Thor Odinson, God of Thunder Appreciation 2019

[Sutekh]

I feel like the central 'lesson' that Thor needed to learn from stuff like Gorr and this whole Unworthy business is that it doesn't matter that he's a *god,* because there are tons of gods, and many of them are useless schmucks, or even flat-out bad-guys.

What matters is not the circumstances of his birth.

What matters is the choices he makes. His choice to be a hero. His choice to leave behind a life of privilege and power as a prince of Asgard who lived in a castle with servants, to be an Avenger on Midgard. That's what makes him Thor, and not, say, Osiris, or Huitzilopochtli, or Raiden, or hundreds upon hundreds of other 'gods' who are either doing crap all for humanity, or, like Amora or Set (or, quite often, Loki or Cul), actively up to no good.

Where Aaron can be criticized is in taking too damn long to get to this point.

Deconstruction only works if the hero is built back up at the end (and Aaron does get props for not abandoning it after tearing the hero down, like every other deconstructionist writer seems to do, crapping all over the character they've been hired to write, and then wandering off without cleaning up their own mess), and this story has gone on way too long, IMO.

[GodThor]

Yes, Odin has been afraid of Mangog, I think you got me wrong or I didn't express myself right, he has indeed been afraid of Mangog, but he has never been a coward who hides and runs away from battle while his people are dying.

He was wary of Mangog before but never afraid.

[JKtheMac]

Wow, I just....I can't see it, this is a completely different character than the wise and benevolent king we came to know, I guess you didn't like or cared for that version, which is the only explanation I can find for someone to like this completely different version of the character, and that's not wrong or anything, but this is simply not the Odin pre-Ragnarok, and what irks me is that you constantly try to pretend it is.

From my perspective he has hardly ever been benevolent. I always saw him as dysfunctional, even in stories when the writer seemed to make excuses for him. Right from the beginning when Odin would be used as the pull towards duty and home as opposed to being a superhero, having a healthy relationship with a woman and being allowed to be himself. But this is partly because I am wired to read things structurally. Where some might read early Thor and see Odin as wanting different things but otherwise being a benevolent god, I read him as representing part of the internal conflict of Thor/Blake. Marvel always strived to have internal conflict in their characters. Who needs Kryptonite when you have a father who wants you to be something you don’t want.

For me Thor is not primarily a god he is a superhero. He belongs on earth or out in the cosmos, fighting the good fight. That’s not what Odin wants of him. He wants him to be his heir and to perform his duty. Sorry Odin, you don’t get to choose.

Without this conflict inside Thor he just isn’t Thor for me. It’s a vital part of what makes him distinct and interesting. So when writers come along and make him a powerful god who has a good relationship with his father and the Asgardians and has no pushback for also being a superhero who spends most of his time away, I get frustrated. I don’t want that.

I want to read Thor not The Adventures of the Prince of Asgard. This is also why I preferred Blake being around and don’t rate Simonson as highly as many seem to. Sure there was a lot of great story in the Simonson run, and he helped flesh out other aspects of the wider canon in wonderful ways, but not in the most important manner for me. He waved his quill and fixed the things that to me didn’t need fixing and effectively took that away for a very long time. In more modern books, Thor writers have finally recognised who Thor is with consistency. Probably partly due to better editors who have a better understanding of what their job is.

Yes, he kind of is, and that's a retcon, Odin was not drunk during Thor's birth, and yes, Odin has always had trouble confiding in people and expressing his love for Thor, but it never came to the point of them insulting each other, dimisnishing each other and almost killing each other, that's taking it to the extremes, and like I said, if you like it, that's fine, but don't act like this has precedent or is rooted in canon, because it is not, Aaron grabs some aspects and multiplies them by a million, this was never the relationship Thor and Odin had.

