Thor Odinson, God of Thunder Appreciation 2019

[JKtheMac]

Jk, what do you think the main thrust of Jane's story is?

I do believe her story is about discovering who Thor is. But it is a self discovery for Jane and an exploration for the reader. Aaron is asking questions about Thor, Jane is answering some of them for us through her actions. The point of the story is to get to the heart of what it means to be Thor partly by removing elements that allow us to take those ideas for granted. This is why complaining about Thor being a name not a title totally misses the point, Aaron is removing that simple answer. Being Thor is not just about being born Odin’s son or being the Prince of Asgard.

If the lesson was primarily aimed at Thor then why have him kidnapped and moved entirely out of range of the message for most of her story?

[Cronus]

Generally speaking, I'm a big fan of Aaron's run overall because he brought the mythos behind Thor to the forefront. The Nine.. ahem Ten realms, the fantastical heroes and menaces, and most importantly the family dynamic between the gods i.e. he familial issues with Thor and his cohorts.

Writers prior to Aaron did this very thing.

*shrugs*

Moreover, people tend to forget that in ancient myth the heroes always have to do a trial to prove their worth (see Herakles and his 12 labors) and being a history buff I love it.

Heracles, yes. I dont recall any such story as original mythos for Thor.

Thor must be brought down before he can rise again.

Told already, decades ago.

Specifically for Jane, she was the exemplar of what Thor needs to be. Thor was a born deity, so he took it for granted; Jane became worthy because of her character. She wanted to be the goddess that was mortal and became immortal; yet she gave it up when it was needed against the Mangog. Thor in turn took her lead and sacrificed himself to win the War of The Realms.

This has been covered. In fact "Don Blake" was created to facilitate Thor's humility. The better question is why Aaron felt it necessary to convey this again?

This is why Aaron has the Three versions of Thor the Viking one who is totally ignorant of worthiness, the present one who is re-learning what it means to be worthy, and King Thor who is not only worthy but also recognizes the true weight of said worthiness (this is why he recreates the Earth and repopulates it and tries to protect it from enemies).

One of several ways Aaron veers "off reservation"...the viking and younger version of Thor you describe are completely out of character for Thor...Thor was noble even as a child as early stories clearly indicate.

I completely understand your frustration with the current status quo with Thor and now the MCU

How could you know? What do you have to compare it to?

but this has been the biggest character growth in the Thor mythos since probably Straczynski's run and his run was 10 years ago.

I dont see it as growth. I see it as an opportunity for a more well read writer to give amazing explanations as to Aaron's Thor is so far away from the original Thor, minus the gender difference.

This is going to be the new status quo for a very long time, especially because now it has been cemented in the MCU.

Maybe so. Does that mean all Thor fans need to like it?

So again...why was Jane seen as a necessity, save for an obvious attempt to reel in that pre teen crowd I mentioned earlier? None of the reasons you list above, accuracy notwithstanding, are compelling reasons for Thor to have become Jane.

This...is Disney.

Edit, responses such as, "this is the new status quo" sounds like a lazy response, and reliance on, "well everyone else is doing it...". I dont care what everyone else is doing. Explain to me why rehashed, mischaracterized stories need to be re-told, but with Jane instead of Thor?

[THORPERION]

I do believe her story is about discovering who Thor is. But it is a self discovery for Jane and an exploration for the reader. Aaron is asking questions about Thor, Jane is answering some of them for us through her actions. The point of the story is to get to the heart of what it means to be Thor partly by removing elements that allow us to take those ideas for granted. This is why complaining about Thor being a name not a title totally misses the point, Aaron is removing that simple answer. Being Thor is not just about being born Odin’s son or being the Prince of Asgard.

If the lesson was primarily aimed at Thor then why have him kidnapped and moved entirely out of range of the message for most of her story?

See? In that very response you hit on why we don’t like this story. If this is a story “exploring” Thor, then she is only a receptacle. This is in no way “her” story because it’s a Thor story and HE cannot be defined by her. What you are saying is that Thor is a concept. Just a “force” or whatever and he is not. In no history of this character had that ever been the case! Wielding and being are two very different things. No one, other than Thor, whether they used the name or not, was actually Thor. Neither was this alleged “goddess of thunder” who died with the MofS as far as I’m concerned.

