Page 5 of 21 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 306
  1. #61
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    152

    Default

    When have I ever said I wanted Freyja to be pilloried? And I even said multiple times that Freyja would have never done the same to ANY of her children, the children that she birthed nor Thor because she truly sees them as her children. But she doesn’t with Loki. Which is okay, I would have preferred this better than setting up Freyja as a seemingly good mother, doing something bad and then just completely ignoring it and acting like she was a good mother to Loki. When this has never actually been the case.

    What I wanted was Loki to simply not have anything do to with her that is all. I didn’t want him to ridicule her or make her pay but simply treat her like she didn’t exist. I think it would have also been much better for the character if that happened as well because one thing that shouldn’t have changed is Loki washing his hands of the Asgardians.

    It's not that I want Loki to fail but it just feels that's how it's being set up and who said it needs to be one person per role?

    Edit: Also no I wouldn't see Loki as a villain if they set him to be either king or champion but I would wait and see to see what happens espeically with the former as it can do either way as Loki as king.
    Last edited by Lambadelta; 01-15-2022 at 10:26 AM.

  2. #62
    Extraordinary Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,095

    Default

    You sure seem to want to see her pilloried, (I didn't mean by Loki or the other characters, but by how she is portrayed in the story) given how vilely you paint her actions. The way you describe her, she was acting with the sole intent to hurt Loki, because she hates him and doesn't consider him her son. That is evil. And that was not what was on the page. Not before AoA, not during, not after. You are cherry picking and distorting events, placing assumed intent that is not stated on actions shown in the books, to get to that place. She does view him as her son, she has said as much both before, during, and after AoA, that you don't want to accept the times she has said it doesn't change that fact. She's certainly been disappointed and mad at him, and with good reason, but that doesn't mean she didn't consider him her son, or love him, it is a complicated relationship, it is not black and white. Also, Freyja can be a drama queen, and sometimes says things about her feelings that are exaggerated, and she doesn't really mean. It's led her to say things like she doesn't love him or consider him her son, sure, (and same goes for things she's said about Odin) but her actions demonstrate otherwise.

    And just because it was what you would have preferred... well, like i said, that ship has sailed, that's just not what happened, and we have to move forward from this point now, not some hypothetical from 7 years ago. Let it go, you'll be happier.

    And if you are are willing to wait and see, why are you being so certain that it's all doom and gloom, that Loki is for sure stuck in his old role? It goes both ways there. If you are uncertain about the possibility things could be going well, then you should also be at least a little uncertain about things going poorly. Maybe not see everything that's happened as part of some grand plot to undo Loki's progress. I know i have been extremely on the side of him having escaped in this discussion, because I've been trying to counter the negativity, and I do tend to focus on the positives because that just makes life happier. but... I am still ultimately waiting to see, but that cuts both ways. I mean I am pretty sure overall that I think Loki has escaped his old role, and everything so far in the books seems to support that, but I do try to keep possibilities open that they may pull the rug out from under us, hence me sharing that thought i had that it was possible Loki was stoking the fires of rebellion. I may not think it's terribly likely, but... it is a possibility I will have to wait and see about. But I am not going to get too hung up on how i feel about maybes, especially not ones that are just negative.
    Last edited by Raye; 01-15-2022 at 11:23 AM.

  3. #63
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    152

    Default

    I was only discussing Loki and Freyja and no one else so I’m not sure how you jumped to the conclusion that I wanted everyone to be against Freyja when I made it quite clear I was only ever referring to Loki and his own relationship with Freyja.

    It might not have been Freyja’s sole intent, but it was her main intent.

    Because that’s what I’m seeing at the moment. I’m trying to see the positives but ever since Aaron took over writing Thor it has just been a long slide back into villainy for Loki and maybe, MAYBE the whole killing Laufey was meant to be a rebirth but from how Aaron has written Loki afterwards I just don’t see that being the case. It’s not that I want to be negative, I was actually very positive about Loki’s growth and character development early on in Aaron’s reign as a Thor writer, but I was disappointed time and time and time again I realized at some point that there is literally no point in being positive.