I act like this is canonical because that’s how canon works. Great writers get to reinterpret things for their age. Just as Simonson pushed things towards a more grand adventure and emphasised mythology, so has Aaron pushed Viking masculinity as a key to the canon. Yes it is a retcon, but it was ever thus. Beta-Ray Bill was technically a retcon, even though Simonson doesn’t like using that word to describe it. I enjoy comics because they have this mutability. The good ones adapt and change to tell relevant stories that mean something. That speak to us about the world we live in now. The bad ones stay the same and speak to us about the fifties, sixties etc.

How exactly do we know if Odin was drunk when Thor was born? We only ever get the story of Thor’s birth as stories within stories. Now we have it from the man himself. That’s canon now. It doesn’t directly contradict anything important. Just because we have some cosy looking pictures of Thor in swaddling being introduced to his father? That scene could still have happened. He just secretly had a hangover, or was still drunk.

[JKtheMac]

All writers bring their beliefs to their writing, but it becomes wrong when you turn characters into strawmen to express those beliefs, and that's exactly what Aaron's done.

Take Thor becoming unworthy, that Gorr was right (Gods all suck). Imagine if Gorr said the same about say, African Americans or Hispanics? We'd see it rightfully as racism, as disparaging an entire class of people, and 'confirming it' with Thor's unworthiness. But because it's regarding Gods (entirely fictional), it slides under the radar.

Really? You prove the straw-man by using a straw-man argument?

(and to be clear, I don't think it deserves the same outrage as if Gorr said the same of African Americans/Hispanics. No Asgardian/God has suffered real discrimination, 'cause they ain't real. But it still inhabits the same level of ignorance as actual racism).

Well at least you recognised you were using a straw-man. IMO your point is way off base however. I can’t see how anyone with a deep conviction for say Christianity would be offended by a serious attempt to explore what makes Thor, one of Marvel’s thinly disguised messiah figures, worthy.

Take Jane Thor. Traditionally, replacement characters are designed/used to show how heavy a burden it is to carry the legacy of the original (Just ask Walker). But we see Jane leap ahead of Thor, despite no real background in combat (vs. Thor's thousands of years) and everyone fawning over her. Even at the end of her arc, Thor is not restored, and still left in her shadow.

But that isn’t the story Aaron was telling. What’s your point? That there is only one replacement story? This replacement story was not about the burden, it was about what the legacy actually means.

And then take Aaron constantly showing Thor 'virtue signalling' with his hammer. For those who've not heard the term, 'virtue signalling' is an accusation atheists toss out against the religious, arguing that they themselves are not good to be good, but to get into heaven/not go to hell/to look down on others who are not pious (and to be clear, I think it a fair term to use on some).

Quite apart from us disagreeing over the story we also disagree what Virtue Signalling is. Not surprised really.

You may be surprised to learn that Virtue Signalling was coined in the British Press to describe a phenomenon on social media where people somewhat artificially signal where they stand before making their argument. So for example I might say “Now I am not a Christian, but even I am offended by Aaron’s attack on Christianity.” As if not being a Christian somehow adds to my argument as opposed to undermining it or being somewhat tangential.

The phenomenon was people saying things like “I am not a Daily Mail reader but...” signalling that they were broadly liberal in their outlook despite being about to make an argument that could be construed as not being liberal.

Under Aaron, we constantly see Thor doing good deeds not because it is the right thing to do, but because he really wants to lift that hammer.

No we don’t? Point to one example.

And even all that aside? You can only disparage Gods/religion in your stories so many times before your agenda starts a showin'.

He is disparaging pretend gods in a pretend world. (Not much IMO but you do you). In the real world these were almost lost figures from an oral tradition we can only guess at. Some argue they weren’t even gods in the same way the Greek Gods were. In Marvel canon they are a kind of divinely created story. Their place has largely been unexplored. Even when this was explored it never really dug down into what place they should hold. Aaron is exploring the ideas by telling a story. That’s his choice, and many of us are lapping it up.

