Thor Odinson, God of Thunder Appreciation 2019

[JKtheMac]

I'd say Aaron certainly deconstructed Thor - he pulled the component parts of the character apart and looked at them with a very cynical eye, turning Thor into something quite different from the hero of old. I mean, I think I get what you're saying, but I don't think it's wrong to call what Aaron did "deconstruction".

It is meaningless to call it deconstruction. Deconstruction is a way of reading not of writing. What you are describing wouldn’t be deconstruction but even then you are bringing your own bias to that description. There is nothing cynical about Aaron at all.

He is analysing the component parts, but in a post structural, postmodern manner, nothing about it is deconstruction. You could perhaps argue he turns an eye to a deconstructionist reader, in that he recognises he is blurring lines between for example masculinity and femininity. But that is still post structural.

The point of his analysis of Thor is not to ambiguate meaning but to clarify it. He is teasing stories out of the vagaries and discontinuity of Thor. That’s an essentially optimistic approach to comics. That the problems can be made into entertainment and in passing removed or made less problematic.

Well you really like Aaron's writing and have a lot of faith in him, and perhaps more to the point, your idea of Thor is different to my idea of Thor. Also I'm a pessimist and see a quite different direction for Odinson - I've always said that the sentient hammer storyline is to help permanently sever Mjolnir from Thor Odinson and legitimise Jane's claim on the hammer, whilst you have said several times that Aaron is obviously setting Mjolnir up as the bad-guy. We'll just have to see how it plays out.

Nobody is going to sever Mjölnir from Thor. That isn’t pessimism that’s abandoning reason. Like saying Captain America will permanently loose his super serum, or Hulk will never turn back to Banner ever again. If you believe Mjölnir is gone for good then you are ignoring the fact that it is still in the story in the future and you are wilfully forgetting how comics work.

It probably depends on what you'd call "old fashioned." I do think when it comes to long-running Marvel characters the writer should be aware that they're less important than the character, and I know you feel the opposite. When it comes down to it we all just want a writer who'll give us stories we'll love.

Nothing to do with this. He is just not a modern writer. He doesn’t write about the modern world.

[charliehustle415]

It is meaningless to call it deconstruction. Deconstruction is a way of reading not of writing. What you are describing wouldn’t be deconstruction but even then you are bringing your own bias to that description. There is nothing cynical about Aaron at all.

He is analysing the component parts, but in a post structural, postmodern manner, nothing about it is deconstruction. You could perhaps argue he turns an eye to a deconstructionist reader, in that he recognises he is blurring lines between for example masculinity and femininity. But that is still post structural.

The point of his analysis of Thor is not to ambiguate meaning but to clarify it. He is teasing stories out of the vagaries and discontinuity of Thor. That’s an essentially optimistic approach to comics. That the problems can be made into entertainment and in passing removed or made less problematic.



Nobody is going to sever Mjölnir from Thor. That isn’t pessimism that’s abandoning reason. Like saying Captain America will permanently loose his super serum, or Hulk will never turn back to Banner ever again. If you believe Mjölnir is gone for good then you are ignoring the fact that it is still in the story in the future and you are wilfully forgetting how comics work.

Nothing to do with this. He is just not a modern writer. He doesn’t write about the modern world.

I'd have to disagree "deconstructing" is absolutely a way of writing.

Aaron, deconstructed what it means to be "Worthy" it is no longer simple feats of strength or piety; it is all that and .....

For Jane it was mental fortitude and the desire to do good which made her worthy, yet that is not enough for Thor himself because he had what Jane has in spades; except for mental fortitude which he lost because of The God Butcher.

[Frontier]

Aaron, deconstructed what it means to be "Worthy" it is no longer simple feats of strength or piety; it is all that and .....

For Jane it was mental fortitude and the desire to do good which made her worthy, yet that is not enough for Thor himself because he had what Jane has in spades; except for mental fortitude which he lost because of The God Butcher.

I don't think being Worthy was ever really defined that way to begin with. I thought it was pretty clear that it was Thor's noble and compassionate nature that made him Worthy, not his physical strength, that's why somebody like Cap (who isn't in Thor's weight class ordinarily) could lift the hammer.

I thought Thor came out of the original God Butcher arc with plenty mental fortitude, but I guess Nick Fury's "whisper attack" was Super Effective...

