Thor Odinson, God of Thunder Appreciation 2019

[Cronus]

This is a mainstream comic aimed at a wide audience, so of course he didn’t do this in the foreground. But it is there if you care to look for it.

Very early on in the letters column Aaron explained he didn’t particularly care about these preconceived notions of what he should or could do. Obviously the editors agreed.

So...if that is the case, how long before Aaron alienates Thor fans from the character they know and love?...

Oh wait...

So far, several on this thread...dare I say most? Don't care for Aaron's mischaracterization or disdain for what fans are looking for.

Are you somehow related to Jason Aaron? I dont understand your persistence in trying to sway all the naysayers here to your view point.

We have the same disdain for Aaron that he has for following some semblance of continuity for the character Thor. The sooner he leaves the book, the better.

[JKtheMac]

You misread me I think, I never said she wasnt deserving the name, just I feel she never craved it

As for the barrier I couldn't care less, Aaron wants to make her a real Thor (so to speak)

But like all others we go have held it, she isn't, Odin wasn't, not wasn't, etc,

Aside from notions of head canon you don’t get to decide. And there is no ‘so to speak’ about it. Jane was always Thor. Not a Thor or a person with the powers of Thor she WAS Thor.

Thor is Thor irrelevant to holding the hammer, all other holders are just temporary substitutes

While there is some truth in that, neither of these things were in dispute. Thor is Thor. Jane was also Thor. Not a ‘holder’ a mortal transformed into a goddess that is the functional and archetypical equivalent of Thor. Different to any of those who previously held the hammer aside perhaps from Throg.

Even Odin tried this trick setting up red to take the fall for the real thor

And aside from the potential to reinterpret this story it was a different circumstance and the story had a different meaning. It doesn’t really have much to say about this story.

It's just the side effect of odins enchanting, they might count for such things, but that doesn't make them the real deal

You are applying the old rules, (which were always open to interpretation anyway). Aaron has changed the rules. Or rather he posited a circumstance where they apply in different ways. Par for the course considering how they have shifted and changed in the past.

[JKtheMac]

So...if that is the case, how long before Aaron alienates Thor fans from the character they know and love?...

Oh wait...

So far, several on this thread...dare I say most? Don't care for Aaron's mischaracterization or disdain for what fans are looking for.

Are you somehow related to Jason Aaron? I dont understand your persistence in trying to sway all the naysayers here to your view point.

We have the same disdain for Aaron that he has for following some semblance of continuity for the character Thor. The sooner he leaves the book, the better.

This is entirely reverse logic don’t you think? You are asking me why I continue to point out why I appreciate the current Thor writer in a Thor appreciation thread. Partly because I do appreciate it, and partly to balance out the negativity which from my perspective is from a very narrow and self selected group who want to voice their dissatisfaction.

You may also be surprised to find many of those I debate with actually enjoy the debate. There are some who are perhaps not smiling as much as they type, but I don’t necessarily engage them point for point in the same manner.

[Cronus]

This is entirely reverse logic don’t you think? You are asking me why I continue to point out why I appreciate the current Thor writer in a Thor appreciation thread. Partly because I do appreciate it, and partly to balance out the negativity which from my perspective is from a very narrow and self selected group who want to voice their dissatisfaction.

You may also be surprised to find many of those I debate with actually enjoy the debate. There are some who are perhaps not smiling as much as they type, but I don’t necessarily engage them point for point in the same manner.

When you go around quoting everyone who expresses their dissatisfaction for Aaron and explaining why they are wrong and Aaron is right then clearly your appreciation is much more about Aaron's (GROSS MIS-) interpretation of Thor and far less about appreciating the character Thor.

Surely, you are someone closely invested/ related to Jason Aaron.

And calling people stupid ("narrow"?...really?)...because they disagree with your view...isn't winning you any points either.

[JKtheMac]

When you go around quoting everyone who expresses their dissatisfaction for Aaron and explaining why they are wrong and Aaron is right then clearly your appreciation is much more about Aaron's (GROSS MIS-) interpretation of Thor and far less about appreciating the character Thor.

Surely, you are someone closely invested/ related to Jason Aaron.

They do the same with me, and we have mostly been cordial and friendly with this ongoing debate from day one. It may look antagonistic if you are walking into the room only now, but we know each other quite well. Don’t mistake our arguments for disrespect. We have all been plugging away at this for years.