[JKtheMac]

He was wary of Mangog before but never afraid.

He was so afraid of Mangog he sent Thor on a mission to make sure he at least survived when the whole of Asgard and Odin himself were destroyed. But in that way of comics, Thor saved the day.

[JKtheMac]

I feel like the central 'lesson' that Thor needed to learn from stuff like Gorr and this whole Unworthy business is that it doesn't matter that he's a *god,* because there are tons of gods, and many of them are useless schmucks, or even flat-out bad-guys.

What matters is not the circumstances of his birth.

What matters is the choices he makes. His choice to be a hero. His choice to leave behind a life of privilege and power as a prince of Asgard who lived in a castle with servants, to be an Avenger on Midgard. That's what makes him Thor, and not, say, Osiris, or Huitzilopochtli, or Raiden, or hundreds upon hundreds of other 'gods' who are either doing crap all for humanity, or, like Amora or Set (or, quite often, Loki or Cul), actively up to no good.

Where Aaron can be criticized is in taking too damn long to get to this point.

Deconstruction only works if the hero is built back up at the end (and Aaron does get props for not abandoning it after tearing the hero down, like every other deconstructionist writer seems to do, crapping all over the character they've been hired to write, and then wandering off without cleaning up their own mess), and this story has gone on way too long, IMO.

I think you may be making a few assumptions here. I don’t think it will come down to Thor making a choice to be a hero. We will see shortly. Not quite sure what it means to ‘take too long’. Perhaps that is just your personal preference for shorter overarching stories. Aaron has one overarching story, so logically it will take as long as he is writing the character to resolve. Is it his fault that he was popular and therefore got to keep writing the character for this long?

Again we have different definitions of what deconstruction means, so it makes it difficult to know exactly what you mean when you refer to other writers leaving characters in a mess.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Really? You prove the straw-man by using a straw-man argument?

So calling out his form of argument is strawmanning?

Well at least you recognised you were using a straw-man. IMO your point is way off base however. I can’t see how anyone with a deep conviction for say Christianity would be offended by a serious attempt to explore what makes Thor, one of Marvel’s thinly disguised messiah figures, worthy.

I also recognize deflection. In that, you refuse to acknowledge the point that if Gorr's statement were applied to a real ethnic group, it would be considered racism.

Also, Aaron isn't exploring what makes Thor worthy, because Thor was not made unworthy bu his actions, nor is he modifying his behavior to become worthy. All Aaron is doing is legitimizing Thor's depression as an actual value of his character

But that isn’t the story Aaron was telling. What’s your point? That there is only one replacement story? This replacement story was not about the burden, it was about what the legacy actually means.

Not much of a legacy then, if Jane could uphold it without much (external) issue

Quite apart from us disagreeing over the story we also disagree what Virtue Signalling is. Not surprised really.

You may be surprised to learn that Virtue Signalling was coined in the British Press to describe a phenomenon on social media where people somewhat artificially signal where they stand before making their argument. So for example I might say “Now I am not a Christian, but even I am offended by Aaron’s attack on Christianity.” As if not being a Christian somehow adds to my argument as opposed to undermining it or being somewhat tangential.

The phenomenon was people saying things like “I am not a Daily Mail reader but...” signalling that they were broadly liberal in their outlook despite being about to make an argument that could be construed as not being liberal.

Well, welcome to America

No we don’t? Point to one example.

Gates of Valhalla. Thor is bemoaning that trolls were killed before he could get to them, and thus be able to lift the hammer a little higher.

In this discussion, in how I refer to it, that's virtue signalling. Thor isn't doing right because it is right, but because he wants to lift that hammer. Because he wants a visible reward for his good deeds to show the world.

He is disparaging pretend gods in a pretend world. (Not much IMO but you do you). In the real world these were almost lost figures from an oral tradition we can only guess at. Some argue they weren’t even gods in the same way the Greek Gods were. In Marvel canon they are a kind of divinely created story. Their place has largely been unexplored. Even when this was explored it never really dug down into what place they should hold. Aaron is exploring the ideas by telling a story. That’s his choice, and many of us are lapping it up.