Your own attempt at an explanation defeats you. Just say I like her better than Thor and that’s it! All this circular conjecture to come back to the same point: there is no lesson about what Thor is at all. The answer is in the history.

Thor is a god. He was born so. That makes him Thor. His father bonded his Asgardian power to the hammer to punish him for his pride. Others have been able to lift the hammer and wield his power. But, there is no “Thor” without him! That’s like saying Christianity is someone else’s concept now because of time and blah blah blah. No matter what the argument CHRISTianity exists only because of CHRIST. There is no secret to THOR. Thor is Thor. Everyone else is a simple representative. There’s no going around it.

”Being Thor is not just about being born Odin’s son or being the Prince of Asgard.”

According to all previous history and, ironically, even to this story, (since the power originates from him), oh yes it is!

You have failed, respectably, to come up with the answer you claimed was going to be evident at the end of the tale. The “clear” story of what makes Thor, Thor. Since you now allude that even if Thor had never been born there’d still be a Thor, tell us where does IT come from? We’re at the end. The answer was, according to you, going to be evident. What is it? What is “Thor”?

[The Cool Thatguy]

Generally speaking, I'm a big fan of Aaron's run overall because he brought the mythos behind Thor to the forefront. The Nine.. ahem Ten realms, the fantastical heroes and menaces, and most importantly the family dynamic between the gods i.e. he familial issues with Thor and his cohorts. Moreover, people tend to forget that in ancient myth the heroes always have to do a trial to prove their worth (see Herakles and his 12 labors) and being a history buff I love it. Thor must be brought down before he can rise again.

Specifically for Jane, she was the exemplar of what Thor needs to be. Thor was a born deity, so he took it for granted; Jane became worthy because of her character. She wanted to be the goddess that was mortal and became immortal; yet she gave it up when it was needed against the Mangog. Thor in turn took her lead and sacrificed himself to win the War of The Realms. .

Here's the thing, though.

Thor's fall? It was poorly executed. He fell because two people held the same opinion.

His rise? Defacto, because he was the only Thor left after Jane destroyed the hammer.

Thor willing to sacrifice himself isn't something he needs to learn. This Thor? His career as a hero started when he rose from his hubris.

Aaron wrote Hercules and Zeus in place of Thor and Odin.

Jane with the hammer, IMO, was never Jane with the hammer. It was just a female Thor, doing what regular Thor would have done. The right thing because it is the right thing.

I'm bias, but can anyone give me some character beats of Jane that were hers and hers alone? I don't recall her using her medical knowledge in combat, or much elsewhere. When Volstagg went mad with grief because the elf children he protected were killed, she never seemed to relate to him as one parent to another.

Other than cancer and dying, what did Jane add/bring to her tenor as Thor?

[Wall-Crawler]

Thor: God of Thunder (2012) #12, by Aaron and Klein.

Thanks for the info

[kilderkin]

See? In that very response you hit on why we don’t like this story. If this is a story “exploring” Thor, then she is only a receptacle. This is in no way “her” story because it’s a Thor story and HE cannot be defined by her. What you are saying is that Thor is a concept. Just a “force” or whatever and he is not. In no history of this character had that ever been the case! Wielding and being are two very different things. No one, other than Thor, whether they used the name or not, was actually Thor. Neither was this alleged “goddess of thunder” who died with the MofS as far as I’m concerned.

Your own attempt at an explanation defeats you. Just say I like her better than Thor and that’s it! All this circular conjecture to come back to the same point: there is no lesson about what Thor is at all. The answer is in the history.

Thor is a god. He was born so. That makes him Thor. His father bonded his Asgardian power to the hammer to punish him for his pride. Others have been able to lift the hammer and wield his power. But, there is no “Thor” without him! That’s like saying Christianity is someone else’s concept now because of time and blah blah blah. No matter what the argument CHRISTianity exists only because of CHRIST. There is no secret to THOR. Thor is Thor. Everyone else is a simple representative. There’s no going around it.

”Being Thor is not just about being born Odin’s son or being the Prince of Asgard.”

