Page 56 of 181 FirstFirst ... 64652535455565758596066106156 ... LastLast
Results 826 to 840 of 2703
  1. #826
    Ultimate Member JKtheMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bedford UK
    Posts
    10,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Somecrazyaussie View Post
    So, who do you think is taking over writing duties on Thor now that Aaron is finishing up?

    Well we have discussed this at length, but he isn’t finishing yet. The July solicitation says this is the beginning of his final arc, but his arcs tend to last for a while. I imagine it will run to at least #18 but it could be longer. I am more intrigued by what his new status quo is, and whether that will change by the end of the run.

    P.S. Reading between the lines #15 looks like the last issue in that particular trade so despite the ‘new status quo’ spin the last arc probably begins properly in #16 and if it’s just one trade that has to run until at least #20. They said they were negotiating his end so that may have been a discussion over one trade or two.
    Last edited by JKtheMac; 04-19-2019 at 05:20 AM.

  2. #827
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,341

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JKtheMac View Post
    See this is what Aaron likes to do when he explores masculinity. He doesn’t necessarily treat the men as misogynistic, he digs in and explains why people act that way. Not necessarily as an excuse, but by way of explanation. Indeed masculinity is his major theme in comics across his various titles. He is interested in male characters who are flawed and trying to understand them. My best advice if you really want to see things from Aaron’s angle is to read his non-marvel work for context.

    By writing Thor and Odin this way he is not denigrating them he is doing what he does, exploring interesting characters and digging into their psyche. He is saying ‘you may not have considered this before, but Thor never takes worthiness for granted, and how he deals with that is a facet of his personality’. Not ‘Thor is obsessed with hammers’ that is just an apparent outworking of the circumstance. He is saying ‘Odin is nowhere near as confident or assured in his own power as he tries to appear’ not ‘Odin is a misogynist’ that is a current symptom of his loosing a grip on his status and his fears.

    Effectively he is a Shakespeare acolyte, but without as many monologues. He wants us to understand his characters because everything they say and do is born out of their perspective on the world. His plots are generated from character, his drama is generated from characters with different perspectives and from characters with realistic and identifiable flaws.
    Yeah - if it walks and quakes like a duck, often enough it’s just a duck.

    Aaron writes Odin as talking and acting like a misogynist. So saying, he’s not really a misogynist, he just talks and acts like one when he’s feeling insecure makes little sense. He also pictures him as frequently drunk as a matter of history, not current circumstance.

    It’s true characters evolve, and I am pretty damn sure the success of the show Vikings has had an effect on how these characters are written. What’s interesting is that while he feels free to explore the deep and interesting flaws of his male characters, his female characters tend NOT to get the same kind of treatment. Unless you count Jane having the flaw of being “too heroic” and Freya being saddled with “to wise and modern”
    If ten years of recording The Young and the Restless for my mother have taught me anything, it's that characters in serial dramas are always happily in love...until they're not

    “The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.” - the 4th Doctor

  3. #828
    Ultimate Member JKtheMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bedford UK
    Posts
    10,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brettc1 View Post
    Yeah - if it walks and quakes like a duck, often enough it’s just a duck.

    Aaron writes Odin as talking and acting like a misogynist. So saying, he’s not really a misogynist, he just talks and acts like one when he’s feeling insecure makes little sense. He also pictures him as frequently drunk as a matter of history, not current circumstance.
    Well if you only look at the surface level of a character you are never going to like Aaron. That’s not where he puts the work in.

    What’s interesting is that while he feels free to explore the deep and interesting flaws of his male characters, his female characters tend NOT to get the same kind of treatment. Unless you count Jane having the flaw of being “too heroic” and Freya being saddled with “to wise and modern”
    I entirely disagree but I have argued this to death about Jane in every single issue post I made for the run. If you want to see her as a Mary Sue then I can’t stop you, I can only point out why she doesn’t fit that criteria. It is a shame, because you are missing out on appreciating a great modern comic book character.

    It just isn’t true that his female characters are not flawed. You can see this most clearly in Freyja’s argument with Odin, where she did exactly the same as him and resorted to name calling and personal attacks instead of being the sensible one or being reasonable. They are equally stubborn and all along have equally misunderstood each other’s motivations.

  4. #829
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,341

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JKtheMac View Post
    Well if you only look at the surface level of a character you are never going to like Aaron. That’s not where he puts the work in.
    If an actual person acted and spoke the way Odin does about women, there would be no question.