    It’s not that I’m not uncertain though there is still a small part of me that thinks that maybe just maybe things will turn out to be alright and this time the whole face-turn won’t turn out to be a lie but after so many let downs mostly by Aaron, it’s not surprising I’m having major doubts.

    But these doubts are magnified by……1.) What Aaron set up and the fact that roles can’t be changed. 2.) Thor not wanting to change the roles and we know Thor gets his hammer back which means Thor more than likely assumes his old role. If that happens then there’s very little chance Loki doesn’t do the same. I mean realistically who is going to truly fulfil Loki’s old role?

    I would wait and see with those two roles because they are both new to Loki and they could literally go either way. But right now I’m going by what is being shown. Loki shouldn't have either of these roles though as he should have a completely new role. Because stepping into someone else's role doesn't help Loki at all.

  4. #64
    Extraordinary Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,095

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lambadelta View Post
    I was only discussing Loki and Freyja and no one else so I’m not sure how you jumped to the conclusion that I wanted everyone to be against Freyja when I made it quite clear I was only ever referring to Loki and his own relationship with Freyja.

    It might not have been Freyja’s sole intent, but it was her main intent.
    No. It wasn't. It just wasn't. You are grossly distorting events to see it that way. She had very solid reasons laid out for what she did, that weren't tied up in her hating Loki. And even there, it's not as though he hadn't done things to deserve her mistrusting him, he was no innocent. But if it had all been about how much she hated him, she wouldn't have needed King Loki manipulating her with an apocalyptic future she needed to avert to prod her into action.

    And I never said how the CHARACTERS treat her, but how she is presented in the story to the READERS.

    Because that’s what I’m seeing at the moment. I’m trying to see the positives but ever since Aaron took over writing Thor it has just been a long slide back into villainy for Loki and maybe, MAYBE the whole killing Laufey was meant to be a rebirth but from how Aaron has written Loki afterwards I just don’t see that being the case. It’s not that I want to be negative, I was actually very positive about Loki’s growth and character development early on in Aaron’s reign as a Thor writer, but I was disappointed time and time and time again I realized at some point that there is literally no point in being positive.

    It’s not that I’m not uncertain though there is still a small part of me that thinks that maybe just maybe things will turn out to be alright and this time the whole face-turn won’t turn out to be a lie but after so many let downs mostly by Aaron, it’s not surprising I’m having major doubts.

    But these doubts are magnified by……1.) What Aaron set up and the fact that roles can’t be changed. 2.) Thor not wanting to change the roles and we know Thor gets his hammer back which means Thor more than likely assumes his old role. If that happens then there’s very little chance Loki doesn’t do the same. I mean realistically who is going to truly fulfil Loki’s old role?

    I would wait and see with those two roles because they are both new to Loki and they could literally go either way. But right now I’m going by what is being shown. Loki shouldn't have either of these roles though as he should have a completely new role. Because stepping into someone else's role doesn't help Loki at all.
    For the last time. While the roles themselves are static, Aaron set up that characters can either switch to a new role, or opt out of the system entirely. It's difficult, fate likes to keep characters in certain roles rather than flip flopping, there's definitely some momentum to overcome, and it may have needed to wait for the whole pantheon wide shift... but even with all that, it is still way more hopeful an outcome than what was in place before, where the roles were just unchanging, full stop. Stepping into someone elses role is still a new role FOR LOKI. Brand new role (tho this simply doesn't make sense with how things are set up) or existing role that he is stepping into, it's completely irrelevant from his perspective, they both mean he has different duties to fulfill. And in that way it helps him, because the new role will not be pressuring him to be the villain, cus Blake is filling that role now.

