Thor Odinson, God of Thunder Appreciation 2019

[kilderkin]

Yes she did, she was just bashful. She picked up the hammer because the world needs a Thor. She became Thor the Goddess of Thunder. Aaron was doing his due diligence to not just have her claim the name so that fans wouldn’t get upset. The fact that some still did says a lot more about fandom than it does about the writing. What else is the deity of Thunder that wields a hammer that uses the name Thor supposed to be called? Especially in a book about the concept of Thor and examining the very nature of that inscription and the powers it bestows.

Reject the premise of a story and you have no way left to enjoy it. No point even reading it at that stage. You have already passed judgment on the core questions that the story is exploring.

Actually I think your really quite wrong there, I think Jane whilst proud to hold the hammer and definitely heroic in its use never tried to use the name other than Thor effectively said she should, in a very pertinent way whilst maybe worthy of the hammer, she very much knew who the actual Thor was and it was just being borrowed as a name. I always felt that was a very human and humble aspect of the character. Whether she deserved it or not, isn't my point, I think and I think it was implicated, that she was using it only because a Thor was needed and at that time, the actual Thor wasn't up to the job in his own mind (but that's his story not hers).

That's not to say she shouldn't have used the name, though I have long said there are no substitutions for the real Thor, not bill, Eric, Dargo, red, Jane whoever, I still feel she used the name reluctantly even if she enjoyed being the worthy weilder.

[charliehustle415]

I don't think it's wrong to want more consistency though. Late Aaron Thor doesn't feel like JMS Thor or even early Aaron Thor. It makes it feel less earned to some degree in my opinion.

I guess we can think of this as the dark ages of "hammer and mead" .

I agree one can only wish for a cohesive characterization, we're talking about a character being written for over 50 years.

I blame late Aaron Thor squarely on the shoulders of the MCU.

[GodThor]

Thor didn't deserve to be the king.

Another stupid thing.

[Frontier]

Thor didn't deserve to be the king.

Another stupid thing.

I will just reiterate that, just from this individual run, Thor becoming king doesn't really feel well developed.

[JackDaw]

In any character used over 50 years there’s bound to be the odd “inconsistency” the times he or she does something out of his normal character. And actually that’s probably a good thing...it reflects reality where we all do something out of character from time to time (e.g. the normal careful driver makes a daft careless driving mistake.)

But essentially Thor and Odin were noble, thoughtful, and worthy characters for large chunks of 50 years before this run. They have been noticeably less so for large chunks of run.

Now if at end of run they return to previous behaviour...I don’t think that’s really a case of “growth” or an example of really good writing. Aaron just “invented” Thor’s womanising, for example, so he could show him growing out of it. Honestly...none of us really thought of him as a womaniser before the run.

What would be superior writing (in my subjective opinion!) would be delving into past continuity, identifying existing faults (I’m sure Odin at least had some)...and then coming up with a sequence of events and experiences that showed characters growing out of those known faults.

That would be “growth’, I think.

[JKtheMac]

I mean, I've never said she wasn't Thor. When she transformed she basically was him as a woman since she seemed to be enthused with his essence and everything that entails when Mjolnir transformed her. That was the Thor persona.

That does not exist in a vacuum without the guy whose name is actually Thor.

Aaron was asking that very question though. It is a valid question even if you think you have a simple answer. He clearly disagrees with that simple answer. He clearly wanted to explore where that fine line is. He decided it was a lot further away from previous assumptions. That picking up the hammer with the intent of taking up the mantle does actually confer more than a few superpowers. He eventually comes down against your perspective and decides categorically that she became Thor. The gifting of the name by Thor Odinson was just part of that journey. She was already on that path regardless.

For his story to work he needed to craft it in a way that allowed Odinson to hand over his name. He does it pretty quickly but not immediately and not without a whole issue examining the issues. The argument was had in that issue. No point still arguing about it now. It was a name, turns out it was more than just a name. It was an idea and a not only that, it was an idea manifest in a mortal form.

Even making the claim now is pointless. Aaron decided, Marvel rubber stamped it. It is canon now.

[kilderkin]

I agree one can only wish for a cohesive characterization, we're talking about a character being written for over 50 years.