According to all previous history and, ironically, even to this story, (since the power originates from him), oh yes it is!

You have failed, respectably, to come up with the answer you claimed was going to be evident at the end of the tale. The “clear” story of what makes Thor, Thor. Since you now allude that even if Thor had never been born there’d still be a Thor, tell us where does IT come from? We’re at the end. The answer was, according to you, going to be evident. What is it? What is “Thor”?

To suggest that anyone is Thor other than Thor himself (alternate universe and such aside) is nonsense

Aaron might keep trying to push this idea

But it's totally ridiculous and even his own internal logic betrays it

The inscription itself betrays this idea as does the history of the character

Power of Thor, not be Thor

Sure there was a fuzzy bit where Blake was a human turned into Thor, but that was quickly corrected by the creators of the character

Eric was clearly not Thor even though there was some weird spirit soul jarring going on, bill wasn't, cap wasn't

Aston trying to ship this idea with plot sticks like malekeths enchantment don't alter the fundamental truth of the characters mythos, on the printed page

If they were a a actually Thor the god, they would still be without the hammer, just like the real one is

That doesn't mean any of them are not worthy weilders nor less the hero, in some ways knowing if you lose the hammer and still going for it is epicly heroic, and loving those characters is totally cool

But they are all, in one way or another, pretenders and not the real deal

[Wall-Crawler]

There is a BIG difference. Hickman builds on history. Aaron does not. Bringing in “old toys” does not a [Thor] historian make. Biggest difference: look at Thor’s portrayal in Hickman’s Avengers tale! No arm. No hammer. Thor is still Thor. And that’s where Aaron and his story fell flat on their faces. If there is ONE thing about Thor it’s that nothing, no matter how tough, or bad, PARTICULARLY when it comes to himself stops him from being the HERO. Hickman got it. Even when he didn’t put him in that position. And “Gorr was right” is nothing to be depressed about. The fact that Thor fights for humanity and against foes without selfish need is enough for Gorr’s opinion to be rendered laughable.

Man, I love what Hickman did with Thor on the Avengers book, we had an Unworthy Thor, but one who despite that, always fought the good fight, always did what was right and faced the problems face to face, even with impossible odds, which ultimately led him to be worthy once more before his death against the Beyonders, now that's the greatness we could have had from a story with an Unworthy Thor, because the idea that Aaron had wasn't bad, it was his execution that was awful, but Hickman took that concept and made it a great story, a great little arc for Thor in the big scale epic that was his Avengers book, and he got way more development and character growth than in the entirety of Aaron's run.

When Thor became worthy just prior to fighting the Beyonders, that felt EARNED, it felt logical and the natural progress of the story.....War of the Realms, not so much.

[Snoop Dogg]

Masterson was called Thor even when it was known he was not Thor, Norvell outright replaced Thor and was just the anti-Jane who had Odin's favor, Dargo is just the Thor of the future, taking the power and therefore taking the name has been established since the 70's.

[GodThor]

See? In that very response you hit on why we don’t like this story. If this is a story “exploring” Thor, then she is only a receptacle. This is in no way “her” story because it’s a Thor story and HE cannot be defined by her. What you are saying is that Thor is a concept. Just a “force” or whatever and he is not. In no history of this character had that ever been the case! Wielding and being are two very different things. No one, other than Thor, whether they used the name or not, was actually Thor. Neither was this alleged “goddess of thunder” who died with the MofS as far as I’m concerned.

Your own attempt at an explanation defeats you. Just say I like her better than Thor and that’s it! All this circular conjecture to come back to the same point: there is no lesson about what Thor is at all. The answer is in the history.

Thor is a god. He was born so. That makes him Thor. His father bonded his Asgardian power to the hammer to punish him for his pride. Others have been able to lift the hammer and wield his power. But, there is no “Thor” without him! That’s like saying Christianity is someone else’s concept now because of time and blah blah blah. No matter what the argument CHRISTianity exists only because of CHRIST. There is no secret to THOR. Thor is Thor. Everyone else is a simple representative. There’s no going around it.

”Being Thor is not just about being born Odin’s son or being the Prince of Asgard.”