    He still has to fill that role properly, whatever it may be, and Cates is exploring what happens when that doesn't happen, but he is doing that with Thor, not Loki. Thor is fucking up because he never wanted to change, he WANTS things to remain static and unchanging, he wants things to go back to how they were, the exact opposite perspective from Loki. Loki wants things to change, so I'm thinking he will take to a new role much more easily than Thor has. He will presumably find himself in a role because it is along the lines of what he already wanted to do, now that his old role is filled by Blake. So he should be able to find fulfillment in it, at least for a while.


    And there are other options besides everything regressing if Thor gets Mjolnir back. Lots of them. Off the top of my head:

    1. It could be temporary, just another step along the road to wherever this is headed.

    2. Even if Thor does go back to his old role that doesn't automatically mean everyone else does as well. Loki could become king, or hunter, or whatever (it in part depends on who dies) not villain.

    3. Thor could be in a different role than Champion/Warrior even if he has Mjolnir. The role is not necessarily linked to Mjolnir, (the inscription says 'power of thor' not 'power of the warrior' or something. it is Thor's weapon, not the role's) Sigurd had the role before Thor did and he used Gram, so it may be that each champion gets a new signature weapon unique to them, so he could take Mjolnir with him to like the Hunter role if Freyja bites it, or the God of War, or something.

    4. Thor is still king, but has Mjolnir as well.

    And i am sure there are many other options i haven't thought of.

    And no one needs to want to try and fill Loki's role... because it is ALREADY FILLED. I am sure Blake isn't happy with the turn of events, but he brought it on himself, too bad so sad, fate's got it's hooks in him now, and he's got no say in the matter. Hell, I don't think it is like 'yes, i will step into ___ role now' for the most part. The only one who has done that has been Freyja. Mostly, people have just been plopped into roles either because someone died, and they took up the mantle either out of a sense of duty or because it was bestowed upon them by someone else, or like Odin bestowed it on Thor even tho he was still alive, same with Loki and Blake. And there, like, I think the bit with Loki bestowing it on Blake was more of a technicality, he was totally in the role before that, he checked all the boxes. He never set out to fill it consciously, but through his actions, performed out of a sense of revenge and bitterness, he still stepped into it.
    Last edited by Raye; 01-15-2022 at 04:05 PM.

  5. #65
    Spectacular Member Fanto.mx's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raye View Post
    So, shower thought this morning, which would be another point in favour of Loki (or well, just someone besides Thor) taking over the throne, assuming it all goes in repeating cycles.... Odin was not the first to take the throne after Bor. Cul was. And he ran things into the ground, which necessitated the throne to be seized from him by Odin. I can't believe this hadn't crossed my mind earlier. Now, Cul was an actual tyrant, while Thor is just incompetent, and I very much doubt Thor will have to be locked up for thousands upon thousands of years, only to come back as a villain later. (that honor may go to Blake. who was locked up by Loki, not Thor, so still fits.) But still... the succession between Bor and Odin wasn't direct, it had a blip with a bad ruler in between. Just saying.... Also, maybe Angela is the new goddess of Fear rather than War?
    Quote Originally Posted by Raye View Post
    And there are other options besides everything regressing if Thor gets Mjolnir back. Lots of them. Off the top of my head:

    1. It could be temporary, just another step along the road to wherever this is headed.

    2. Even if Thor does go back to his old role that doesn't automatically mean everyone else does as well. Loki could become king, or hunter, or whatever (it in part depends on who dies) not villain.

    3. Thor could be in a different role than Champion/Warrior even if he has Mjolnir. The role is not necessarily linked to Mjolnir, (the inscription says 'power of thor' not 'power of the warrior' or something. it is Thor's weapon, not the role's) Sigurd had the role before Thor did and he used Gram, so it may be that each champion gets a new signature weapon unique to them, so he could take Mjolnir with him to like the Hunter role if Freyja bites it, or the God of War, or something.

    4. Thor is still king, but has Mjolnir as well.

    And i am sure there are many other options i haven't thought of.

