Thor Odinson, God of Thunder Appreciation 2019

[Frontier]

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.

Unless they brought Old Loki back to do it.

[Daniel22]

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.

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's an excellent question. It shouldn't be a problem, imo, and it's not a problem for a lot of people. There are plenty of people totally willing and able to have thoughtful, respectful conversations about religion. There is a segment of the population that doesn't welcome questioning or examination of religion or gods, in any form, though. They're against almost any fictional work that includes religion that isn't presented in a positive manner. I'm talking about the people who want "Lucifer" off the air, or convinced DC to cancel "Second Coming" (although it got picked up by Ahoy Comics) or wanted to ban "Preacher"... I think these people are on the far end of the spectrum, but I do think there are quite a few of them. It seems to me that some have a visceral, almost unconscious negative reaction to any portrayal that doesn't follow the standard of holy, powerful gods who we should kneel before. I'm wondering how many of them read Aaron's work and had that feeling impact how they felt about the story. I don't think it's a large number but I do think it exists.

As to how openly atheist Aaron is, I'm not sure. It pops up without much digging when you search his name. I don't know how many people are aware of his feelings, but I know it's a decent number because he gets accused of "preaching atheism" (which I agree is an interesting term) pretty often. I'm not sure if he describes himself as atheist or agnostic, but I don't think many people make much of a distinction between the two. Quite a few don't even know the difference, from what I've seen.
In my experience fans are more ready to ascribe hidden or blatant messages within the works to certain groups of writers. I think atheists get as much of that as any group. This mindset, that Creator X is only writing that story or introducing that theme because he's pushing the (gay/atheist/liberal/conservative/whatever) agenda, is maddening to me. The work =/= to a creator's feelings on the topic. This accusation of agenda pushing or advocating something because a fictional character said/did it is something I just can't understand.

A work that challenges the gods and asks questions some people don't want to think about, written by an atheist or agnostic writer, is sure to meet with some resistance imo. My question is how much? How many people were turned off of the work, either partly or completely, for these reasons? Impossible to say for sure but I think it's an interesting topic.

Thanks for your breakdown of the Gorr storyline. I don't have much to add because I think you nailed it. Those are basically my thoughts exactly as far as what went down on the pages.

[Frontier]

I still really don't like the eye and metal arm.

[Cronus]

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.

Why is Malekith interesting to you?

[Cronus]

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.

Its altogether boring for Aaron to touch on it at all since the relationship between the Christian God and "the gods" was covered a long time ago...

Screenshot_20190702-182141_Marvel Unlimited.jpg
Screenshot_20190702-182219_Marvel Unlimited.jpg

[Username taken]

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.

Agreed. Malekith is a pretty one note villain.

I have some strong disagreements with some of his story choices but overall, I’ve really enjoyed his Thor work.

[JackDaw]

In another thread I saw some one comment that many stories set in Marvel Universe now often read as if set in a way where the many, many characters didn’t really share the same world...yes series often feature guest stars, but the overall feeling is that solo series don’t really read as it’s one world.

One example sometimes quoted is ruthless treatment of mutants is seemingly ignored by the non mutant heroes...none of them seem to make an issue of resisting the persecution. And it seems odd that wider public always seem to know which super character is a mutant, which “normal”.

In case of present Thor line story line...if responsibilities of “godhood” are being examined if overallworld setting is taken “seriously” I’d expect some consideration if a massively powered human has different responsibilities to a god. And if they have...then “why”.

In issues I read before bailing out I didn’t see that question covered. Has it been?

[JKtheMac]

I am not sure I would expect that. The Marvel universe has never been a unified place. Solo books are much more likely to dig into these kinds of ideas and team books or guest appearances either never touch on issues of the character or only have time to touch upon one point. Often a simplified and even misrepresented one.

On the other hand, this is what we have events and tie-ins for. To explore the way the big summer event impacts the wider world. They are designed to bring some verisimilitude to the world. The recent trend of making some separate from the ongoings has lessened this but so many people don’t like their books being interrupted so they try and do this less now.

In many ways the wider universe only saw gods as powerful superheroes anyway. Occasionally you might have got Iron Man struggling with accepting that gods use magic, but he isn’t going to worry about their innermost conflicts. He’s a practical guy that will more likely offer to fix up buildings or play with new weapon technology.

[JKtheMac]

Its altogether boring for Aaron to touch on it at all since the relationship between the Christian God and "the gods" was covered a long time ago...

Screenshot_20190702-182141_Marvel Unlimited.jpg
Screenshot_20190702-182219_Marvel Unlimited.jpg

Not particularly effectively in my opinion. For me the previous examples, and there have been a few so it’s not as if this isn’t an ongoing theme, have mostly raised more questions in my experience.

The messianic side of Thor is very much a reoccurring theme. Take Beta-Ray Bill for example, he is partly in the story to emphasise this aspect of Thor. A saviour that can lift Mjölnir. It points out that Thor may also be a messianic figure. There are other examples baked in, like the fact Thor was sent to earth as a mortal. This issue will always be explored.