According to all previous history and, ironically, even to this story, (since the power originates from him), oh yes it is!

You have failed, respectably, to come up with the answer you claimed was going to be evident at the end of the tale. The “clear” story of what makes Thor, Thor. Since you now allude that even if Thor had never been born there’d still be a Thor, tell us where does IT come from? We’re at the end. The answer was, according to you, going to be evident. What is it? What is “Thor”?

Yep, so much this.

[Frontier]

Maybe a question Jason Aaron asked himself when writing this was "Can an immortal have a midlife crisis?" or "Can a god have a crisis of faith?" Even though Thor looks young-ish, he's millennia old, and he had a really strong sense of who he was, until the whisper, when he became unworthy he lost himself, he lost faith in himself and Jane had to become Thor, to remind Thor of who he was.

See, but the problem is, if you're going to write such a monumental hurdle for a character to deal with at this point in their life, I feel you need to make it more believable then Aaron did with the Whisper.

Fury should not have been the one to accomplish making Thor Unworthy with a whisper.

If the lesson was primarily aimed at Thor then why have him kidnapped and moved entirely out of range of the message for most of her story?

To write him out of the book so Jane could strut her stuff more?

I'm bias, but can anyone give me some character beats of Jane that were hers and hers alone? I don't recall her using her medical knowledge in combat, or much elsewhere. When Volstagg went mad with grief because the elf children he protected were killed, she never seemed to relate to him as one parent to another.

Other than cancer and dying, what did Jane add/bring to her tenor as Thor?

I think the main thrust of it was the feminist and female empowerment perspective.

But I will always be really miffed that one of Thor's closest allies and friends goes through such a change and ordeal like Volstagg did...and Thor has virtually no meaningful role in stopping and or helping him. I mean, he was right there. I know Volstagg and Jane were on the Council of Realms and stuff but that's a few months versus all the time Thor's been with Volstagg. It just didn't make sense to me.

[kilderkin]

Masterson was called Thor even when it was known he was not Thor, Norvell outright replaced Thor and was just the anti-Jane who had Odin's favor, Dargo is just the Thor of the future, taking the power and therefore taking the name has been established since the 70's.

All of this is true,but in these cases it was clear they were not actually Thor, just using the name as a temporary replacement

Red was literally designed by Odin to be a sacrifice replacement

Eric often acknowledges internally he isn't the real deal, as I mentioned there was some weird soul jarring thing going on to help there in mythos, Odin bonding the two beings, about as close to being the real deal as possible I suppose

Dargo again wasn't really Thor, just assumed the mantle

In all those cases and others, it was clearly written on page that these were not really Thor, nor really an Asgardian god

More intrinsically, the real Thor never had his own identity stripped in those arcs, in all prior cases lifting the hammer granted you the power but did get written as you being truly thor

[THORPERION]

Man, I love what Hickman did with Thor on the Avengers book, we had an Unworthy Thor, but one who despite that, always fought the good fight, always did what was right and faced the problems face to face, even with impossible odds, which ultimately led him to be worthy once more before his death against the Beyonders, now that's the greatness we could have had from a story with an Unworthy Thor, because the idea that Aaron had wasn't bad, it was his execution that was awful, but Hickman took that concept and made it a great story, a great little arc for Thor in the big scale epic that was his Avengers book, and he got way more development and character growth than in the entirety of Aaron's run.

When Thor became worthy just prior to fighting the Beyonders, that felt EARNED, it felt logical and the natural progress of the story.....War of the Realms, not so much.

SO MUCH SO! That ending with him and Hyperion.....man! You have no idea how proud I was of my boy! No idea!
I’ll NEVER BE ABLE TO THANK HICKMAN ENOUGH!

Now, since Marvel hates Thor so much, they should've let him die there and then and move forward with the “girl power” thing. Then, we could just bow out, ignore it, and let it be. But, I will never stand by and let a favorite legendary character I grew up with be crapped on like that without letting the supporters of such disrespect know that we’re not all ignorant sheep. We know the history. We didn’t jump on the train for a short ride in which all the classic beats are being repeated badly with a social progress swing.