    And no one needs to want to try and fill Loki's role... because it is ALREADY FILLED. I am sure Blake isn't happy with the turn of events, but he brought it on himself, too bad so sad, fate's got it's hooks in him now, and he's got no say in the matter.
    Trying to piece together enough to understand these two ideas, and I returned to an older realization I had way back: The All-Father role and the King of Asgard office have been held by the same person, but I don't think that's necessary.

    To try to lay it out (kind of thinking in type here):

    Roles:
    1. All-Father (probably doesn't need to be gendered, but All-Mother is a different role)
    2. Champion
    3. Challenger

    Associated Objects:
    1. Throne
    2. Mjolnir
    3. Lies

    The thing is, I don't think those objects are nearly as tied to the office as we tend to think. The roles don't necessarily come with the objects and vice versa.

    So that would allow post-God of Hammers Thor to regain/retain Mjolnir while being the All-Father (basically #3 on your list) and/or retaining the Odinforce -- mid-stream thought: Maybe even the Odinforce isn't tied to being All-Father or the throne. Of course, this would mean that Blake becoming officially, explicitly the new God of Lies doesn't necessarily mean he's the new Challenger. And it would open it to someone else being on the throne while Thor All-Father fixes all the broken magic?

    With Cul...he was All-Father and King, but didn't have the Odinforce, right? I know this is a lot to unpack. You can literally see my brain go sideways in the middle of trying to clarify this just to myself, and this is leaving out more minor roles. I'm only including the "big three" here that are the core of the stories told so far.

    I do think that Cates has shown that he's interested in digging into the messiness a good bit, and maybe he's going to disentangle things like this, and Mjolnir is a perfect way to explore what belongs to a character, what comes with the office, and what's tied to a role. So many moving parts.
    Last edited by Fanto.mx; 01-15-2022 at 04:47 PM.

  6. #66
    Extraordinary Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,095

    Default

    I definitely agree Mjolnir isn't necessarily linked linked to the Champion/Warrior role, and I do think the roles are more about the narrative function, the part a character plays in the story, than it is about superficial details like what specific weapon they carry, or what specific powers or methods they use, or even personality, I also don't think Blake has to be a god of 'lies' specifically, even if Loki labelled him such, I think he just needs to have a personal vendetta against his family, and specifically the king and the champion. He was inducted as an honorary brother, so that fits.... BUT.... I just feel like All-Father and King (though yeah I don't think it has to be gendered, it just has been so far) are basically synonymous, at least in Marvel, and can't really see how you would separate them. Like, what would an all-father without a throne, or at least position of power (could be made president or something i guess) even DO? I also think trying to make things that granular is making it too difficult to explain. This is already a new-ish concept, so i think it needs simple roles and functions that can be easily understood. So basically, I can see stripping certain details, like Mjolnir, and the 'lies' bit from those roles, but I just can't see how you would strip the throne from the all-father and keep the shape of the story.

    As for Cul, I don't think they ever speficically addressed that, but pretty sure he had everything that goes with the throne, I mean he WAS the rightful heir, and did not like, seize the throne or anything. He only really became a tyrant only after he was already ruler, even if he displayed some problematic signs before then. So i can't see why he wouldn't get the power that typically goes along with it. Though of course Odin must have later taken it from him. I just thought it was interesting how both Bor and Odin had a successor that.... wasn't up to the task after leaving the throne. Bor through death and Odin by abdication, and Cul was a bad ruler because he was a tyrant, and Thor because he's incompetent, but still. like i said, the story isn't hugely specific, but it does hit BEATS, for sure.

    epiphany edit - OH! Mjolnir is the new Cul. duh. Sibling of the king imprisoned away for thousands of years, breaking free and doing evil ****. Cul was even all about hammers during Fear Itself. Tho Thor could ALSO the new Cul... hmmm... split the role maybe? I guess it might depend on if Thor keeps the role or not.
    Last edited by Raye; 01-15-2022 at 05:54 PM.

  7. #67
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    152

    Default

    I just don’t see it that way. Loki stepping into a new role doesn’t mean he won’t be villain and re-reading Loki’s parts lately it does seem to point to him becoming a villain again. And I am trying to see Loki not becoming a villain but there’s just so many things against him.

