Thor Odinson, God of Thunder Appreciation 2019

[Daniel22]

The current state of Blake is not actually very clear cut. Everything we know is told to us in stories by unreliable people, mostly Odin. If we are to believe Odin's most recent statement on the fact, then he swapped the real Blake for a magical version when he sent Thor to Earth (to stop him dying before his fated role in Ragnarök) and kept the real Blake frozen in a cave (where he accidentally got murdered).

What that tells us about Blake's worthiness is open for exploration because nobody has been there and explored it. We have had two modern dealings with Blake. The first was JMS's attempt to bring him out of 'limbo' which strongly hinted that in a way Blake didn't die. Then Fraction, possibly wanting movie synergy, ruled that this version was actually just the magical simulacrum and pretty much put him back into a limbo state only this time as a disembodied head. And people claim Thor continuity is simple!

Ohhh yeah, I do (sort of) remember all that. Thanks for the explanation.

Fraction... For a writer I really like, I didn't enjoy his Thor run very much. Not really sure why, it just didn't click with me.

Odin leaving Blake to die in a cave.. good old Odin, so consistently wise and good until Aaron ruined him, right?

The Blake explanation is a good example of why wanting or expecting writers to include all past continuity is unreasonable at best and a bad idea at worst.It's contradictory and confusing (understandable after almost sixty years). Continuity wasn't tight from the start, and it's a lot more unwieldy now. Taking the parts that best serve the current story is the way to go imo. Ignoring a lot of it is inevitably going to happen and that's for the best, too.

[Daniel22]

Umm, you do understand that you're talking about Thor, and not Hercules, right?

Because while Thor was far from perfect, he was raised with, and held himself to, certain standards. He was the prince, after all.

And under Aaron, 'What is a God' goes unexamined, unanswered, still. Unless they're getting punked by mortals who instantly know better

Sure, he was a good person in many respects. He has lots of good qualities. No doubt.

"He was a prince, after all".. Not seeing how that plays in. There are good and bad princes. It's just a title, like "god", that doesn't bestow anything in regards to morals or character. Unless you mean he had certain expectations put on him, which I agree with. I think he'd try his best to be a good prince/king to Asgard... That would be one of his good qualities, imo.

I think we're getting close to Odinson answering the "what is a god, what is the relationship between gods and mortals, etc" questions. The whole run has felt like an examination of those questions, in one way or another, to me.

[JackDaw]

I am pretty sure you know what the problem with this line of questioning is. These are stories. The Marvel Universe is not a real place where exact comparisons can be made. The job of Marvel is to make the world seem relatively coherent, while telling interesting stories that will necessarily contradict or undermine other stories. It has always been this way. Ever since the first time Spider-Man swung into books and acted totally out of character or Wolverine suddenly regressed into a five year previous state just because he was in someone else's book. Everyone always lauds this early consistency while totally ignoring the fact it was never consistent.

I accept a lot of that.

I think SF/ Fantasy writers have tended to fall into 2 schools..one exemplified by H G Wells, the other by Jules Verne.

The Wellsian school ask reader to make one fantastic assumption (“a man can be invisible”) but after that work out rest of story with logical precision.

The Vernesian school ask reader to accept improbability after improbability but seek to earn the readers indulgence by making the story so entertaining and fast paced that the illogicalities can be tolerated, indeed often swept aside by the pace and wit of the writing.

Super hero writers are largely of the Vernsian school.

For me...by temperament some one who tends to prefer the Wellsian approach..I only enjoy Vernsian approach when it is really, really well done.

I think Aaron’s run on Thor is certainly of the Vernsian school. I don’t think it’s terrible by any means...but I don’t think it’s of the “super” quality needed to captivate some one of my reading preferences.

[GodThor]

Odin leaving Blake to die in a cave.. good old Odin, so consistently wise and good until Aaron ruined him, right?

LoL no.

Odin's character has been butchered since he was resurrected under Fraction.

both Fraction and Aaron destroyed Odin's character.

at least Fraction showed how powerful Odin is but Aaron literally didn't do anything noteworthy of Odin.

if you thought 90's were bad for Thor (tbh, 90's sucked for a good reason), Aaron tops it by a landside with a bit of help from Fraction.

Ewing also did some stupid stuff as well in Loki: Agent of Asgard.