He did it with his DD story, all the damn time with Thor.

I found an example of my argument for you, so you find me an example of Aaron actually respecting religion or the religious. Good luck

[GodThor]

He was so afraid of Mangog he sent Thor on a mission to make sure he at least survived when the whole of Asgard and Odin himself were destroyed. But in that way of comics, Thor saved the day.

true but Odin was never a coward.

you don't know what afraid means.

reread that again and read Mangog's official bio.

when Mangog returned the second time, Odin was weakened and wasn't in his prime at all (let's not mention that Mangog was retconed).

when Mangog pulled the Odinsword, he was amped a lot but Odin, while weakened, still cut him off from his masters hate.

Odin was constantly compared to Galactus and even fought him.

current Mangog is way weaker than his previous versions.

previous version could tank Anti-Force blast with no problem while current Mangog gets hurt by few punches and a lighting bolt, not to mention he dies from a little heat.

and back during Jurgens run, Odin could have beaten both Thanos and Mangog which was basically even stated.

btw, we will probably go in circles with this topic so you don't need to bother replying my friend.

[GodThor]

I get it, I get that Odin is supposed to be weakened, but no real explanation has been given as to why, only small hints which all involve him performing poorly in battle, but as I've said many times, his power is not the biggest problems, it's his characterisation, I mean, I don't see how you can be comfortable with Odin trembling in fear at the thought of Mnagog, hiding while his people are getting killed, a behavior he has never shown even once in his entire publication history, and I could go on and on with how Aaron has simply taken these character to the extremes, saying he has "laid waste to entire worlds" just for disrespecting him, which is something a tyrant would do, and Odin was never such a thing.

not only Odin but Gods in general.

Asgardians are afraid of Angels as well.

The story Aaron is telling is not bad, it's the fact that he is changing the very core of the characters to tell it, I remember you saying that "Thor #10" was one of your all-time favorite single issues, and I do agree that it was an EXCELLENT issue, had it not been for the fact that the old god we witnessed there wasn't Odin and there was never this huge rivalry and lack of disrespect from Thor towards Odin, nor was Odin constantly drunk most of Thor's life, that's just bs from Aaron to further shove down the readers' throat how much of an ******* Odin is supposed to be.

yeah, definitely this.

Odin was never a drunktard.

Aaron turned one of the coolest Marvel characters gods into "this"...

yep, simply pathetic.

How exactly do we know if Odin was drunk when Thor was born? We only ever get the story of Thor’s birth as stories within stories. Now we have it from the man himself. That’s canon now. It doesn’t directly contradict anything important. Just because we have some cosy looking pictures of Thor in swaddling being introduced to his father? That scene could still have happened. He just secretly had a hangover, or was still drunk.

yes we know or you missed the chapter...

see, this is a problem.

Odin is way off character.

that's why this canon sucks.

Odin was never written like this... EVER.

this is a completely different character. he doesn't know where his son was born, he apparently never satisfied his wife even though they had a kid a year ago, he is a terrible leader, he doesn't think things through and cares about hammer while his kingdom was getting destroyed, no one respects him and gets beaten in every fight he is in, needs advice for alcohol from a mortal, not to mention Freyja is wanked to high heavens even though no one gave any level of sh*** about her like EVER.

don't let me start with Jane.

and Aaron is constantly making Gods look pathetic and incompetent while mortals overshadow them in literally every way.

[Sutekh]

[QUOTE=JKtheMac;4387858]I think you may be making a few assumptions here. I don’t think it will come down to Thor making a choice to be a hero. We will see shortly. Not quite sure what it means to ‘take too long’. Perhaps that is just your personal preference for shorter overarching stories. Aaron has one overarching story, so logically it will take as long as he is writing the character to resolve. Is it his fault that he was popular and therefore got to keep writing the character for this long?

