Thor Odinson, God of Thunder Appreciation 2019

[H-E-D]

I counted myself as a Thor fan before Aaron's run, and I have enjoyed his work thus far. It isn't without it's flaws – Malekith isn't very interesting, a crucial moment took place in an event book rather than in the pages of the book itself, and a few moments were delayed too long. But overall, I think it's good.

[Daniel22]

Indeed the nuances and the way he deals carefully and with a light touch all of the issues that his detractors rail against is one the reasons I keep saying ‘why choose to interpret it negatively’. The nuance is there, the depth is there, the complexity of meaning is all in there, to take that and condense it into an argument of ‘alcoholic, hobo Thor’ or ‘Jane is the best Thor’ or ‘Aaron clearly hates Thor, Odin, Loki, canon’ is to throw away everything other than a surface impression that doesn’t even hold up on examination.

You pretty much summed up the whole argument with ‘They were living unexamined lives.’

The whole of Aaron has been an examination of the issues underlying Thor. Some will naturally not want such examination, but those of us that do, and indeed people like me that demand it, can find much to enjoy in his run.

I think that some people don't like seeing religion or gods (even ones in fictional universes, or ones they don't believe in) questioned. They have such a fear of and/or and reverence for any kind of god that they aren't interested in any story that questions or portrays classically "good" gods in a negative way. The idea of gods being above us and beyond reproach is still hardwired into a lot of people. It's just an unwelcome examination. Add in an atheist writer, and it's a certainty that some are going to choose to see a bashing of religion whether it's there on the page or not. I think that plays into what I consider to be a misrepresenting of the actual on page story.
Then there are others who don't mind that sort of thing but just don't want it in their comics. I think for some it's a matter of "right story, wrong place".

[JKtheMac]

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.

If you think this matters that much you may be going down a deep rabbit hole. Aaron always said he considered Jane’s story to be a Thor story as much as any other Thor story. Splitting hairs over a spell that we didn’t specifically see cast is not going to change that. What he says when they all appear is ‘no one but Thor (the name specifically in allspeak script) should be able to cross’. Consistent with him saying in the previous issue with the same Allspeak emphasis that only Thor can cross.

Personally I interpret that as Aaron would clearly intend. That he was specific. Just as Jane specified “There must always be a Thor and sometimes there must even be more than one.” She equates herself to Thor as she pulls together the broken parts of Ultimate Mjolnir, but again she called herself Goddess of Thunder right from the start, Thor Odinson calls her this in this very issue, so this is consistent with the entire run, Aaron’s persistent comments in interview, and now this event.

[JKtheMac]

I think that some people don't like seeing religion or gods (even ones in fictional universes, or ones they don't believe in) questioned. They have such a fear of and/or and reverence for any kind of god that they aren't interested in any story that questions or portrays classically "good" gods in a negative way. The idea of gods being above us and beyond reproach is still hardwired into a lot of people. It's just an unwelcome examination. Add in an atheist writer, and it's a certainty that some are going to choose to see a bashing of religion whether it's there on the page or not. I think that plays into what I consider to be a misrepresenting of the actual on page story.
Then there are others who don't mind that sort of thing but just don't want it in their comics. I think for some it's a matter of "right story, wrong place".

Funny how theology degrees, seminary studies and any religious preparation for office will include fundamental questions and doubts as important to faith, but a mere comic would have such a strange and as far as I am aware uncommon effect.

I mean how much more religious and messianic has Aaron got to make Thor before he can convince people that he is treating his position in the world seriously. He impales himself on a sun sprouting tree, then uses a wind from creation to reforge the hammer that his father placed his word upon. The only thing he left out was saying “forgive them Father” as the storm broke across the world.

[Daniel22]

Funny how theology degrees and any religious preparation for office will include fundamental questions and doubts as important to faith, but a mere comic would have such a strange and as far as I am aware uncommon effect.

I'm not following. Can you explain some more, please?

[Frontier]

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.

I think that was always a big part of it. To some degree the characterizations for the Asgardians felt like stand-ins for the kind of story Aaron was telling then their actual selves, at least to me.

or a redemption story for Hank Pym,

You mean every Hank Pym story ever ?

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.

It's not so much the losing and the regaining I had a problem with, in concept, it's that the execution and characterization just felt completely off to me.

[Daniel22]

Funny how theology degrees, seminary studies and any religious preparation for office will include fundamental questions and doubts as important to faith, but a mere comic would have such a strange and as far as I am aware uncommon effect.