I'm honestly scared whoever writes Thor next because this is unfortunately going to be an inspiration for the next writer.

[Daniel22]

I accept a lot of that.

I think SF/ Fantasy writers have tended to fall into 2 schools..one exemplified by H G Wells, the other by Jules Verne.

The Wellsian school ask reader to make one fantastic assumption (“a man can be invisible”) but after that work out rest of story with logical precision.

The Vernesian school ask reader to accept improbability after improbability but seek to earn the readers indulgence by making the story so entertaining and fast paced that the illogicalities can be tolerated, indeed often swept aside by the pace and wit of the writing.

Super hero writers are largely of the Vernsian school.

For me...by temperament some one who tends to prefer the Wellsian approach..I only enjoy Vernsian approach when it is really, really well done.

I think Aaron’s run on Thor is certainly of the Vernsian school. I don’t think it’s terrible by any means...but I don’t think it’s of the “super” quality needed to captivate some one of my reading preferences.

That's a fantastic breakdown. I never thought of it in those exact terms but that makes a lot of sense.

I like both, but probably lean towards the Verne side. I'm fine with the answer to a lot of questions being good old "unstable molecules". Sure lots of stuff in comics falls apart under scrutiny, but that's going to happen in a world with magic and gods and time travel and clones and...

For me.. Sure, I could go in with an intent to find holes and unlikely coincidences and the like. I just don't have the urge, though. It's all fantastic and impossible and ridiculous and I love every bit of it. As long as there's verisimilitude I'm happy.

Part of it is "how willing is the reader to fill in some blanks on their own"? There's a great scene in the book "Thank You For Smoking". An ad man for a cigarette company is pitching a product placement scene to a movie director. The ad man pitches a post-sex smoking in bed scene with the two stars. The director loves it but says wait, it's on a space shuttle, won't it explode? The ad man says so what, we throw in a line like "boy, sure am glad the eggheads whipped up the Let's You Smoke In Space 3000"! What I took from that is that if you can make up one thing you can make up another. More importantly to me, I realized that if something can be explained away with a throwaway line... it doesn't really matter if the line is explicitly stated. It's ok with me if I just fill in the blanks of universal languages or whatever.

The payoff is worth the mental gymnastics imo. I mean, it's pretty odd that a burglar would rob a TV show in midtown Manhattan, then go to the suburbs of Queens that same night to do a random home robbery... but we got a great Spider-Man origin out of it!

[GodThor]

Then for some reason Jane...not Steve Rogers, Captain Marvel, Ben Grimm..can suddenly lift the hammer...she is “worthy” after hero after hero hasn’t been. Why?

Jane’s conversion from loving nurse to fearless ultra skilled warrior was utterly unconvincing. She just lifted the hammer and instantly became a fearless perfect warrior.

probably because she is a woman.

Aaron thought it would be cool to have a female Thor so he just made her lift the hammer because why not.

plus, there are other heavy female stuff he did (Titania stuff and Thor bringing the whole female exclusive team to fight the Destroyer).

[Frontier]

"He was a prince, after all".. Not seeing how that plays in. There are good and bad princes. It's just a title, like "god", that doesn't bestow anything in regards to morals or character. Unless you mean he had certain expectations put on him, which I agree with. I think he'd try his best to be a good prince/king to Asgard... That would be one of his good qualities, imo.

I think it comes in that Thor comports himself like royalty, proper and good royalty, with the kind of dignity and composure that necessitates, and that has been felt lacking from Aaron's interpretation.

I think the main issue is that, with the traits you mentioned in your original post, how Aaron has depicted Young Thor and how those traits are now subsequently used with present-day Thor even though he didn't have them beforehand.

[Overhazard]

I think it comes in that Thor comports himself like royalty, proper and good royalty, with the kind of dignity and composure that necessitates, and that has been felt lacking from Aaron's interpretation.

I think the main issue is that, with the traits you mentioned in your original post, how Aaron has depicted Young Thor and how those traits are now subsequently used with present-day Thor even though he didn't have them beforehand.

Aaron's Thor, especially Young Thor, acts a lot like Hercules did before he quit drinking, which is a change I'm surprised that they stuck with, nobody really pays that much attention to B-list characters like Herc. I still remember the line from avengers "Where's the Bathroom, Thor must release Mead!"

[Daniel22]

I think it comes in that Thor comports himself like royalty, proper and good royalty, with the kind of dignity and composure that necessitates, and that has been felt lacking from Aaron's interpretation.

I think the main issue is that, with the traits you mentioned in your original post, how Aaron has depicted Young Thor and how those traits are now subsequently used with present-day Thor even though he didn't have them beforehand.

I see.. Is it a matter of where he was in his life? Could it be that the young Thor we've seen is him in his adolescent, rebellious phase? He's explicitly stated his hate towards Odin, like a lot of sons do as a teenager. Then he grew out of that, and became more like the Thor we were introduced to? That's how I've interpreted it. He was one way as a younger man, which we hadn't seen, and later became the Thor of Lee and Stern and the rest. I don't see it as an either/ or, but that he was both.

[JackDaw]

I see.. Is it a matter of where he was in his life? Could it be that the young Thor we've seen is him in his adolescent, rebellious phase? He's explicitly stated his hate towards Odin, like a lot of sons do as a teenager. Then he grew out of that, and became more like the Thor we were introduced to? That's how I've interpreted it. He was one way as a younger man, which we hadn't seen, and later became the Thor of Lee and Stern and the rest. I don't see it as an either/ or, but that he was both.

Yes, I think we can all accept that young Thor was more likely to eat, drink, womanise to excess..and he matured over time and became the more responsible “present day” Thor.

The head scratcher for a lot of us is why...the present day Thor suddenly and inexplicably became “unworthy”.

Has anybody seen any compelling reason to believe his behaviour had regressed to that of his much, much younger self? And if it had regressed any convincing reason why?

Or any reason why he should suddenly be so riven with doubt that a fairly innocuous question from Nick Fury would completely throw him?

For me..it just comes across that Aaron had decided it was important that one day “present day” Thor could no longer could lift the hammer...and reader was just supposed to accept that without any critical questioning.

As I’ve suggested before I think it’s sort of approach that works IF reader is so swept up in positive aspects of story telling that critical questioning is suspended.

For me..I didn’t quite enjoy story enough to avoid critical “nit picking”.

[Daniel22]

Yes, I think we can all accept that young Thor was more likely to eat, drink, womanise to excess..and he matured over time and became the more responsible “present day” Thor.

The head scratcher for a lot of us is why...the present day Thor suddenly and inexplicably became “unworthy”.

Has anybody seen any compelling reason to believe his behaviour had regressed to that of his much, much younger self? And if it had regressed any convincing reason why?

Or any reason why he should suddenly be so riven with doubt that a fairly innocuous question from Nick Fury would completely throw him?

For me..it just comes across that Aaron had decided it was important that one day “present day” Thor could no longer could lift the hammer...and reader was just supposed to accept that without any critical questioning.

As I’ve suggested before I think it’s sort of approach that works IF reader is so swept up in positive aspects of story telling that critical questioning is suspended.

For me..I didn’t quite enjoy story enough to avoid critical “nit picking”.

For sure, whether a reader is able/willing to buy into the central theme of Odinson's believing himself unworthy is going to impact their enjoyment a LOT. It's one of the most crucial points of the whole thing. If it doesn't work for you I can definitely see why you're not into the run. I probably would be a lot less into it if that point didn't work for me. It does work for me, but I'm not really able to lay out the whole thing here. I've only read most issues twice and a lot of it happened years ago. I have a bad memory and I read an absurd amount of comics so I'm a bad choice to do detailed breakdowns. In any case I wouldn't want to seem like I'm trying to convince you of anything, our mileage is varying hugely in this case and that's ok. I know this is a very divisive run and most readers either love or hate it (or at least most posters).

I don't think you're nitpicking. It's a huge point and you're supposed to ask yourself questions along with Odinson. If you come to some answers, and you're not interested in seeing how differing answers would play out, you lose a huge incentive to stay. You're a far cry from "I dropped it because his shirt should have ripped" or "How did Spider-Man just so happen to be swinging by" or something like that.

[Cronus]

I think it comes in that Thor comports himself like royalty, proper and good royalty, with the kind of dignity and composure that necessitates, and that has been felt lacking from Aaron's interpretation.

I think the main issue is that, with the traits you mentioned in your original post, how Aaron has depicted Young Thor and how those traits are now subsequently used with present-day Thor even though he didn't have them beforehand.