Again we have different definitions of what deconstruction means, so it makes it difficult to know exactly what you mean when you refer to other writers leaving characters in a mess.

I would like for this arc to end in a similar way to stories that have deconstructed what it means to be a hero, to live this life, with Spider-Man, Batman, Daredevil, Tony Stark, etc. This hero is brought to a low point, 'deconstructed' and the 'parts' that make them a hero are examined to determine which things matter and which things do not.

Take away Starks money (or sobriety, or reputation), or break Batman's back (or kill his ward, or undo his work by freeing and uniting his various rogues), they come back.

With Thor, is it the divine birth that makes him 'worthy?' Not really. Lots of character have been born gods, ranging from other heroes like Hercules, to those we see less of, like Horus. It doesn't really make them special. Gorr was indeed right, in that sense.

Is it the hammer? Not really. Lots of people have used Mjolnir itself, and there are lots of other special weapons out there, like Odin's spear Gungnir or Perun's axe or Terrax's axe or the Ultimate Nullifier or the Infinity Gauntlet.

Is it the amazing power he wields? Again, not really. Lots of other people have similar levels or types of power, like Wonder Man, the Sentry, Blue Marvel, Hyperion, Gladiator, Gabriel Summers, etc. or even more specifically, have wielded *the power of Thor itself,* like Red Norvill or Beta Ray Bill or Storm or Jane Foster or Eric Masterson.

Each of these individual things can be looked at, and discarded, as not being the 'one thing' that makes the *character* of Thor important.

Is it being specifically the son of Odin? Again, Odin's got other kids, both adoptive, in the case of Loki, and biological, in the case of Baldar and Angela. Heck, he's been called, at least metaphorically, the 'All-Father,' for pretty much his entire Marvel Universe history, so, again, that's not what makes Thor special.

And yet, at least in the past, he has been special. He defeated Atum the God-Eater from the inside, after many of his divine peers, presumably his equals, at least in power and 'divinity,' fell in battle against it.

I would like for this story to move along, and show what makes Thor a hero, not what makes him 'worthy' of the hammer, because the hammer isn't what defines him (I used to read 'young Thor' stories back in the day when he used a sword, after all), but what makes him worthy of reading about.

It is interesting that the character of Thor is so well-suited to long-form storytelling. Unlike, say, Professor X or Mr. Fantastic, who 'used to be' WW2 veterans or active in the Korean War, but have since had to be retconned to be younger, the Thor of Norse lore has been around for millennia, and is immortal, so it matters not at all that his character has been in publication for decades, and will be for decades longer. Indeed, that very longevity makes it harder to rationalize severe change to the character and the trappings that surround him. (Asgard, for instance, which was supposed to be around for tens of centuries, but, once mortals started writing about it in the 60's, seems to get blown up / massacred / relocated distressingly often, making one wonder if the previous 1000 years or so were just an anomaly. But that's a lesser problem that afflicts Atlantis, Attilan, Wakanda, etc. which have been around for many centuries, and only 'recently' seem to get blown up regularly, making the current rulers appear unintentionally to be the least competent ever, since stuff like this never happened when their dads were in charge...)

[GodThor]

I'm pretty sure Aaron gave no thought about the whisper and made it on the spot.

[JKtheMac]

So calling out his form of argument is strawmanning?

I also recognize deflection. In that, you refuse to acknowledge the point that if Gorr's statement were applied to a real ethnic group, it would be considered racism.

Not deflection. I am saying that is itself a straw-man argument. IMO it is a ridiculous comparison to make and then to base assumptions on. There is nothing racist about it so it is not a comparison that needs an answer. Nobody will be as offended by the way Aaron has approached his exploration as someone that was directly offended by a racial or ethnic slur. I see zero evidence he is criticising any real people in any way whatsoever and in order to actually claim he has you would need to demonstrate it, not build straw-man comparisons with racism.