    Like for example why didn’t he fix the staff thing right away that gave Thor his body back? He could have fixed it a lot sooner as he had the broken staff pieces since Blake defeated him back in Thor #9 but chose not to, this doesn’t look good for Loki. We then have what Loki did to Blake, yes it was done to him and yes Blake did some horrible things but Loki himself knows what a cruel fate both venom drip into his eyes having is and how crueller the fate of being the God of lies is. Blake was mentally ill and was created out of no choice of his own. Loki in most discussion places is being painted as the villain of this scenario not Blake. And because of this act the whole thing with Loki caring whether Blake lives or dies is treated like a null and void thing because many only see it as Loki only caring because it means he can renounce the God of Lies title through Blake and many don’t even think he can renounce it and that he’s still very much the God of lies.

    There’s also the fact that Loki has been showing a lot of dark faces and evil smiles, like when he smiles at Blake being tortured or has a dark look when Thor calls Blake his brother, or a dark look when Thor asks him for help to spy on the whereabouts of Mjolnir.

    Then there’s what’s happening in other comics like Loki making a reference to being the All-Father, which again many think it’s Loki going back to his old ways. And let’s be honest Loki didn’t paint himself in a good light at all during the Mighty Valkyrie’s run.

    The TV show doesn’t help either.

    Also Loki did try and opt out of the system but it didn't work and he also tried to step out of the role of the God of lies but again it didn't work.

    But I do have some hope for Loki, not because of this ridiculous notion of changing of roles though which isn't even a thing and would just be bad writing if it was because Loki had already escaped that role once or rather redefined it and to now suddenly be fine because he stepped into a new.....sorry unoccupied old role of someone else is just bad writing. So let's hope that isn't the case and that Cates has better ideas and can write better than that BS.

    But no my slight hope comes from that even though it's clear the writers have been trying so hard to put Loki back in the villain role completely, it hasn't actually been that easy.

  8. #68
    Extraordinary Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,095

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lambadelta View Post
    I just don’t see it that way. Loki stepping into a new role doesn’t mean he won’t be villain and re-reading Loki’s parts lately it does seem to point to him becoming a villain again. And I am trying to see Loki not becoming a villain but there’s just so many things against him.

    Like for example why didn’t he fix the staff thing right away that gave Thor his body back? He could have fixed it a lot sooner as he had the broken staff pieces since Blake defeated him back in Thor #9 but chose not to, this doesn’t look good for Loki. We then have what Loki did to Blake, yes it was done to him and yes Blake did some horrible things but Loki himself knows what a cruel fate both venom drip into his eyes having is and how crueller the fate of being the God of lies is. Blake was mentally ill and was created out of no choice of his own. Loki in most discussion places is being painted as the villain of this scenario not Blake. And because of this act the whole thing with Loki caring whether Blake lives or dies is treated like a null and void thing because many only see it as Loki only caring because it means he can renounce the God of Lies title through Blake and many don’t even think he can renounce it and that he’s still very much the God of lies.
    Yes, it does mean he can't be the villain, because that is the very function of the roles. By definition, the role of the villain is filled by the villain, not whoever gets the hero role, or king, or whatever. those roles have a function in the story that directly conflicts with being a villain. Morally... complicated, in the case of the king, maybe, but not villain.

    No he couldn't have fixed the staff sooner, because it needed to be banged on the ground BY THOR, (Blake may have also worked, but good luck convincing him to do it), not just in general, in order to get Thor back. Hence why he had to toss it to Thor at the end there, not just bang it on the ground himself. He had to wait till Thor found a way back via the Destroyer before the staff would have been any use. But he did hang on to it in case such an opportunity arose. That's good thinking on his part.