If this is a story about “being Thor” why is everything spun into the feminine? This is no attack on women. This is truth. Last time I checked superhero women can deck a bad fella just as good as a guy! So, why Titania’s commentary? Why Surtura? Why Cursa? Why did Odin have to BEAT, yes BEAT the Mother of Storms into submission? Then lock her up against her will. Why can’t a woman rule ASGARD? Why the insults from the female goddesses about the “patriarchy”? Why is Thor a cheater? Why is a lacking mother allowed to rant about the death of her son and blame a god for it when she is his primary caretaker? I need an answer to this because this is the ONLY recurring theme in this entire tale. The only answer I get is “you’re sexist.” “You’re not reading it right.” “You don’t see the real meaning!” Well, I’m sorry but I just delineated the main examples of what this story is built on. It’s not about clarifying “what Thor is”. It’s about replacing him, disrespectfully with a woman. That’s what this story was about: replacing the masculine with the feminine in the MOST POWERFUL MALE HERO’S MYTHOS. I’m surprised Mangog wasn’t revealed to be a lady and renamed SHEGOG!

I’ve read almost every post of those in favor of this story. Everyone is entitled to their likes and dislikes. However, the answers given gloss over everything and attempt to cover the truth of the stories intent. There was no purpose to the unworthy story other than to humiliate and replace Thor. As has been said here by many of us, nothing was added to his character other than that the most noble and valiant of heroes is really a drunken dirt bag and a human lady shows him/them how much greater she is and smarter she is than they. There is no counter point to this. What did she teach Thor about self sacrifice? Nothing. Thor wrote the book on that and on being heroic even in defeat. She “inspired” Thor? Gods don’t need inspiration but there is the atheist popping up. It’s funny how everyone then attacks with “it’s just a fictional character” but so is Jane and if you insult her you’re banned for intolerance. By those standards “the Mighty Thor” series should be banned from the forums for the slander it has done to another fictional character, it’s nod and wink insult to religion, and underhanded hit at men.

I understand this whole empower women movement. I have sisters and had a mother I loved more than my own life but those are real world topics. This is fiction. Escapism. I have never done anything wrong to any woman. Nothing. I don’t need to come to my world of escapism after a hard days work and be lectured about things I don’t do. Worse, we have fake characteristics imbued into a character that has never demonstrated any of those flaws. Many people say it’s pathetic to argue defending a fictional character. Ok. Perhaps. But, if that’s true, then taking inspiration from another equally fictional character’s ascendancy and journey is equally pathetic.

[THORPERION]

All of this is true,but in these cases it was clear they were not actually Thor, just using the name as a temporary replacement

Red was literally designed by Odin to be a sacrifice replacement

Eric often acknowledges internally he isn't the real deal, as I mentioned there was some weird soul jarring thing going on to help there in mythos, Odin bonding the two beings, about as close to being the real deal as possible I suppose

Dargo again wasn't really Thor, just assumed the mantle

In all those cases and others, it was clearly written on page that these were not really Thor, nor really an Asgardian god

More intrinsically, the real Thor never had his own identity stripped in those arcs, in all prior cases lifting the hammer granted you the power but did get written as you being truly thor

Beat me to it! Well said!

[charliehustle415]

I do believe her story is about discovering who Thor is. But it is a self discovery for Jane and an exploration for the reader. Aaron is asking questions about Thor, Jane is answering some of them for us through her actions. The point of the story is to get to the heart of what it means to be Thor partly by removing elements that allow us to take those ideas for granted. This is why complaining about Thor being a name not a title totally misses the point, Aaron is removing that simple answer. Being Thor is not just about being born Odin’s son or being the Prince of Asgard.

If the lesson was primarily aimed at Thor then why have him kidnapped and moved entirely out of range of the message for most of her story?

Ah, I like this intriguing point of view; so we are exploring Thor's mythos via Jane by removing Thor Odinson.

I like this interpretation a lot.

Hmmm.. I gotta chew on this nugget for a bit...

[JKtheMac]

See? In that very response you hit on why we don’t like this story.

except this wasn’t in response to you.

If this is a story “exploring” Thor, then she is only a receptacle.