I blame late Aaron Thor squarely on the shoulders of the MCU.

Yes agree here, especially his avengers thor

[GodThor]

I will just reiterate that, just from this individual run, Thor becoming king doesn't really feel well developed.

Exactly this.

There was, like, no development.

And Odin kneeling???

I'm supposed to jump out of happiness for that father-son moment but all I saw was a destroyed character.

[JKtheMac]

Actually I think your really quite wrong there, I think Jane whilst proud to hold the hammer and definitely heroic in its use never tried to use the name other than Thor effectively said she should, in a very pertinent way whilst maybe worthy of the hammer, she very much knew who the actual Thor was and it was just being borrowed as a name.

So you clearly don’t believe Malekith’s magical barrier worked then? The premise of a story is the question that drives it for the duration. The premise of Jane’s story was ‘if a mortal picks up the hammer in order to carry the mantle does that make them transform into Thor’ Aaron plugged away at that for the rest of his run, examining every side of the equation in great detail. His eventual conclusion as demonstrated by Malekith’s spell was ‘Yes’. She is Thor for as long as she carries the hammer. She was actually a goddess that conformed to the archetype of Thor. Which begs a further question, are gods just manifest Jungian archetypes? In some respects that is how the MU defined them. That is a much larger question that Aaron may not seek to answer but it is hanging there to explore. Although in Avengers he is asking a much wider question, ‘are superheroes in general manifest archetypes and where does that archetype come from?’

[JKtheMac]

In any character used over 50 years there’s bound to be the odd “inconsistency” the times he or she does something out of his normal character. And actually that’s probably a good thing...it reflects reality where we all do something out of character from time to time (e.g. the normal careful driver makes a daft careless driving mistake.)

This is one of those sentences where you find yourself nodding along until it suddenly transforms into something you fundamentally disagree with. Absolutely characters get to change, but that’s nothing to do with whatever one specific reader thinks about the somewhat arbitrary notion of what is in character and what isn’t.

The MU is not a real world. It was designed to reflect our world in interesting ways. That necessitates change. Everything will change. It is required to conform to an ideal Marvel decided on decades ago. Everything is written in the present. Not just the technology, and the way that retold stories will suddenly have mobile phones or social media. The characters will also reflect the present day. Again, not just which war they fought in. They will be modern. Always. That necessitates change. They can’t remain in character. That’s impossible.

What you are asking of Marvel is not even remotely part of their mission statement. It actively works against it. This will never happen the way you want it to unless they change a fundamental cornerstone of their existence. They don’t even want to change this. It is what made them successful.

Admittedly they lost this vision for a while. Thank goodness it is back. I wouldn’t be reading them if it wasn’t back. I didn’t read them when they thought differently. Why bother? Irrelevant stories are like irrelevant sport. Meaningless.

[Overhazard]

The name thing doesn't bother me so much, The impression that I got was that Thor centered a good portion of his identity around his hammer, and he spent so long trying to trying to be worthy, and when he became unworthy he lost himself. He went from being this regal, noble powerful figure to being a one-armed, shirtless, drunken shell of himself. He lost so much that he didn't feel worthy of his own name, so he gave it to someone who he felt more deserving, as he spiraled into an arc of self-loathing.

[JackDaw]

This is one of those sentences where you find yourself nodding along until it suddenly transforms into something you fundamentally disagree with. Absolutely characters get to change, but that’s nothing to do with whatever one specific reader thinks about the somewhat arbitrary notion of what is in character and what isn’t.

The MU is not a real world. It was designed to reflect our world in interesting ways. That necessitates change. Everything will change. It is required to conform to an ideal Marvel decided on decades ago. Everything is written in the present. Not just the technology, and the way that retold stories will suddenly have mobile phones or social media. The characters will also reflect the present day. Again, not just which war they fought in. They will be modern. Always. That necessitates change. They can’t remain in character. That’s impossible.

What you are asking of Marvel is not even remotely part of their mission statement. It actively works against it. This will never happen the way you want it to unless they change a fundamental cornerstone of their existence. They don’t even want to change this. It is what made them successful.