I mean how much more religious and messianic has Aaron got to make Thor before he can convince people that he is treating his position in the world seriously. He impales himself on a sun sprouting tree, then uses a wind from creation to reforge the hammer that his father placed his word upon. The only thing he left out was saying “forgive them Father” as the storm broke across the world.

Oh ok gotcha, thanks for the expansion. The motives behind the practices you're referencing are up for debate imo.. it's a fascinating topic.
Agreed on your second point. Do you think Aaron's run, and especially that aspect of it, would have been received differently if he weren't an open atheist? Or do you think it wasn't really a factor?

[Daniel22]

I think that was always a big part of it. To some degree the characterizations for the Asgardians felt like stand-ins for the kind of story Aaron was telling then their actual selves, at least to me.

You mean every Hank Pym story ever ?

It's not so much the losing and the regaining I had a problem with, in concept, it's that the execution and characterization just felt completely off to me.

Ha! Good point on Pym. Can I be redeemed, by Hank Pym.. Am I man or machine, by Vision... America: Good or Naw? by Steve Rogers... these are the eternal questions

[Doombot]

I counted myself as a Thor fan before Aaron's run, and I have enjoyed his work thus far. It isn't without it's flaws – Malekith isn't very interesting, a crucial moment took place in an event book rather than in the pages of the book itself, and a few moments were delayed too long. But overall, I think it's good.

This is true. It's sad that the character that's actually driving this story, Malekith, is left pretty one dimensional, almost boring, while all this endless fuss about Thor's name, hammer's and worth completely overshadow his time in the spotlight.

[H-E-D]

This is true. It's sad that the character that's actually driving this story, Malekith, is left pretty one dimensional, almost boring, while all this endless fuss about Thor's name, hammer's and worth completely overshadow his time in the spotlight.

I'd almost think it was intentional, to avoid taking the spotlight away from the emotional core of the story. But, it lasted way too long. All the sub-plot villains – the Shi'ar gods, Mangog, Roxxon, etc – were more interesting.

I kinda think there was an attempt at making a sort of Joker out of Malekith – a sort of egregiously, meaninglessly evil, agent of chaos type. It just fell flat.

[JKtheMac]

I'm not following. Can you explain some more, please?

Why would a writer tackling a theological issue from a secular or at least questioning direction be a problem for someone that was religious? That debate has been rolling on in various forms since at least classical times and is part of the history of every established organised religion. Faith and doubt have coexisted forever. Even in Thor continuity we have had different tales on what the role of gods should be. Jurgens especially liked that subject, exploring the idea of non-interventionist deities and separately exploring the idea of a revived church of Thor and contrasting between a god that actively saves people from storms at sea and a god that doesn’t seem to do anything. Hardly groundbreaking theological argument.

What Aaron seems interested in is exploring whether the gods should have some kind of reciprocal relationship with their worshippers. Contrast with the various sacrifice myths, which serve to define this relationship. So he is positing the notion of Divine Providence and asking why the gods we see are not taking responsibility for this. Now previously they have been let off the hook in Marvel continuity because the gods are not seen as a replacement for a divine creator. So prayers are seen as somebody else’s problem.

However, early on in his run Thor was shown responding to prayer of a girl living on a planet apparently abandoned by its gods. Thor answering a prayer wasn’t as unique as Aaron seemed to think it was, but it was still important. It suggests that the gods can hear prayers to deities. Thor himself said “What kind of god would I be if I did not answer prayers?” It is this that starts Thor on his quest to find out why the gods of her planet have abandoned them and we first see Gorr’s answer to the gods not being responsive. Aaron signifies how important this incident was by having Thor return to her at the end of the Godbomb arc. He is setting up this theological issue squarely. There is even an element of the mythological reciprocal arrangement as Thor agrees to a drink and tells the aliens about Asgard. Subtly they sacrifice a scarce resource to him that he may stay and illuminate them.

The final wording of the theological issue is put to Thor by Gorr when he suggests that all the gods have ever brought was suffering. Again a common theological question. “If all things happen by the will of God, does God cause suffering?” Nothing groundbreaking. Sunday School would have answers to that one because there are attempts at answers in the bible. Theologians have not just taken the bible on faith though, they have dug into such questions deeply and with doubts and convictions. Just because there are answers does not mean they are easy answers, or that man knows the answer, or is even capable of knowing. How deep do we want to go with this? Trust me theology has gone very deep on these questions.