Jane’s story treats that as a question not an assertion. Just because you already have your own answer to it doesn’t mean it is invalid to write a story asking questions about it.

This is in no way “her” story because it’s a Thor story and HE cannot be defined by her.

It’s plainly her story, and I never said he could be defined by her.

What you are saying is that Thor is a concept. Just a “force” or whatever and he is not. In no history of this character had that ever been the case!

Before Kirby put a line to the page, before Lee thought about using a god, Thor was a Norse God. That is a concept. An idea of human psychology, the idea of Thunder in its entirety anthropomorphised into a human like figure with great power, so that humans could deal with the concept in stories that helped them order the world around them. So of course Thor is a concept.

Wielding and being are two very different things. No one, other than Thor, whether they used the name or not, was actually Thor. Neither was this alleged “goddess of thunder” who died with the MofS as far as I’m concerned.

Well the story disagrees with you. If you don’t like the story and you didn’t spend money on it what’s the problem?

Your own attempt at an explanation defeats you. Just say I like her better than Thor and that’s it! All this circular conjecture to come back to the same point: there is no lesson about what Thor is at all. The answer is in the history.

Your projection on what I am saying and how I feel is utterly wrong. I don’t like Jane more than Thor. I am seriously considering trade waiting Valkyrie because I am not as interested as I was when her story was a Thor story.

Thor is a god. He was born so. That makes him Thor.

Maybe. He was certainly born a thunder god, Aaron is very clear about that. Things are not so simple and all this story does is raise questions, but nowhere does it say he doesn’t have this birthright. Mjolnir was not his birthright in Marvel lore. He became a god of worthiness by the back door. It was never acknowledged fully that this was part of what he was a god of. Now it is fully acknowledged.

His father bonded his Asgardian power to the hammer to punish him for his pride.

Actually, this is not quite so simple either. Aaron didn’t explore this, but canonically at least part of the reason that we have this ‘sent to Earth’ story was about hiding Thor so he could avoid a prophecy of his premature death before he could play his part in Ragnarok. The story of Mjolnir is still being told in Avengers and we haven’t had an answer yet. It may be that Aaron won’t change this element too much. He may not even touch on it again. He didn’t directly contradict anything you are asserting.

Others have been able to lift the hammer and wield his power. But, there is no “Thor” without him!

Again, not quite so simple. It seems to depend on circumstance. Different things happen in different circumstances. In this circumstance a mortal lifted the hammer with the express purpose of taking up a mantle. We saw what happened. She transformed into Thor.

That’s like saying Christianity is someone else’s concept now because of time and blah blah blah. No matter what the argument CHRISTianity exists only because of CHRIST.

I am not touching that. It’s a stretch that this has anything whatsoever to do with the story. I have no desire to bore Christians with my agnostic perspective of Christ. I can do that with my Christian friends with a glass of wine and gauge the mood. I can’t do that here.

There is no secret to THOR. Thor is Thor. Everyone else is a simple representative. There’s no going around it.

One way of ‘getting around it’ is to write a story that asks the question. Nobody said it was a secret. But what Aaron did say was Jane transformed into Thor. However he did this in such a way that those that don’t accept it can rationalise it in different ways. You are entirely free to dismiss the run and interpret it your own way.

”Being Thor is not just about being born Odin’s son or being the Prince of Asgard.”

I believe I already answered this point above.

You have failed, respectably, to come up with the answer you claimed was going to be evident at the end of the tale.

I have no idea what you are asserting here. I made no attempt to convince anyone of anything. This was a conversation with someone that has actually invested in the product and thereby has bought into the story. That’s part of actually paying for things. Not paying and then moaning is somewhat pointless don’t you think? Nobody was taking your money. I have no reason to try and convince you what the story was about because you clearly are not invested in the story or what it is saying.

The “clear” story of what makes Thor, Thor. Since you now allude that even if Thor had never been born there’d still be a Thor, tell us where does IT come from? We’re at the end. The answer was, according to you, going to be evident. What is it? What is “Thor”?

Now you are twisting what I am saying entirely. I made no such claims of profound secrets. I have always said the opposite, that the ‘deeper meaning’ is there on the page for anyone that wants to invest their time and enthusiasm to enjoy it.