    I entirely disagree but I have argued this to death about Jane in every single issue post I made for the run. If you want to see her as a Mary Sue then I can’t stop you, I can only point out why she doesn’t fit that criteria. It is a shame, because you are missing out on appreciating a great modern comic book character.

    It just isn’t true that his female characters are not flawed. You can see this most clearly in Freyja’s argument with Odin, where she did exactly the same as him and resorted to name calling and personal attacks instead of being the sensible one or being reasonable. They are equally stubborn and all along have equally misunderstood each other’s motivations.
    A Mary Sue is an entirely different animal. Please reserve your pity for those who need it.

    Odin is the ass who won’t lift a finger to stop Malekith for weeks, Freya is the one siding with Jane to do something. Squinting hard and saying Freya loses her temper while Odin letting worlds burn is an argument so thin you could split atoms with it

    On the plus side, Thor is finally front and center in the action.
    If ten years of recording The Young and the Restless for my mother have taught me anything, it's that characters in serial dramas are always happily in love...until they're not

    “The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.” - the 4th Doctor

  5. #830
    Mighty Member GodThor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    1,527

    Default

    I hope Aaron never writes Thor again after he leaves.

    I never saw this amount of bull*** in history of Thor.

    I hope someone comes in and retcons everything Aaron did and I hope Jane dies slowly and painfully by slicing her flesh slowly, ripping her eyes out, hands and legs being torn out slowly so that her screams can be heard throughout the Ten Realms.
    Last edited by GodThor; 04-19-2019 at 08:21 AM.

  6. #831
    Fantastic Member Alphaxman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    250

    Default

    Whoever takes over writing duties, I hope they return Thor to his proper glory, instead of being "Hercules-lite", clear up the Frigga/Freyja confusion, and do fewer Loki appearances... plus chill out Odin. Hopefully once he completes his Odinsleep,he'll be less of a jerk.
    But the main thing, I want to see more Lady Sif and brother Balder with his light powers. He's a son of Odin too and should be treated with more respect. I'm tired of seeing only Odin, Thor, Loki and the Enchantress as the only Asgardians with extra powers.

    But mainly... I want the Thor book to treat Jane/Valkyrie like Brunhilde, meaning: barely show her at all.

  7. #832
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    43,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alphaxman View Post
    Whoever takes over writing duties, I hope they return Thor to his proper glory, instead of being "Hercules-lite", clear up the Frigga/Freyja confusion, and do fewer Loki appearances... plus chill out Odin. Hopefully once he completes his Odinsleep,he'll be less of a jerk.
    But the main thing, I want to see more Lady Sif and brother Balder with his light powers. He's a son of Odin too and should be treated with more respect. I'm tired of seeing only Odin, Thor, Loki and the Enchantress as the only Asgardians with extra powers.

    But mainly... I want the Thor book to treat Jane/Valkyrie like Brunhilde, meaning: barely show her at all.
    Yeah, I hope the next writer - whoever they are - does more with Sif and makes good use of Balder now that he's back.

    And now that Jane has her own adventures I am perfectly comfortable not needing to see her in the main Thor book again.

  8. #833
    Ultimate Member JKtheMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bedford UK
    Posts
    10,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brettc1 View Post
    If an actual person acted and spoke the way Odin does about women, there would be no question.
    That is the entire point. Lots of people speak like this and act like this and they may be acting misogynistic but that doesn’t mean you know how they actually feel about women, and unexamined we will never address the issues. Stories are a way of examining this. Aaron has spent half of his career examining this.

    A Mary Sue is an entirely different animal.
    You were describing a Mary Sue, even if you were not using the name. You were claiming Jane’s only flaw was ‘too heroic’. That’s one of the standard definitions of this overused form of criticism.

    Regardless of your point I will make a more general one aimed at the way this keeps cropping up in the threads surrounding Thor and Jane.

    The problem with the Mary Sue criticism was best summed up by Camille Bacon-Smith, who pointed out that the paranoia of characters being labelled a Mary Sue was effectively stifling creativity. It so often gets directed at female characters and the definition has drifted to the point of restricting writers.

    I would go further and say the overuse of the label has until recently made it nearly impossible to write a powerful female superhero that wasn’t labelled a Mary Sue, precisely because the genre is one of wish fulfilment. They all had to somehow be damaged or flawed, or have undergone some deep seated trauma. Not actually reflective of normal women.

    Write a male wish fulfilment character and nobody bats an eyelid. Write a female wish fulfilment character and you get jumped on by armchair critics.
    Last edited by JKtheMac; 04-19-2019 at 10:39 AM.