[JKtheMac]

Why is Malekith interesting to you?

Well I was just explaining why he wasn’t particularly. Saying he is a good choice of villain is not the same as saying I am particularly interested in him. Not every villain needs to be interesting, especially ones you are going to kill in the last act.

This is an MCU obsession. To think every villain that isn’t fleshed out and identifiable is bad is to misunderstand how stories are structured. Sometimes the actual obstacles in the story are nothing to do with the villain. The villain in these stories acts as an antagonist to help the writer position those obstacles and to create problems. Sometimes fleshing out a villain too much can detract from the story and confuse the reader as to what is important.

Currently, in our culture I see a huge disconnect between how fans understand story and how stories actually work.

Of course mentioning the MCU reminds me that we all knew why he chose Malekith really. He was an MCU villain. There was a lot of talk about movie goers not being able to recognise the books as the same and perhaps choosing an MCU villain was a way to unify them. Even if Thor the Dark World was terrible. I mean Malekith in that was wasted but given he was never a particularly deep character what exactly should they have done? Personally I think casting Christopher Eccleston who is an exceptional actor, in a role where he doesn’t need to act is a little counterproductive.

[JKtheMac]

I still really don't like the eye and metal arm.

Dost thou desire to build a Snowman?

[JKtheMac]

This mindset, that Creator X is only writing that story or introducing that theme because he's pushing the (gay/atheist/liberal/conservative/whatever) agenda, is maddening to me. The work =/= to a creator's feelings on the topic. This accusation of agenda pushing or advocating something because a fictional character said/did it is something I just can't understand.

Yes, this is the wider issue. Again this to me is part of a disconnect between modern fandom and writers. It is easy to identify themes, the writer is hardly hiding them. Modern fandom has become distracted IMO by learning just enough about stories to recognise the building blocks but not ever learning how they are being used. They often see evidence of the craft but not the art. Look at the growth of ‘trope’ websites, totally obsessed with genre and labelling parts.

To use an analogy it would be like walking into the Sagrada Familia, with its exposed works and ongoing construction, and labelling all of the different blocks of stone, but never standing back and looking at how the space is being defined, how the building works functionally, how feelings of grandeur are being evoked, in other words missing what the architectural vision was.

I can imagine somebody looking at all the carved blocks and being convinced there was a deliberate attempt to make the building feel heavy and wrought and yet that’s almost the exact opposite of the vision, which is all about the shape and the space. A feeling of lightness and the effortless support of curves. A building designed upside down by string and weights to utilise gravity. A marriage of science and religion.

I mean they identified the building blocks, so obviously they know all about how the building works and what it all means right?

IMO if anyone is interested enough in how stories work to read about themes, or genre and tropes they should keep going. Learning just enough to spoil the experience of reading and not enough to appreciate the art of writing is a halfway house. Either stay a reader or become a proper critic or better still try writing something. Writing taught me more about stories than any text book or lecture ever could.

[Frontier]

In another thread I saw some one comment that many stories set in Marvel Universe now often read as if set in a way where the many, many characters didn’t really share the same world...yes series often feature guest stars, but the overall feeling is that solo series don’t really read as it’s one world.

One example sometimes quoted is ruthless treatment of mutants is seemingly ignored by the non mutant heroes...none of them seem to make an issue of resisting the persecution. And it seems odd that wider public always seem to know which super character is a mutant, which “normal”.

In case of present Thor line story line...if responsibilities of “godhood” are being examined if overallworld setting is taken “seriously” I’d expect some consideration if a massively powered human has different responsibilities to a god. And if they have...then “why”.

In issues I read before bailing out I didn’t see that question covered. Has it been?

Or examining whether the gods should even involve themselves with Earth to begin with.

I always took Asgard (and by extension Olympus's) hands-free approach to humanity as less, malicious or irresponsible or more just leaving humanity to face it's fate on its own terms rather then try and solve all of their problems.

Of course mentioning the MCU reminds me that we all knew why he chose Malekith really. He was an MCU villain. There was a lot of talk about movie goers not being able to recognise the books as the same and perhaps choosing an MCU villain was a way to unify them. Even if Thor the Dark World was terrible. I mean Malekith in that was wasted but given he was never a particularly deep character what exactly should they have done? Personally I think casting Christopher Eccleston who is an exceptional actor, in a role where he doesn’t need to act is a little counterproductive.

It probably didn't help that they cut out the more interesting bits about his character to throw in more Loki.

[Overhazard]

Or examining whether the gods should even involve themselves with Earth to begin with.

I always took Asgard (and by extension Olympus's) hands-free approach to humanity as less, malicious or irresponsible or more just leaving humanity to face it's fate on its own terms rather then try and solve all of their problems.

It probably didn't help that they cut out the more interesting bits about his character to throw in more Loki.

"If you do things right, people will wonder if you've done anything at all." I liked godfellas.

[Frontier]

[/B]

"If you do things right, people will wonder if you've done anything at all." I liked godfellas.

I mean, I think if we're trying to find the kind of ideal gods would strive for, I think that's a pretty reasonable one.