My only investment with Aaron is that I think he is a great writer, and that intersects with him being on my favourite comic. You may be aware that this run is widely praised by fans and critics alike, and the fact this becomes a minority perspective in places like this says more about the way people gravitate to different places on the internet than the reception of his work.

I could just chip in with my enjoyment every now and then, but I enjoy the debate. If and when it actually gets antagonistic I tend to walk away for a bit or temporarily hit ignore.

Again, is it so surprising that someone should feel passionately about a comic and not be negative about it?

And calling people stupid

Never did this.

("narrow"?...really?)...

Yes, believe it or not this forum represents a narrow perspective. That’s not an insult, it’s a recognition that our argument is relatively trivial in the wider world or even the wider readership of this comic.

because they disagree with your view...isn't winning you any points either.

I wasn’t aware anyone was keeping score.

[Paradox_Nihil]

I have no intent to start a fight here, but this

You may be aware that this run is widely praised by fans and critics alike

is totally irrelevant in any serious discussion. Am I supposed to be bound by the mistakes of other people? I am not commenting on this particular run (which I haven't read as a whole, and till then will reserve my judgment), only speaking in broad strokes.

If you meant to say 'the fans are always right', then look at all the cancelled series which were later lamented as some of the best in their time - and if you didn't have that intention, then, as I have said, it's completely irrelevant, except as a curiosity, or if you are a market researcher. And that's true even in areas where 'fans' are not just a relatively tiny group of people like in comics.

And I have my doubts about the critics. Maybe the comics need better 'critics', because the vast majority of them are just fans who have some knowledge of the trivia but zero methodology, and talk (or write) more about themselves (their experiences, their hopes, their expectations) than the comics in question. (And, again, this is a general view, has nothing to do with Aaron or Thor.) Comicbook Round Up is a joke. With good intentions, yes, but still a joke, regardless.

Besides, while all the podcasters and critics whom I follow appreciate Aaron and what he is doing at Marvel generally, they don't give him any special attention. People talk much more about Tom King or Al Ewing in the context of superhero comics, and, the more you move from that genre, the more perceivable it becomes. Although, as I said, let's put other people's views aside.

[JKtheMac]

I have no intent to start a fight here, but this



is totally irrelevant in any serious discussion. Am I supposed to be bound by the mistakes of other people? I am not commenting on this particular run (which I haven't read as a whole, and till then will reserve my judgment), only speaking in broad strokes.

If you meant to say 'the fans are always right', then look at all the cancelled series which were later lamented as some of the best in their time - and if you didn't have that intention, then, as I have said, it's completely irrelevant, except as a curiosity, or if you are a market researcher. And that's true even in areas where 'fans' are not just a relatively tiny group of people like in comics.

And I have my doubts about the critics. Maybe the comics need better 'critics', because the vast majority of them are just fans who have some knowledge of the trivia but zero methodology, and talk (or write) more about themselves (their experiences, their hopes, their expectations) than the comics in question. (And, again, this is a general view, has nothing to do with Aaron or Thor.) Comicbook Round Up is a joke. With good intentions, yes, but still a joke, regardless.

Besides, while all the podcasters and critics whom I follow appreciate Aaron and what he is doing at Marvel generally, they don't give him any special attention. People talk much more about Tom King or Al Ewing in the context of superhero comics, and, the more you move from that genre, the more perceivable it becomes. Although, as I said, let's put other people's views aside.

Why is pointing out that a book is widely praised in contrast to this forum not a serious statement. It is demonstrably true. Go and look. Why would you think this means 'the fans are always right'? I didn't say that at all. I just think vocal fans are usually the angry ones. Although in my case I don't tend to get animated about things I don't like. I just go and read something else. Sometimes I might just add my opinion and move on. I don't usually argue about things I am not enjoying, because I have no power over what happens.

You can have your doubts about the critical appreciation for Aaron as much as you like. But it runs contrary to evidence, both by Marvel's choices, and the general positivity in places where people do more than gather together to moan about how terrible modern comics are.

I am not just talking about critics. The fandom I witness in other places is very clear. Places where people like to moan tend to be full of negative people. Places where people like to express their appreciation are usually full of positive comments. I would like to think this forum is somewhere between these two stalls. I am not even a lone voice here. I honestly believe there would be more positive voices here if this place was less intimidating.

Comicbook Roundup isn't a joke. It is a handy tool I like to use to see what the general buzz about a book is. It informs my choices and it helps me find reasoned negative comments, not just "I Hate..." style arguments.

It is telling just how often I get asked to justify my position by bystanders or people joining the dabate, despite usually being in the middle of two or three way arguments, for which everyone is clearly engaged in said debate. I can't remember a single person I was arguing with ever being asked "why are you so against Aaron" by a bystander. Strange that, when I see some very passionate negative posts that seem to go way beyond what I personally would ever say in terms of personal attacks or critique of me as a poster as opposed to my views expressed in my posts.

[Paradox_Nihil]

Your answer shows me that either you didn't understand what I have said or you didn't want to understand, which, ultimately, amounts to the same result. If something is praised or not means only that it is praised (or not) and nothing else. "They say" isn't an argument, because million times zero is still zero. If you want to prove something, say something based on logic or thought that surpasses mere 'liking'.

I have no doubts about the critical appreciation for Aaron. When did I say that? I even commented that the people I often listen to have the appreciation for Aaron (but not to the degree you would like to present). But I am not here to bash Aaron, because, hey, I appreciate him too. To some degree. My discontent, in this special case, is with the so-called 'critics' of yours, because I remember from an earlier post that you mentioned Comicbook Roundup in a positive light. I mean, that is a useful tool. Theoretically. A sort of Metacritic for comics... except that in the case of movies there is a long tradition of criticism and a higher treshold for sensible participation, so what we have in reality is that a comic that has no ethical value, no characters, infinite number of holes in the plot, no coherence or sensible worldbuilding (in a genre where worldbuilding is the foundation), an excess of empty space in the artwork, no subtlety in execution, and no humour, gets an 8 or so, because someone liked it? Really? I'm not interested in what someone likes or not, I'm interested in arguments, in informed perspective. And it's completely unimportant whether I'll agree with them or not. It would be enough for me to understand someone else's position. (I won't mention which title was in question - several, in fact.) On the other hand, I have you saying "it is a handy tool and it informs my choices", and that, my friend is not an argument but an already formed opinion, and I'm not interested in that, as I said.

[JKtheMac]

Your answer shows me that either you didn't understand what I have said or you didn't want to understand, which, ultimately, amounts to the same result. If something is praised or not means only that it is praised (or not) and nothing else. "They say" isn't an argument, because million times zero is still zero. If you want to prove something, say something based on logic or thought that surpasses mere 'liking'.

I have no doubts about the critical appreciation for Aaron. When did I say that? I even commented that the people I often listen to have the appreciation for Aaron (but not to the degree you would like to present). But I am not here to bash Aaron, because, hey, I appreciate him too. To some degree. My discontent, in this special case, is with the so-called 'critics' of yours, because I remember from an earlier post that you mentioned Comicbook Roundup in a positive light. I mean, that is a useful tool. Theoretically. A sort of Metacritic for comics... except that in the case of movies there is a long tradition of criticism and a higher treshold for sensible participation, so what we have in reality is that a comic that has no ethical value, no characters, infinite number of holes in the plot, no coherence or sensible worldbuilding (in a genre where worldbuilding is the foundation), an excess of empty space in the artwork, no subtlety in execution, and no humour, gets an 8 or so, because someone liked it? Really? I'm not interested in what someone likes or not, I'm interested in arguments, in informed perspective. And it's completely unimportant whether I'll agree with them or not. It would be enough for me to understand someone else's position. (I won't mention which title was in question - several, in fact.) On the other hand, I have you saying "it is a handy tool and it informs my choices", and that, my friend is not an argument but an already formed opinion, and I'm not interested in that, as I said.

Well I clearly don't know what you want me to say. Why ask me about these things if you are not interested in my perspective? Also that first sentence looks like a fast track to an argument you said you didn't want to have. I will make it easy for you. No further comment.

[Paradox_Nihil]

Your perspective, yes, but the one that doesn't involve a multitude of other people's opinions. Unless you want to quote them in detail, and go into their reasoning, pretending it's your own, which is another matter entirely. God is in the details, not in the source (Or The Source. Sorry, DC, I had to say that!) Many further comments, I hope. I would rather leave this forum myself than be responsible for other people's leaving.

[JKtheMac]

Your perspective, yes, but the one that doesn't involve a multitude of other people's opinions. Unless you want to quote them in detail, and go into their reasoning, pretending it's your own, which is another matter entirely. God is in the details, not in the source (Or The Source. Sorry, DC, I had to say that!) Many further comments, I hope. I would rather leave this forum myself than be responsible for other people's leaving.