  9. #834
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    43,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JKtheMac View Post
    That is the entire point. Lots of people speak like this and act like this and they may be acting misogynistic but that doesn’t mean you know how they actually feel about women, and unexamined we will never address the issues. Stories are a way of examining this. Aaron has spent half of his career examining this.
    I dunno. When Odin acts and talks the way he does and without much to really counterpoint it from it really does come across like he's misogynistic and does not have a very enlightened view of women.

    Like, if you don't take how a character treats or acts around women as indicative of how they actually feel about women, what do you go by?
    Regardless of your point I will make a more general one aimed at the way this keeps cropping up in the threads surrounding Thor and Jane.

    The problem with the Mary Sue criticism was best summed up by Camille Bacon-Smith, who pointed out that the paranoia of characters being labelled a Mary Sue was effectively stifling creativity. It so often gets directed at female characters and the definition has drifted to the point of restricting writers.

    I would go further and say the overuse of the label has until recently made it nearly impossible to write a powerful female superhero that wasn’t labelled a Mary Sue, precisely because the genre is one of wish fulfilment. They all had to somehow be damaged or flawed, or have undergone some deep seated trauma. Not actually reflective of normal women.

    Write a male wish fulfilment character and nobody bats an eyelid. Write a female wish fulfilment character and you get jumped on by armchair critics.
    I don't have a problem with female wish-fulfillment characters. I understand how important that is to Jane's popularity.

    I just also think it had a negative impact on Thor and his mythos. Decidedly in contrast to Jane Aaron's current Thor feels very much less of a "wish-fulfillment" character.

  10. #835
    Ultimate Member JKtheMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bedford UK
    Posts
    10,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    I dunno. When Odin acts and talks the way he does and without much to really counterpoint it from it really does come across like he's misogynistic and does not have a very enlightened view of women.

    Like, if you don't take how a character treats or acts around women as indicative of how they actually feel about women, what do you go by?
    Well a large fraction of the audience will just see it as him being annoying because he has been like that for ages: an antagonist for Thor. Some like me will read the subtext. It’s right there on the page, but it isn’t overtly signalled. I am not the only person that gets this. Many reviewers over the months have picked up on his psychological underpinnings. I don’t believe the story needs footnotes because of this main audience appeal, but for those that are skeptical perhaps footnotes would help.

  11. #836
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    5,505

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JKtheMac View Post
    That is the entire point. Lots of people speak like this and act like this and they may be acting misogynistic but that doesn’t mean you know how they actually feel about women, and unexamined we will never address the issues. Stories are a way of examining this. Aaron has spent half of his career examining this.

    You were describing a Mary Sue, even if you were not using the name. You were claiming Jane’s only flaw was ‘too heroic’. That’s one of the standard definitions of this overused form of criticism.

    Regardless of your point I will make a more general one aimed at the way this keeps cropping up in the threads surrounding Thor and Jane.

    The problem with the Mary Sue criticism was best summed up by Camille Bacon-Smith, who pointed out that the paranoia of characters being labelled a Mary Sue was effectively stifling creativity. It so often gets directed at female characters and the definition has drifted to the point of restricting writers.

    I would go further and say the overuse of the label has until recently made it nearly impossible to write a powerful female superhero that wasn’t labelled a Mary Sue, precisely because the genre is one of wish fulfilment. They all had to somehow be damaged or flawed, or have undergone some deep seated trauma. Not actually reflective of normal women.

    Write a male wish fulfilment character and nobody bats an eyelid. Write a female wish fulfilment character and you get jumped on by armchair critics.
    So if Jane isn't a Mary Sue, what were her flaws under Aaron?

  12. #837
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    43,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JKtheMac View Post
    Well a large fraction of the audience will just see it as him being annoying because he has been like that for ages: an antagonist for Thor. Some like me will read the subtext. It’s right there on the page, but it isn’t overtly signalled. I am not the only person that gets this. Many reviewers over the months have picked up on his psychological underpinnings. I don’t believe the story needs footnotes because of this main audience appeal, but for those that are skeptical perhaps footnotes would help.
    I would think a large fraction of the audience would view him probably as he is intended to be by Aaron and how he often comes off on the page...as a very unenlightened and hostile individual when it comes to women (and his kids).

    I don't think that has anything to do with Odin's role in the mythos prior. If people feels that is in-line with that role, then I guess that's their perogative, but it seems pretty clear to me how Aaron intends Odin to come off as.

    Me, personally, I don't think Aaron is completely incapable of using subtext but he's also pretty upfront on the page with what he's getting at. In general I don't find him a very subtle writer.