Well, welcome to America

What? welcome to a country that gets its definitions wrong? No idea what that even means.

Gates of Valhalla. Thor is bemoaning that trolls were killed before he could get to them, and thus be able to lift the hammer a little higher.

Sorry when did this happen? And even when you have pointed this strange unrecognisable moment out, how exactly has that got anything to do with virtue signalling. You don't just get to define the term on your own.

In this discussion, in how I refer to it, that's virtue signalling. Thor isn't doing right because it is right, but because he wants to lift that hammer. Because he wants a visible reward for his good deeds to show the world.

That just isn't what virtue signalling is.

Are you perhaps talking about 'false virtue' the theological concept? If so how would Thor be showing false virtue? And which Thor are we talking about?

[JKtheMac]

true but Odin was never a coward.

you don't know what afraid means.

reread that again and read Mangog's official bio.

when Mangog returned the second time, Odin was weakened and wasn't in his prime at all (let's not mention that Mangog was retconed).

when Mangog pulled the Odinsword, he was amped a lot but Odin, while weakened, still cut him off from his masters hate.

Odin was constantly compared to Galactus and even fought him.

current Mangog is way weaker than his previous versions.

previous version could tank Anti-Force blast with no problem while current Mangog gets hurt by few punches and a lighting bolt, not to mention he dies from a little heat.

and back during Jurgens runs, Odin could have beaten both Thanos and Mangog which was basically even stated.

btw, we will probably go in circles with this topic so you don't need to bother replying my friend.

I gave an entire blow by blow rundown of every Mangog appearance after rereading and analysing all of those appearances, many months ago on these forums, when I was speculating how he would be used by Aaron. I don't need to read a bio that will inevitably not represent what actually happened in the books.

Odin was scared and he sent Thor away expecting to die himself.

Spoilers for a 47 year old comic twist in Thor #197:

197 Page 8.jpg

[JKtheMac]

not only Odin but Gods in general.

Asgardians are afraid of Angels as well.


yeah, definitely this.

Odin was never a drunktard.

yep, simply pathetic.


yes we know or you missed the chapter...

see, this is a problem.

Odin is way off character.

that's why this canon sucks.

Odin was never written like this... EVER.

this is a completely different character. he doesn't know where his son was born, he apparently never satisfied his wife even though they had a kid a year ago, he is a terrible leader, he doesn't think things through and cares about hammer while his kingdom was getting destroyed, no one respects him and gets beaten in every fight he is in, needs advice for alcohol from a mortal, not to mention Freyja is wanked to high heavens even though no one gave any level of sh*** about her like EVER.

don't let me start with Jane.

and Aaron is constantly making Gods look pathetic and incompetent while mortals overshadow them in literally every way.

I don't understand why you feel the need to hate read the books. You are clearly reading them all, but then taking every single instance in its worst possible light or interpretation and then complaining about that very narrow interpretation as if it is what Aaron himself intended. Anyone would think he was only writing to annoy you. I recognise the things you are referring to but I don't recognise any of the spin you put on each thing. Its all a castle of cards built upon you not liking the book. Just stop reading them. They are clearly not for you.

[theoneandonly]

[QUOTE=Sutekh;4388217]

I think you may be making a few assumptions here. I don¡¯t think it will come down to Thor making a choice to be a hero. We will see shortly. Not quite sure what it means to ¡®take too long¡¯. Perhaps that is just your personal preference for shorter overarching stories. Aaron has one overarching story, so logically it will take as long as he is writing the character to resolve. Is it his fault that he was popular and therefore got to keep writing the character for this long?



I would like for this arc to end in a similar way to stories that have deconstructed what it means to be a hero, to live this life, with Spider-Man, Batman, Daredevil, Tony Stark, etc. This hero is brought to a low point, 'deconstructed' and the 'parts' that make them a hero are examined to determine which things matter and which things do not.