[Paradox_Nihil]

It is meaningless to call it deconstruction. Deconstruction is a way of reading not of writing. What you are describing wouldnÂ’t be deconstruction but even then you are bringing your own bias to that description. There is nothing cynical about Aaron at all.

He is analysing the component parts, but in a post structural, postmodern manner, nothing about it is deconstruction. You could perhaps argue he turns an eye to a deconstructionist reader, in that he recognises he is blurring lines between for example masculinity and femininity. But that is still post structural.

I disagree, but, then, it's almost an implied motive on these forums! I mean, my disagreement with your opinions. And I don't have time or will to argue in detail, not in this place, when I don't have much interest in Marvel or DC or post-modern approach to 'characters', who are not characters at all, but merely icons, or database entries, and frequently not even that in any sensible or cohesive manner. And I am not interested in discussing artists' or writers' intentions. The road to aesthetic hell is paved with good intentions. What am I doing here, then? Well, I have interest in the worlds and the plots and the visual dimension, the last being the heart of the comics by definition. The comic can be only as good as its 'art' is, regardless of the white pages full of text that precede it. So, naturally, I have no desire to put so much effort in discussion of a work of the writer, and ignore everything else. And if I had, I would rather talk about Scalped. Because, Aaron is indeed a skilled (comics) writer, but that fact does not diminish everything I've already said.

When someone takes a name, and makes it 'behave' like a title, something that can be moved between persons, than he/she obviously goes into the territory of deconstruction. Aaron is not just a writer, he is also a reader of older stories. An interpreter of the mythos, if you will.

[JKtheMac]

I'd have to disagree "deconstructing" is absolutely a way of writing.

Aaron, deconstructed what it means to be "Worthy" it is no longer simple feats of strength or piety; it is all that and .....

For Jane it was mental fortitude and the desire to do good which made her worthy, yet that is not enough for Thor himself because he had what Jane has in spades; except for mental fortitude which he lost because of The God Butcher.

It is occasionally used as a buzzword, but it’s the wrong word. If you search for it you will find a handful of people genuinely using this term as an approach to writing but importantly they don’t really agree with each other because it’s not actually a thing, or has not fully solidified. Partly because it gets confused with deconstructionism which is entirely different.

I agree with what you are describing, Aaron did break down and tease out thematic elements and used this process to look at how the parts work together. I also agree that some people recently, perhaps inspired by cooking shows, have begun to call this process deconstruction. Chefs do this with things like Black Forest Gateau, and they are equally using the wrong word. Language is annoyingly fluid and sometimes the wrong word just gets picked up in the culture. It sounds pseudo intellectual, because of its similarity to deconstructionism. Chefs don’t put the kirsch on the side as a dip because they are exploring what it signifies. They are just being playful and allowing the eater to join in the game.

Look at how that word deconstruction was introduced in this discussion. It was as a depowering. As a reduction. That isn’t a deconstruction. Making Thor unworthy was a process of undermining his world view fundamentally. Yes he made him unworthy to allow him to explore worthiness, but not to explore Thor Odinson’s worthiness at that moment. And it certainly isn’t about mental fortitude because he regained that first, yet he is still not worthy.

So yes you could use this misapplied or pilfered word to the process of separating out worthiness and playing with it separately to Odinson, but that isn’t what was meant by ‘Aaron deconstructed Thor and Priest could reconstruct him’. That is clearly referring to depowering and diminishing and then rebuilding.

If we are going to narrow in on what is going on with Thor himself, then it is patently obvious that Aaron will rebuild him. That’s his job as a writer of an IP he has on loan from Marvel. He is already beginning to rebuild him and has been doing so since he reintroduced him into the story. We will eventually get a story in which Thor redefines his own worthiness. Not through gritting his teeth or playing some mental trick that suggests his unworthiness was not real. It is very real. Some seemed to want that story during Jane’s run. That wasn’t what that story was about. Some seem to want it to happen immediately. But clearly Aaron has a long term plan that will come to fruition in The War of the Realms.

[JKtheMac]

I don't think being Worthy was ever really defined that way to begin with. I thought it was pretty clear that it was Thor's noble and compassionate nature that made him Worthy, not his physical strength, that's why somebody like Cap (who isn't in Thor's weight class ordinarily) could lift the hammer.

I thought Thor came out of the original God Butcher arc with plenty mental fortitude, but I guess Nick Fury's "whisper attack" was Super Effective...

Well yes, and we had an entire thread on this because so many people seemed convinced Aaron was somehow cheating. Fury’s words very clearly were extreamly effective but when the reader just doesn’t want them to be they seem to be able to come up with a dozen ways to call foul. That’s comic readers for you. They are always rejecting the premise of stories they don’t like.

[JKtheMac]

I disagree, but, then, it's almost an implied motive on these forums! I mean, my disagreement with your opinions. And I don't have time or will to argue in detail, not in this place, when I don't have much interest in Marvel or DC or post-modern approach to 'characters', who are not characters at all, but merely icons, or database entries, and frequently not even that in any sensible or cohesive manner. And I am not interested in discussing artists' or writers' intentions. The road to aesthetic hell is paved with good intentions. What am I doing here, then? Well, I have interest in the worlds and the plots and the visual dimension, the last being the heart of the comics by definition. The comic can be only as good as its 'art' is, regardless of the white pages full of text that precede it. So, naturally, I have no desire to put so much effort in discussion of a work of the writer, and ignore everything else. And if I had, I would rather talk about Scalped. Because, Aaron is indeed a skilled (comics) writer, but that fact does not diminish everything I've already said.

When someone takes a name, and makes it 'behave' like a title, something that can be moved between persons, than he/she obviously goes into the territory of deconstruction. Aaron is not just a writer, he is also a reader of older stories. An interpreter of the mythos, if you will.

I can’t disagree. But my problem with the word deconstruction as a simile for depowering is the issue. Because that was how it was being used. Then to explain that, it is sometimes necessary to go down the rabbit hole and explain my problem with the word in general as an approach to creativity. Aaron isn’t Iain Sinclair which is a good thing because if he was we would have a comic that nobody bought.

[comicscollector]

My choice to who should be the next writer in Thor is Peter David.
Peter David on the writing duties of Thor would be a great choice.

[Charlie_1981]

My choice to who should be the next writer in Thor is Peter David.
Peter David on the writing duties of Thor would be a great choice.

I think Gerry Duggan or Al Ewing would have more chances actually.

[JKtheMac]

My choice to who should be the next writer in Thor is Peter David.
Peter David on the writing duties of Thor would be a great choice.

His star seems to be waning a bit. Especially since he started moaning about his artists. He could do something interesting with Thor. In some ways he is quite similar in approach to JMS who I wish could have been kept onboard to finish his story. But does he have any interest in the character? At least with the Priest suggestion, he did write a single story about Thor which did explore some of the ideas of the comic.

It is always tricky, choosing a writer to tackle a favourite character. My first instinct is just choose people I like reading, but often they wouldn’t make a great choice. For example would Hickman make a good choice? Perhaps, if he was allowed to play in the wider realms and potentially redefine the title as an ensemble cast story. Is that what we want from a Thor book? Tom Taylor is one of my current favourites. Is he interested in Thor?

We might get Coates on Thor. What would that be like? What about a female writer? Have we even had one female tackle Thor for anything other than a short? If so who would want to tackle the character?

Marvel seem to have by chance used Thor writers on Star Wars. Perhaps because they are both quite complex and have fantasy elements. That could also point to Peter David, or perhaps Soule.

[comicscollector]

I think Gerry Duggan or Al Ewing would have more chances actually.

Al Ewing is writing such a great run in Immortal Hulk that i would just like to see him write Thor if he kept writing Immortal Hulk as well.
Gerry Duggan is the writer of many new comic books,so he is a good guess as well.

[comicscollector]

His star seems to be waning a bit. Especially since he started moaning about his artists. He could do something interesting with Thor. In some ways he is quite similar in approach to JMS who I wish could have been kept onboard to finish his story. But does he have any interest in the character? At least with the Priest suggestion, he did write a single story about Thor which did explore some of the ideas of the comic.

It is always tricky, choosing a writer to tackle a favourite character. My first instinct is just choose people I like reading, but often they wouldn’t make a great choice. For example would Hickman make a good choice? Perhaps, if he was allowed to play in the wider realms and potentially redefine the title as an ensemble cast story. Is that what we want from a Thor book? Tom Taylor is one of my current favourites. Is he interested in Thor?