  13. #838
    Mighty Member GodThor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    1,527

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Cool Thatguy View Post
    So if Jane isn't a Mary Sue, what were her flaws under Aaron?
    she IS a Mary Sue.

    I'm pretty sure Odin will give her the Odinforce at the end of WotR and will say that she is the best All Mother Asgard has ever known... and Valkyrie.

  14. #839
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    5,505

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GodThor View Post
    she IS a Mary Sue.

    I'm pretty sure Odin will give her the Odinforce at the end of WotR and will say that she is the best All Mother Asgard has ever known... and Valkyrie.
    Eh, I'm on the fence, personally.

    But the fact of the matter is, that not being a mary sue does not make her a well developed character. It's not either or.

  15. #840
    Astonishing Member Panic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,035

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JKtheMac View Post
    You were describing a Mary Sue, even if you were not using the name. You were claiming Jane’s only flaw was ‘too heroic’. That’s one of the standard definitions of this overused form of criticism.

    Regardless of your point I will make a more general one aimed at the way this keeps cropping up in the threads surrounding Thor and Jane.

    The problem with the Mary Sue criticism was best summed up by Camille Bacon-Smith, who pointed out that the paranoia of characters being labelled a Mary Sue was effectively stifling creativity. It so often gets directed at female characters and the definition has drifted to the point of restricting writers.

    I would go further and say the overuse of the label has until recently made it nearly impossible to write a powerful female superhero that wasn’t labelled a Mary Sue, precisely because the genre is one of wish fulfilment. They all had to somehow be damaged or flawed, or have undergone some deep seated trauma. Not actually reflective of normal women.

    Write a male wish fulfilment character and nobody bats an eyelid. Write a female wish fulfilment character and you get jumped on by armchair critics.
    Of course the super-hero genre lends itself to overly-gifted demi-gods; as you have pointed out, it is a wish fulfilment genre.

    The issue with the current "Mary Sue" criticism is not, however, purely a gender-specific double standard coming into play, and I feel it is disingenuous to argue that it is. What we have got is a problem with what I will call "deconstruction" (I know you don't like the term in this context, but I don't have another label for it) in comic-books coexisting with what I will term "legend-building" (for want of a better label): on the one hand we have comic book writers arguing that heroes today need a greater level of complexity and perhaps moral ambiguity, more flaws and layers, great big feet of clay... but then for other heroes they change their mind and pile strength upon strength, glory upon glory. And when you have this double-standard happening with heroes sharing the same comic, when the gulf between the have and the have-nots looks like becoming a permanent fixture, then in a wish fulfilment genre where one wish fulfilment hero is no longer performing the function for which he or she was created, you are going to get complaints. You're going to get anger. And you are going to get cries of "this isn't fair". And it's not. It's perfectly fine for people to voice these complaints if they back them up with something.

    You are not hearing this complaint about Wonder Woman in the WW movie. The reason is that she is the only super-hero there, and is fighting her own specific enemies. Basically she's building her own world, she's supported by her own mythology, she's not getting a boost from anyone else's credibility. Ditto with Lara Croft (though her films have not been so good), ditto with Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I don't think Kamala Khan gets this criticism either.

    Mainly where the criticism is cropping up is where a hero such as Jane is appearing in an already defined mythology established around another hero or heroes, in this case Thor, and takes a level of prominence above the existing hero. You nearly always get criticism of this kind of thing regardless of gender - take a look at how the Sentry was received, hell, take a look at how Red Hulk was received - he came onto the scene and outshone all the established characters he came into contact with, mainly by being totally awesome while the pre-existing characters just became punching bags. It's a short-cut taken at the expense of someone else.

    I have complained a lot about this kind of thing. In a wish fulfilment genre such as Marvel makes their money out of, it is poison. You've got a genre originally aimed at empowering kids who got sand kicked in their faces, then you go kick sand in their faces. You are going to get complaints. Of course you are.

    I regularly complain about the level of deconstruction foisted on certain heroes, ones out of favour with the current writers. More and more I see it weaponised to clear one hero out of the way of a writer's favourite. It is a nasty short-cut to give a hero a boost in importance and popularity rather than slowly building up their own mythology. You can't pile on the negatives onto one hero when you have made it a highly competitive environment where the winner is the hero who is the most dominant, the most flawless, the smartest. Marvel have emphasised this over solid mythology building because it is quicker and easier for them, but readers are well aware of this, so now they scream at every loss their own favourites suffer, every new flaw grafted onto their hero, because it all adds up. You get too much and your hero will dwindle away to being a supporting player other heroes will wipe their boots on. This is modern Marvel, unfortunately.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •