics or movies, or the superfamily, and... ok those are the only two i I really know about, but just because there is a dedicated fanbase for something doesn't mean it would be a good idea to make it reality in the comics.

*edited to add: I should mention, I do realize broad appeal is part of why characters get reverted. the classic portrayal is more widely recognized by the general audience, so it gets preference and the character gets reverted, like happened with Doom, or Sabretooth, the fans of the new direction be damned, broad appeal won out. Loki's walking a fine line. On the one hand the modern take being more relatable and interesting which is appealing in a general sense to people who don't have a nostalgic connection to the old take, and on the other hand there's the pull of nostalgia from people who just want him to fit their mental image of the character from like 20 years ago, the one that kind of found its way into the collective consciousness through cultural osmosis. I think the relatability and good stories from the new take are winning for now, and the larger the gap becomes between the old take and the new, time wise, the better chance it has of sticking. We are coming up on 10 years, since the creation of Kid Loki, so it's getting to a place where that nostalgic pull is losing it's grip, but there are still two sets of conflicting interests at work there.

[Rosebunse]

I don't mean just the crazy rabid fans whose ideas we will never, ever use. Besides, the perception that they make up a large part of this particular fandom is important.

What's nice about Loki is that we can have two or several Lokis running around and it really isn't that weird. You can make it work. Heck, even now you have the modern Loki in the current book and the more classic Loki in the old Thor book.

Personally, I don't think it's nostalgia for the old that will doom our boy, but the simple want for shock factor.

[Raye]

Again, I don't think most people want the weird, shocking or whatever. It's just that the internet provides a platform for people, which can sometimes make it appear that the fandom is all about that, when really its just a small but dedicated subsection of the fandom. Stucky fans are everywhere in the fandom, you see fanart of it everywhere, sometimes it seems like everyone wants Bucky and Cap to just kiss already. But really, not so much, it's just that the internet gives those shippers an outlet. The internet magnifies sections of the fandom, because that is a place where people can express ideas that are unlikely to make it into the comics. Which is also why it can sometimes seem the current direction with Loki is really popular, when it's, I mean it's popular enough that it can continue, it definitely has fans, but not so much that it's safe from being undone, or that it would be a good idea to narrow its appeal. It is far from universally liked. There are fans of the classic take as well, who don't like the current direction and just want him to go back the way he was, I've seen people post that here and elsewhere, and I don't think fans of the current take outnumber them overwhelmingly or anything. We are dedicated, not large in number. The ones who want him to go back may actually outnumber us, but they are not dedicated or really passionate about Loki in particular, they are more likely Thor fans who want the Thor book to go back to how it used to be, and reverting Loki would be a side effect of that. That is the nostalgia Loki is fighting, mainly, which kind of sucks because it is nostalgia for his brother more than it is for Loki himself.

So yeah, I really don't think pandering to a small but dedicated subsection of a small but dedicated fandom is the way to go, it will just alienate a large part of the audience, and will do no favors to broadening the appeal of the character. We want the current take on Loki to gain fans, not drive them away. It is in our best interest to have Loki be appealing to more people, not fewer but more freverent. I am not saying they have to always go with the silent majority, since that will usually just result in stagnation because the majority just wants more of what they already liked before. And some things with Loki are also tied up with real life representation which makes things a little trickier. But there does come a point where you do more harm than good with fanservice, when it is actively off-putting to a large section of the fans.

Honestly, this is exactly why so many writers say to never listen to the fans. As soon as you do, you're faced with this impossible balancing act. Just let them write what they want, and if it sells it sells. But i think the extremes will likely always be off limits.

Also, really not keen on multiple Lokis running around. One will always be the main one, and the rest will probably be limboed, sooner or later. Kinda like Ben Reilly. It just gives the creatives an excuse to bring back the classic as the main one by limboing the one we have now, even if it starts out as each one having a book (with one Loki book selling just okayish, you really think he could support dividing the fanbase among two books? It would just ensure they both fail) Sending him off to live out his life off panel.

[Rosebunse]

Honestly, I feel like they would just constantly be killing them off and leaving whichever was more popular at the time. It would be like Highlander!

[Karabaja]

So...until now, we had seen Loki materializing (sort of) the astral forms of deceased persons (if I remember correctly, Verity, Bats and long ago himself). But now he can fully bring the dead back to life? This is a new thing, right?

[Raye]

I think he may have done so before, his powers have always been so ill-defined that he kinda just did whatever was convenient to the plot, because magic/god... I get him resurrecting himself, it kinda makes sense because his body and spirit were both in the same place, they never got separated, so while it's a bit of a stretch to think he can still work magic while dead, and his body was in pretty rough shape, all the pieces were there, and there was no one trying to take his spirit away, so.... But the goat, it had died some time prior, when Mangog attacked Asgard, so you'd think it's spirit had long since gone wherever Asgardian goat spirits go, and it's body decayed... but maybe that was something Loki had been working on for a while, and we just never saw, so it's not something he can do on a whim. May also actually be time travel shenanigans of some kind. But it does explain why Thor likes him so much all of a sudden.

but on that subject.... It occurs to me that 'curse' aspect of the new time travel power, regardless of the specific mechanics of how it operates, may be as simple as the fact that he may not be able to undo past mistakes. Loki has done some terrible things in the past, and as we saw in his spotlight issue with his Christmas Carol journey, that when he thought he was in the past, he tried to fix the situation with Malekith. It didn't work, because it was all in his head, but he tried. So Loki is given the ability to go back in time.... We don't know why exactly, that will be revealed probably next issue, but he probably can't undo his past mistakes, because by doing so he would alter the future too much. As bad as his actions were, they were also kind of necessary for the MU to be the place it is today, without him being a jerk, the Avengers wouldn't have formed, being a big example. So he's got to leave all his past mistakes alone, unless he wants to wreck the present/future. That would probably seem like a curse from his perspective.

[Karabaja]

When he tried to bring Bats back, he specifically said that bringing his astral form back was the best he could do. So, either this is a new power, or he sometimes succeeds and other times fails. Or I'm just overthinking it again.

[Raye]

Well, with Bats, Strange took his body and gave it to the World Tree, which may not have wanted to give it back, because it was a sacrifice, so that may be why he could only manage a ghost. But I do think it's not something he can do on a whim, (and nor should it be, or things get too easy for him should a loved one die) in my head, I think the goat is something he had been cooking up for a while, and the fact that it was an animal may have simplified things. and with himself, i mean, he was in a desperate situation that kind of required he dig deep, plus what I said before about his spirit and body not being separated like they normally would have, so probably not something he can just do all the time.

[Karabaja]

Yes, I forgot abot the World Tree.
He managed to resurrect himself once long before WotR, when he was still in full evil mode. I forgot the details, but Sigyn was involved, and apparently Loki's ghost resided with Sigyn in his old castle. If I remember correctly, Thor had killed him some time before, when Loki endangered some of Thor's Midgardian friends (and I think it all turned to be a part of Loki's complex plan all along, but for the life of me I can't remember the exact plot). I know that Loki was semi-corporeal ghost in one moment, and then poof, he has his body back without much explanation.

[Raye]

Like i said, powers nebulous and just accomplish what is needed for the plot, and this was especially true back in the villain days because they kept coming up with new ways for him to be a threat. My guess is they wanted him back alive so *magic* he is. A common problem with most of the magic using characters. I love the character, but the nebulous handwavey powers are sometimes annoying and i wish they'd define what he can and can't do better. Ewing tried, but then Aaron just did the whatever works thing. so... *shrugs* it's hard to say for sure what he can and can't do from one writer to the next.