Not leaving the forum. I am no longer engaged with your point because you seem to be coming at me very obliquely and then denying that I am answering you or addressing the things you said. I addressed quite a few of your points and you basically told me I was either misunderstanding you or deliberately doing so. I can understand that tack when someone is being evasive but I wasn't because I clearly addressed the points you made in good faith. So again. Discussion over.

[Paradox_Nihil]

You can have your doubts about the critical appreciation for Aaron as much as you like. But it runs contrary to evidence, both by Marvel's choices, and the general positivity in places where people do more than gather together to moan about how terrible modern comics are.

This. Among other things. You were addressing something I had never said. So, good faith is not enough, obviously. You twist every argument that goes your way into your own point of view, and get something that no one has said, of course, a hybrid of opinions. Our previous correspondence is full of examples of that. And probably one of the reasons (but not the only one, obviously, because the discussion needs two sides, at least) this thread has been going in circles for years. I could think that the main reason for our misunderstanding may be that English is not my native language and there are some gramatical mistakes on my part here or there, or that I didn't present my point clearly enough, and generally that may be true to some degree, but no, in this case, after reading my initial post again, it's completely clear (to me, at least) that I was not talking about the appreciation of Aaron, but about the credibility of the critics - or the people you regard as the critics - in the general sense. And all you basically said was sort of "They are right because they agree with me, with my sensibility." Sorry, for a serious analysis, I need more than a shared sensibility. Because, you know, I am able to love things that are not good, and not like ones which are. I have read many reviews that are just series of verbal orgasms from the authors, probably followed in private by the real ones. And then I stopped reading them. From the time American Vampire - not a good series by any stretch, but one that can be liked (and is liked, obviously) - got the Eisner Award for the best new series, I'm very cautious about the 'critics'.

On the other hand - not to be unfair - you had some deeper explanations about the structure or tone or themes or symbols or narrative devices here and there, but it's too little and too scattered.

[Frontier]

This is a mainstream comic aimed at a wide audience, so of course he didn’t do this in the foreground. But it is there if you care to look for it.

Well, obviously that stuff sometimes takes a back seat for Superhero slugfests...but all the moreso I think it still stands that Aaron is a very "in your face" writer, for better or worse depending on who you ask.

Very early on in the letters column Aaron explained he didn’t particularly care about these preconceived notions of what he should or could do. Obviously the editors agreed.

Well, yeah, that definitely stands out well. I think at this point he's a writer who gets a lot more leeway with editors as far as what he can do.

Well perhaps it would make an interesting analysis. Going back over the whole history of the Asgardians and seeing where modern cultural relevance began to creep into their representation. I would suggest pretty early on with Kirby.

I think it's definitely reached it's zenith with Aaron's run considering the characterization and how the Asgardian dialogue is handled.

[Ra-El]

I stoped reading Thor a while ago, but I came here to know what happened. So, apparently Malekith made Odin and Freya prisioners on Stonehenge and put some magical barrier so that only thor could cross it, so Thor, King Thor, Young Thor and Jane Thor went to save his parents, this would prove that Jane was indeed always Thor.
My question is how specific was Malekith's spell? Was it "only Thor Odinson, God of Thunder, Prince of Asgard, son of Odin and Gaea can cross" or was it "only Thor, God of Thunder can cross", or even just "only Thor can cross" ? If was the first is one thing, possibly not even King Thor would have been able to cross it, since he isn't a prince anymore. If was the second then Jane was at god/godess of thnder who was called Thor, so she could possibly do it. But if was the last option, well anyone named Thor could have passed, I mean, if a guy named Thor Ramirez was passing by he probably would end up in the middle of the fight.
My conclusion, based only on what I read here on this thread is that or Jane was indeed "Thor" or that Malekith just half-assed the spell.

[Daniel22]

Fair enough. One person's inconsistency is another person's layers .

Goes back to our different feelings on whether many of the actions of and storylines about Odinson were additive or a detraction, I'd think. We feel differently on much of the characterization of Odinson and I understand your viewpoint on that. I still think the questions brought up and themes addressed were consistent and worthwhile.

Did you not enjoy or appreciate those parts of the story? Do you think not liking the characterization of Odinson kind of spoiled the whole thing for you? I wonder if you might feel differently if another god was used as a stand in or an original character was created or something like that. Sometimes we just don't want to see certain characters in certain kinds of stories. I don't want to read a violent and horrific Squirrel Girl story or a redemption story for Hank Pym, so I can understand if you just weren't into seeing Odinson in a story where he loses and slowly regains everything after a prolonged down period.