But, in this case we are not talking about an ‘unknowable god’ or even a mysterious one, we are talking about gods you can actually visit, who have powers they could indeed be using to alleviate suffering. The question put in the prayer story was whether the gods actively caused the drought by ignoring their worship and being wilfully negligent. Their names are a clue. These are cruel gods. Were they always so? When we meet Shadrack from another pantheon, it is notable he always changes what he is the god of.

So from where I am sitting Aaron is not “preaching atheism” which some people seem to claim, despite the oxymoronic nature of the concept, he is exploring a well trodden theological path with a clear idea in mind. He wants Thor to solve a problem. The problem is that the gods are not doing their job. They are not worthy of their worship. He even asks whether they are capable of this, and ultimately recognises they should at least try. That trying to make the world a better place is enough. He recognises that while they are in a way gods, they are still representing us in the stories. Their solutions are human level solutions. He removes the layer of theology without ever denying they are gods. Indeed he pretty much demonstrates they are functionally gods.

[JKtheMac]

I'd almost think it was intentional, to avoid taking the spotlight away from the emotional core of the story. But, it lasted way too long. All the sub-plot villains – the Shi'ar gods, Mangog, Roxxon, etc – were more interesting.

I kinda think there was an attempt at making a sort of Joker out of Malekith – a sort of egregiously, meaninglessly evil, agent of chaos type. It just fell flat.

I tend to agree. If Aaron had wanted to flesh out Malekith he would have had to give him much more of the spotlight. He gave him some. Enough to give us an idea of his mindset, but he wasn’t trying to ‘justify him’. Structurally he is an antagonist but he isn’t really what the story is about. He is the flip-side of Asgard’s non-interventionist politics and this in turn is a mirror of the core theme of what do we expect from the Asgardian gods. He is almost but not quite characterised as the god of the Wild Hunt. I wouldn’t be surprised if one day someone makes him that, because that has been set up. Maybe it will be hinted at in the Omega issue.

How long a story is, and judgments over it being too long or too short mostly depend on how much we are enjoying it. I was always enjoying it and would happily have seen it go on longer.

[JKtheMac]

Oh ok gotcha, thanks for the expansion. The motives behind the practices you're referencing are up for debate imo.. it's a fascinating topic.
Agreed on your second point. Do you think Aaron's run, and especially that aspect of it, would have been received differently if he weren't an open atheist? Or do you think it wasn't really a factor?

How openly atheist is he? I have listened to multiple interviews and he doesn’t come across as an extreme or card carrying atheist. He seems mostly agnostic while clearly not believing in an interventionist god. Does he actually expand upon this anywhere? From his story I don’t see someone that would ban religion for example.

I have close friends that will take every opportunity to tell me how all religion is destructive and should be purged from society. Opportunities like saying ‘bless you’ when they sneeze! Aaron doesn’t appear to be like that, ‘thank god’.

Deep down Aaron is answering his ‘big question’ with a secular answer. We should try and make the world a better place for our own sake. That is quite subtle for an atheist message though. It’s not going to rock the establishment.

[Frontier]

I tend to agree. If Aaron had wanted to flesh out Malekith he would have had to give him much more of the spotlight. He gave him some. Enough to give us an idea of his mindset, but he wasn’t trying to ‘justify him’. Structurally he is an antagonist but he isn’t really what the story is about. He is the flip-side of Asgard’s non-interventionist politics and this in turn is a mirror of the core theme of what do we expect from the Asgardian gods. He is almost but not quite characterised as the god of the Wild Hunt. I wouldn’t be surprised if one day someone makes him that, because that has been set up. Maybe it will be hinted at in the Omega issue.

How long a story is, and judgments over it being too long or too short mostly depend on how much we are enjoying it. I was always enjoying it and would happily have seen it go on longer.

It felt like Aaron needed someone to fulfill Loki's traditional antagonist role and netted Malektih.

[JKtheMac]

It felt like Aaron needed someone to fulfill Loki's traditional antagonist role and netted Malektih.

That is feasible yes. I think I may have considered the same thing early on, then Loki wandered into the story.

I think Malekith is a relatively good choice. From memory Aaron mostly knew Thor from Simonson and the Fraction minis when he took on the character, so I think there was a certain element of picking him because he was in Simonson and he liked him. He fits the bill of an antagonist nicely, even if he isn’t one of my favourite characters, and as you say, Loki is no longer quite the same anymore, so he can’t be running around making a huge war.