And that would have been interesting to me if one, I hadn't seen the worthyness thing done before much more concisely and convincingly, two, the reason he was deemed unworthy was a valid and reasonable one, three, it didn't spend a good number of instances trying to make it look like he wasn't that good in the first place, four, he hadn't dragged it on for years and years to an ending I'd seen done close enough in another Ragnarok arc more convincingly and concisely
Of course opinions vary
To this day, I see no purpose in retconning Mjolnir, making it sentient and adding the god tempest to it, it's done absolutely nothing to the story.
And that’s always your stance. Which would be absolutely fine if you dropped the part that implies he did something badly.
A neutral version would be ‘clearly some people consider this well crafted but for my taste the elements didn’t build to something I could enjoy’. But there is always a hint in your self reflection that Aaron did something wrong in his hugely successful and for many satisfying run.
For you perhaps. For some of us it was always done very casually. I would be interested to know where you think it was done better. For me this is the benchmark for explorations of this issue. Done from multiple angles and built into an epic narrative.
When are you talking about specifically?two, the reason he was deemed unworthy was a valid and reasonable one,
This time was valid and reasonable for many of us. Some twisted it to mean an entirely different thing and then complained and resisted explanations that pointed out that wasn’t what was being said. That’s not on the writer, that’s on the interpretations placed on his book by often disgruntled fans looking for excuses to undermine it.
I never saw this happen. That’s a personal interpretation not a statement of fact.three, it didn't spend a good number of instances trying to make it look like he wasn't that good in the first place,
This wasn’t a Ragnarok arc, and it certainly wasn’t done before in any recognisable way. It has echoes and nods to Simonson, but the plot was entirely different.four, he hadn't dragged it on for years and years to an ending I'd seen done close enough in another Ragnarok arc more convincingly and concisely
Obviously. But saying that at the end doesn’t make your stance any less vague. ‘There were other non specific times this was done better’.Of course opinions vary
Last edited by JKtheMac; 09-01-2019 at 03:57 AM.
“And I urge you to please notice when you are happy, and exclaim or murmur or think at some point, 'If this isn't nice, I don't know what is.” ― Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
It was never about any of the things everyone criticised it for. It was clearly more aimed at explaining why Odin left it in the vaults for so long, and why it takes a thunder god to wield it properly. There are other elements that may still be explored in Avengers.
What it never was about was an entity choosing who was worthy, which so many seemed convinced by for no actual evidence in the story. It conveniently adds a shapeshifter element to the mix. The storm wanted to have agency and it whispered to people it felt could wield it, nothing more. You bring worthiness allowing you to lift it and if you are not already Thor it aids the transformation in a non-specific way.
There were also hints, not fully teased out, that it wanted to be free and apparently now it is, leaving only a remnant in the hammer. It may also be antagonistic to Odin, and actively worshipped by frost giants.
Being sentient added a layer to the temptation of Jane. Made it more visual and more immediate.
The choice was between old fashioned inner dialogue for Jane, ‘I must act, but I shouldn’t’ and a hammer floating there calling her to action. It’s a visual metaphor for her struggle.
Last edited by JKtheMac; 09-01-2019 at 04:16 AM.
“And I urge you to please notice when you are happy, and exclaim or murmur or think at some point, 'If this isn't nice, I don't know what is.” ― Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
Everything I said was my opinion, why I pointed that opinions vary, I would have felt we were able to infer it without it needing to be said, but I try to be helpful
The worthyness was explored in the ballad of beta ray bill story, nice, tight, concise, done, also in the original Lee Kirby work
The whisper being the catalyst for the unworthyness ( a different book I grant you but it was contacted and continued here), imo a deplorable move to have someone else hold the hammer, irrelevant to who that was or how they were written after that fact
It assuredly was a Ragnarok, it covers the fall of the home of the gods, asgardia at the time, the devastation of their culture, the realm war, the imminent confrontation with their doom, mangog, the impotency if their divinity in odins abasement, across the work all the themes are there
And imo it was done much better in the Thor dissasembled story, where Thor was in a position we had never seen before
And it didn't take years to get there with a lot of tangential and ultimately inconsequential side plots
Everything we say about our experience as a reader is a personal view in one way or another
I really would hope that it didn't need spelling out as such
Of course opinions vary
Last edited by kilderkin; 09-01-2019 at 09:02 AM.
And I was both seeking some elucidation on those views and challenging some of those opinions. Was there any doubt about that?
Yes it was all of those things. It also provoked more questions and left things very open IMO. It certainly opened the can of worms that has been explored many times over the years. A delightful can of worms, full of potential for stories like Aaron's and others.
Well at least that's clearly just an opinion and not a critique. You were implying it wasn't valid or reasonable, which goes beyond just opinion to a active disagreement with the work. One I don't think is justified personally, because from my perspective it is both valid and justified, both as a reason for a story and logically within the story. I have also gone on at length about why so I am sure you don't need me to expand on that again. Suffice to say, nothing I said back then has been contradicted by the story since, and much has reinforced it.
If that's how you define Ragnarok then fine. That's not how I would define Ragnarok. Regardless, this wasn't a repeat of a previous story, and certainly not the repeat of a Ragnarok story. It is its own story with its own meaning.
Well no wonder we disagree. That's my least favourite Thor story and one I try and forget ever happened.
If that was the purpose we wouldn't have had a scene where Thor contradicts this by musing about his power independent of the hammer, and we wouldn't have seen him wield that power later on in the story. So objectively, making the hammer sentient wasn't about that. The book itself tells us the exact opposite.
Last edited by JKtheMac; 09-01-2019 at 09:27 AM.
“And I urge you to please notice when you are happy, and exclaim or murmur or think at some point, 'If this isn't nice, I don't know what is.” ― Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
In re the storm on the hammer, I do feel that was the intended use of it, however whilst Thor might point out his powers independence that does not detract from what I feel (and some others) feel was its purpose and use
Irrespective of that, it's a small matter, I don't see it being an important part of the mythos much in the future
And hopefully will not be mentioned again by the next writer.
Well, I personally feel that he did not handle it well or as well as he could have. Others feel differently, and that's fair, but that's not how I feel or believe regarding the run.
Or it could just be more of Aaron's inconsistent storytelling.
Mjölnir being revealed to be sentient is to me as underwhelming as the X-Men's Danger Room being revealed to be sentient Likewise when the comicbook character Tony Stark's armor was revealed to be sentient.