    And look the Blake situation is morally complicated, I never said it wasn't, but I still don't see it as something that makes him a villain. And if one bad act in this story makes him a villan, what does that make THOR after the Black Winter? Good guys can and do have character flaws, make mistakes, and act in not the best way all the time. But Blake needed to be punished, the only problem here is the severity. And while I do think Loki had some selfish reasons mixed in, in that he didn't want to be in that role, ultimately Blake acted of his own volition. Loki never forced him to do what he did. Blake earned that role, it wasn't just pawned off on him for no reason. I also don't think Loki had to actually formally renounce it at all, that was just a formality. It wasn't Loki saying those words that placed Blake in the role, it was Blake's actions. And that Blake was kinda set up to fail by Odin actually supports him being in the role, because the same could have been said about Loki. A sympathetic backstory is part and parcel of the role. And I don't give a damn what other 'discussion places' say.

    [There’s also the fact that Loki has been showing a lot of dark faces and evil smiles, like when he smiles at Blake being tortured or has a dark look when Thor calls Blake his brother, or a dark look when Thor asks him for help to spy on the whereabouts of Mjolnir.
    I think you are reading too much into what could be art side only, or an intentional plant to make us think worse of Loki than is actually warranted. red herrings can go both ways with Loki.

    Then there’s what’s happening in other comics like Loki making a reference to being the All-Father, which again many think it’s Loki going back to his old ways. And let’s be honest Loki didn’t paint himself in a good light at all during the Mighty Valkyrie’s run.
    And many things from Valkyrie have been disregarded by Cates. Valkyrie also set up Tyr as the new God of Lies, Cates didn't go with that. Everything in there, i take with a huge grain of salt.and besides, it was one line, which can be taken different ways. Overall I think Loki's actions during Valkyries was... while sneaky, at least shown to have good intent. He was fine, that one line aside.

    The TV show doesn’t help either.
    ???? and that is relevant HOW???? they are different things. And Loki turned face in the show, if anything that bolsters the switch sticking in the comics.

    Also Loki did try and opt out of the system but it didn't work and he also tried to step out of the role of the God of lies but again it didn't work.
    Because the time wasn't right, and he went about it in the wrong way. It's not exactly uncommon for characters to fail before succeeding. He learned from those failures, until it went right. And the attempt got him to grow as a person to the point where he actually could step into a different role. Simply deciding to step out of the role isn't enough, fate does also have to cooperate, and Loki had to grow enough as a person first, as well. It is working now, because roles all over Asgard are changing. And most of the time the switch is going well.

    But I do have some hope for Loki, not because of this ridiculous notion of changing of roles though which isn't even a thing and would just be bad writing if it was because Loki had already escaped that role once or rather redefined it and to now suddenly be fine because he stepped into a new.....sorry unoccupied old role of someone else is just bad writing. So let's hope that isn't the case and that Cates has better ideas and can write better than that BS.

    But no my slight hope comes from that even though it's clear the writers have been trying so hard to put Loki back in the villain role completely, it hasn't actually been that easy.
    It is a thing. just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not a thing. When Cates run started, it was there, for sure, but in a more subtle way that could have been brushed aside, or used in a subtle way. It's not anymore, it is incredibly blatant. Cates entire run revolves around the idea. And I think it is a really cool idea. I think it can take characters in some interesting directions, and I think it's cool how it went from how Gillen set it up in JIM, with Kid Loki editing Cul's story, and the Tellers, and stuff, in a more metaphorical way, to what we have now where there are kinda defined rules to it. I think it makes sense to have the gods be defined by and ruled by story rules.

    And it IS that easy, they just haven't actually wanted to, at least not the writers or editors who had anything to say on the matter. If Aaron had wanted Loki to fill Malekith's place in the War of the Realms story... he totally could have, as long as editorial approved it. I suspect that actually was his original plan, but he changed course when he saw how Agent of Asgard was going, but that's just speculation. It's not like Aaron was being controlled by fate, only by his editor. Same goes for Cates. He could have blatantly reverted Loki if he had wanted to. And though I do think Wil Moss has had something to do with the turn sticking, he also seems to be relatively hands off, otherwise we wouldn't have had the problem with contradictory stories in Loki's solo and with Valkyrie. So I don't actually know how much resistance he would have put up if Aaron did want to revert him.
    Last edited by Raye; 01-15-2022 at 10:40 PM.