Take away Starks money (or sobriety, or reputation), or break Batman's back (or kill his ward, or undo his work by freeing and uniting his various rogues), they come back.

With Thor, is it the divine birth that makes him 'worthy?' Not really. Lots of character have been born gods, ranging from other heroes like Hercules, to those we see less of, like Horus. It doesn't really make them special. Gorr was indeed right, in that sense.

Is it the hammer? Not really. Lots of people have used Mjolnir itself, and there are lots of other special weapons out there, like Odin's spear Gungnir or Perun's axe or Terrax's axe or the Ultimate Nullifier or the Infinity Gauntlet.

Is it the amazing power he wields? Again, not really. Lots of other people have similar levels or types of power, like Wonder Man, the Sentry, Blue Marvel, Hyperion, Gladiator, Gabriel Summers, etc. or even more specifically, have wielded *the power of Thor itself,* like Red Norvill or Beta Ray Bill or Storm or Jane Foster or Eric Masterson.

Each of these individual things can be looked at, and discarded, as not being the 'one thing' that makes the *character* of Thor important.

Is it being specifically the son of Odin? Again, Odin's got other kids, both adoptive, in the case of Loki, and biological, in the case of Baldar and Angela. Heck, he's been called, at least metaphorically, the 'All-Father,' for pretty much his entire Marvel Universe history, so, again, that's not what makes Thor special.

And yet, at least in the past, he has been special. He defeated Atum the God-Eater from the inside, after many of his divine peers, presumably his equals, at least in power and 'divinity,' fell in battle against it.

I would like for this story to move along, and show what makes Thor a hero, not what makes him 'worthy' of the hammer, because the hammer isn't what defines him (I used to read 'young Thor' stories back in the day when he used a sword, after all), but what makes him worthy of reading about.

It is interesting that the character of Thor is so well-suited to long-form storytelling. Unlike, say, Professor X or Mr. Fantastic, who 'used to be' WW2 veterans or active in the Korean War, but have since had to be retconned to be younger, the Thor of Norse lore has been around for millennia, and is immortal, so it matters not at all that his character has been in publication for decades, and will be for decades longer. Indeed, that very longevity makes it harder to rationalize severe change to the character and the trappings that surround him. (Asgard, for instance, which was supposed to be around for tens of centuries, but, once mortals started writing about it in the 60's, seems to get blown up / massacred / relocated distressingly often, making one wonder if the previous 1000 years or so were just an anomaly. But that's a lesser problem that afflicts Atlantis, Attilan, Wakanda, etc. which have been around for many centuries, and only 'recently' seem to get blown up regularly, making the current rulers appear unintentionally to be the least competent ever, since stuff like this never happened when their dads were in charge...)

A very articulate and thoughtful summarization and some pointed questions asking what thor is all about in the mu. if Aaron could answer any of these questions decisively without retconing parts of the mythology then it would be a great run to read rather than the current long single arc where thor is still floundering about unsure of his worthiness which seems very similar to the long arc of Tom king in batman where he is taking the character apart asking questions about him but the journey is so dreary that it bores you to tears most of the time. Aaron hasn't reached the mind numbing dreariness that king aspires to and he manages to entertain even though the methodology leaves much to be desired. after meandering through this long long arc it's time he gets down to restoring the noble godly aspect that thor has been missing for a long time now and firmly establish him in his old place or leave him in a new place where he has gone beyond godhood and evolved into something entirely grand and different like the Olympic Pantheon recently seem to have become something entirely new after avengers no road home. although the way MCU left him maybe he will also be unable to ascend to the throne(though he is the all father in the future in Aaron's run) and be reborn as a god in mortal form to regain worthiness anew by learning humanity or something given how he likes to play with readers expectations. let's hope baby darkseid and baby thanos are not joined by baby thor.