Admittedly they lost this vision for a while. Thank goodness it is back. I wouldn’t be reading them if it wasn’t back. I didn’t read them when they thought differently. Why bother? Irrelevant stories are like irrelevant sport. Meaningless.

Lol.

I don’t expect Marvel (or DC) to keep the basic personalities of their main iconic characters as remotely consistent.

It’s not what they do. Today’s ultra dour omni competent Batman is..for example..nothing like the affable, skilled, determined but fallible guy of the beloved Haney/ Aparo adventures.

Clearly DC and Marvel are happy to alter the personalities of their big brand characters if that suits them...it is a pragmatic route to commercial success when significant numbers of readers care as much (or more) about name of character, costume and power set as basic personalit traits.

It’s not an aspect of DC/Marvel story telling that I like. Other aspects I like (of course).

But it really doesn’t bother me much, I don’t read that many super hero comics, so if a writer portrays a character in a way I don’t like’ I either don’t read series or drop it quickly.

[JKtheMac]

Lol.

I don’t expect Marvel (or DC) to keep the basic personalities of their main iconic characters as remotely consistent.

It’s not what they do. Today’s ultra dour omni competent Batman is..for example..nothing like the affable, skilled, determined but fallible guy of the beloved Haney/ Aparo adventures.

True, but I might say compared to entirely different writers. But DC have their own way of dealing with change that drove me away years ago. Even now, when I can appreciate what Tom King is doing, my heart isn't in it.

But it really doesn’t bother me much, I don’t read that many super hero comics, so if a writer portrays a character in a way I don’t like’ I either don’t read series or drop it quickly.

I get that. Indeed I admire that because it feels much more honest to me. It is pretty much what I do, except my expatiations are probably very different. I demand change, and innovation. I want the writers to ask interesting questions that challenge cozy notions. That's kind of why DC's approach doesn't work for me. It doesn't mean as much if you just reboot. That's not as interesting as looking hard at what has gone before and digging into the fertile soil for new questions.

I am aware I am a bit of an iconoclast, because I tend toward the writers that like to overturn things. But they have to be doing it for good reason. Or at least I have to think things need overturning. I think Thor needed overturning desperately because he is just so darned messy, and because he was not well served by Fraction. But I love that mess and I don't blame Fraction. For the longest time I blamed Roy Thomas, but even that has mellowed now. Aaron has helped salve the wound. He has made things just a little less messy now in my eyes. He has almost finished putting everything into a much better place for the next writer. Whomsoever that is should be very grateful. I am sure they will be. They can get just as messy if they want, but they don't really need too.

[JKtheMac]

The name thing doesn't bother me so much, The impression that I got was that Thor centered a good portion of his identity around his hammer, and he spent so long trying to trying to be worthy, and when he became unworthy he lost himself. He went from being this regal, noble powerful figure to being a one-armed, shirtless, drunken shell of himself. He lost so much that he didn't feel worthy of his own name, so he gave it to someone who he felt more deserving, as he spiraled into an arc of self-loathing.

Indeed that is exactly how it would be described in the world of the Marvel Universe. My main interest is how writers work and what they are seeking to do. In that sense this path you describe was necessary for the story to be told in the way that made sense to the writer.

Where some arguments bubble up is when people look at what you just described and challenge it fundamentally, saying it doesn't make sense or it isn't how he would behave. That is when I tend to object. It made sense to me, it made sense to the writer and it made sense to the editor, therefore it can't be universally claimed to not be sensible or to be objectively wrong. Saying "but Jane can't be called Thor" or worse "Lets all agree to call her Thorina" or "Lady Jane" or anything that doesn't contradict some weird notion of what is and isn't allowed. That's just nonsense.

[GodThor]

And Thor is not a title. It can't be a title when it was originally his name. "wield the power of Thor," his power, not gain his title. This was true for Jane since she basically transformed into a gender-flipped version of Thor.

"God of Thunder" is more of a title but Thor never stopped being the God of Thunder. "Prince of Asgard" is a title.

Idk man.

I personally don't feel worthy of called Tommy.

I think I will personally gave it to my friend because he seems more worthy.

yeah... definitely sounds legit.

to think this stupid run lasted for 5 years.