Yeah was noticing this myself in re-reading an old issue of Thor where Sif offered to sacrifice her life to prevent Thor from entering Helas realm. Odin shed tears over Thors impending death....not, like you mention, what we see now portrayed.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Sure, he was a good person in many respects. He has lots of good qualities. No doubt.

"He was a prince, after all".. Not seeing how that plays in. There are good and bad princes. It's just a title, like "god", that doesn't bestow anything in regards to morals or character. Unless you mean he had certain expectations put on him, which I agree with. I think he'd try his best to be a good prince/king to Asgard... That would be one of his good qualities, imo.

I think we're getting close to Odinson answering the "what is a god, what is the relationship between gods and mortals, etc" questions. The whole run has felt like an examination of those questions, in one way or another, to me.

How, exactly?

So many people defend the reveal that 'Gorr was right' as some deep examination of Gods in which Thor must somehow redeem himself and Gods at large.

Even when one ignores all past canon, in which an immortal prince risks his life for mortals, it becomes even harder to ignore that people must redeem themselves for their actions. Not the opinion of others.

Under Aaron, I see no meaningful questions asked, simply pot shots at religion and Asgard where possible. That Thor identifies his identity more with a hammer, than being a God or a hero, does not inspire me to believe that there's some grand, overreaching arc to all of this.

[Daniel22]

How, exactly?

So many people defend the reveal that 'Gorr was right' as some deep examination of Gods in which Thor must somehow redeem himself and Gods at large.

Even when one ignores all past canon, in which an immortal prince risks his life for mortals, it becomes even harder to ignore that people must redeem themselves for their actions. Not the opinion of others.

Under Aaron, I see no meaningful questions asked, simply pot shots at religion and Asgard where possible. That Thor identifies his identity more with a hammer, than being a God or a hero, does not inspire me to believe that there's some grand, overreaching arc to all of this.

Was Odinson ever really risking his life on Midgard, though? "Immortal risking his life" sounds contradictory, no? Could he be killed by mortals with blades? I'm honestly asking, I'm not completely sure on those answers. I'm pretty sure the real risk was pretty minimal, though. It wasn't much more than someone punching way, way down. Did he give any thought to which side he would fight on? Or did he just pick whichever group of humans who would worship him the most? These are all questions for young Odinson. If we're talking about the Odinson of "our" time, you'd get very different answers and they would make him look a lot better.

Religion and gods and Asgard in particular do come under heavy scrutiny. Some of it's fair, some of it's from a very biased character's perspective. Where you see pot shots I see questions and examination. The ability to lift the hammer definitely plays a large role, as a symbol and in the literal sense. I wouldn't say it makes up more of his identity than being a god or hero but it's a big part, for sure. But his struggles to originally lift the hammer and his deep desire to do so aren't new in Aaron's run, unless I'm mis-remembering, which is possible.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Was Odinson ever really risking his life on Midgard, though? "Immortal risking his life" sounds contradictory, no? Could he be killed by mortals with blades? I'm honestly asking, I'm not completely sure on those answers. I'm pretty sure the real risk was pretty minimal, though. It wasn't much more than someone punching way, way down. Did he give any thought to which side he would fight on? Or did he just pick whichever group of humans who would worship him the most? These are all questions for young Odinson. If we're talking about the Odinson of "our" time, you'd get very different answers and they would make him look a lot better.

...really?

There is no contradiction with risking one's immortal life. Thor does not age, but that does not mean he cannot die. And his Rogue gallery is filled with villains of equal or superior power. And point of fact, Thor has in fact died in combat several times.

So yes, Thor has risked his life countless times. Hell, he smashed up all his gear, including his precious hammer, trying to save a race of aliens he'd just met (and weren't very nice to him) from a Celestial. He pulled out all the stops.

Thor is ageless. He is not indestructible, and he fights foes who can kill him on a regular basis.

And with due respect, duh.

Religion and gods and Asgard in particular do come under heavy scrutiny. Some of it's fair, some of it's from a very biased character's perspective. Where you see pot shots I see questions and examination. The ability to lift the hammer definitely plays a large role, as a symbol and in the literal sense. I wouldn't say it makes up more of his identity than being a god or hero but it's a big part, for sure. But his struggles to originally lift the hammer and his deep desire to do so aren't new in Aaron's run, unless I'm mis-remembering, which is possible.

Provide examples please, then.