We might get Coates on Thor. What would that be like? What about a female writer? Have we even had one female tackle Thor for anything other than a short? If so who would want to tackle the character?

Marvel seem to have by chance used Thor writers on Star Wars. Perhaps because they are both quite complex and have fantasy elements. That could also point to Peter David, or perhaps Soule.

Dunno,Peter David is writing a upcoming Spider-Man limited series.The Symbiote Spider-Man
I think Thor stories have that potential to be epic,and Peter David besides being a writer that writes stories with characters with much humantity he is a writer that i would say can write very well the more epic tone of the Thor stories.Peter David run in Hulk have me guessing that he could write Thor well.But you raise very good points.
Peter David is one of my favorites writers so i would like to read stories of Thor by him,but if he is a great choice for that.That´s something i don´t know.But Peter David was the first writer i remembered when thinking about who could be the next writer in Thor after Jason Aaron.

[Frontier]

Well yes, and we had an entire thread on this because so many people seemed convinced Aaron was somehow cheating. Fury’s words very clearly were extreamly effective but when the reader just doesn’t want them to be they seem to be able to come up with a dozen ways to call foul. That’s comic readers for you. They are always rejecting the premise of stories they don’t like.

Well, yeah. I still don't buy that the whisper, coming from who said it, would be enough to shake up Thor enough to put him in the mentality where he wasn't worthy enough to wield Mjolnir.

[charliehustle415]

It is occasionally used as a buzzword, but it’s the wrong word. If you search for it you will find a handful of people genuinely using this term as an approach to writing but importantly they don’t really agree with each other because it’s not actually a thing, or has not fully solidified. Partly because it gets confused with deconstructionism which is entirely different.

I agree with what you are describing, Aaron did break down and tease out thematic elements and used this process to look at how the parts work together. I also agree that some people recently, perhaps inspired by cooking shows, have begun to call this process deconstruction. Chefs do this with things like Black Forest Gateau, and they are equally using the wrong word. Language is annoyingly fluid and sometimes the wrong word just gets picked up in the culture. It sounds pseudo intellectual, because of its similarity to deconstructionism. Chefs don’t put the kirsch on the side as a dip because they are exploring what it signifies. They are just being playful and allowing the eater to join in the game.

Look at how that word deconstruction was introduced in this discussion. It was as a depowering. As a reduction. That isn’t a deconstruction. Making Thor unworthy was a process of undermining his world view fundamentally. Yes he made him unworthy to allow him to explore worthiness, but not to explore Thor Odinson’s worthiness at that moment. And it certainly isn’t about mental fortitude because he regained that first, yet he is still not worthy.

So yes you could use this misapplied or pilfered word to the process of separating out worthiness and playing with it separately to Odinson, but that isn’t what was meant by ‘Aaron deconstructed Thor and Priest could reconstruct him’. That is clearly referring to depowering and diminishing and then rebuilding.

If we are going to narrow in on what is going on with Thor himself, then it is patently obvious that Aaron will rebuild him. That’s his job as a writer of an IP he has on loan from Marvel. He is already beginning to rebuild him and has been doing so since he reintroduced him into the story. We will eventually get a story in which Thor redefines his own worthiness. Not through gritting his teeth or playing some mental trick that suggests his unworthiness was not real. It is very real. Some seemed to want that story during Jane’s run. That wasn’t what that story was about. Some seem to want it to happen immediately. But clearly Aaron has a long term plan that will come to fruition in The War of the Realms.

Ah, I see the issue.

For me I am using "deconstruction" in the literary sense one that doesn't equate deconstruction with anything negative or positive. I think the word "deconstruction" has a negative connotation because it means to "take apart" or to "destroy" but it can also be used a method to conduct meta-analysis on ideas, which I think what Aaron forces us, the readers, to do.

[JKtheMac]

Ah, I see the issue.

For me I am using "deconstruction" in the literary sense one that doesn't equate deconstruction with anything negative or positive. I think the word "deconstruction" has a negative connotation because it means to "take apart" or to "destroy" but it can also be used a method to conduct meta-analysis on ideas, which I think what Aaron forces us, the readers, to do.

Absolutely. I would just prefer to use a different term for that process, because of the associated confusion it brings.