  9. #69
    Spectacular Member Yoruno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    A cursed place
    Posts
    202

    Default

    If you manage to see Loki as a villain even in the TV show where he's definitely stepping into the role of a hero, then... I don't know what to say. It's not even a discussion, you just keep seeing white as black and I don't think you want to see it otherwise.

  10. #70
    Extraordinary Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,095

    Default

    Yeah... I just don't get it.

    anyway, just want to make this part clear: The role switch doesn't MAKE a character good, or bad, or anything else. The role/fate may influence a character's actions once in a role, but most of the time they probably won't even be able to tell, cus it would feel natural to them, they are in those roles BECAUSE they were a good fit for them. Loki post-JIM, was an exception there, in that what he wanted to do wasn't what his role wanted him to do, and the role wasn't ready to let him go, because the story would break. Same goes for Thor now. But that's rare. But most characters seem perfectly comfortable in their roles, and probably never even notice the hand of fate in their lives, at most it may throw a situation in their path that they have to respond to in a way that feels totally natural to them. I mean Thor seems to really want to go back to his old role, he was happy in it. And Loki was fine with his old role, right up until JIM.

    Blake being put into the role of the villain didn't MAKE him bad, his actions did. Quite possibly with a helping hand from fate, (really, just a metaphor for the writers...) since that's definitely a force in play here. Through his actions, he demonstrated he was worthy of the role, and assuming fate agrees, that role is his now. On the other hand, sometimes roles may be a poor fit, and the role itself won't fix that. Thor being made king didn't just suddenly make him great in that role, he actually sucks at it. We shall see if some kind of mistake was made there and the role goes to someone else. Same goes for Loki. Loki being put into a new role doesn't just suddenly MAKE him better like flipping a switch. He first had to become better in order to appropriately fit one of the other roles. So his own journey of self improvement did still count for a lot, even if the formal attempts to escape his role failed the first time. He just needed a nudge over the finish line from fate finally cooperating.

  11. #71
    Extraordinary Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,095

    Default

    So, yesterday, i had a hard look at the playlist, and decided the 'Prey' section (From 1979 to Only Love Will Save Me Now) was very bloated, part of that is that it just spoke to themes that are commonly addressed in songs, particularly of the heavier kind, so there was a wealth of options to choose from, a lot of them really good. Anyway, I cut a bunch, some i moved around to different arcs, or am going to try and find a place for them in the future, so it's quite a bit shorter now. I am still looking to trim a few though, (the climax and resolution of that arc are still.... very full) but having a tough time deciding. But that's not really the point of the post.

    While doing that it, plus the discussion above. had me considering the themes, and nature of fate and all that. I attempted to explain the fate aspect above, but.... it was late, i was tired and i see now i did a very poor job, so here's take 2. How Fate works in the Asgard books, and why it is all bound up in narrative tropes and roles, and why fate is both a very strong force in their lives, but not AS controlling as I think some people are imagining when the 'roles' thing comes up. It's a lot but here we go.

    Okay, so when I say the gods fill narrative roles that govern their lives and fate, I think a lot of people picture something a lot more controlling of their lives and personality than I think is actually the case, and I think that's leading to some confusion. As I said in the post above, I do not think the roles determine what a character is like. They don't get plunked into a role and then are moulded to fit it. Nothing is controlling their minds, their emotions, their personalities. They are still just themselves, at the end of the day. What is being controlled is events surrounding them, and this is where why they are narrative roles specifically comes in. What fate is, in this scenario, is kind of like the writer of a story, but with less control over how the characters in the story act an think. It is trying to make the story of the gods interesting, but also mythic, because it is the myths people tell about them that gives them power, it's what makes them GODS. And the story has to have a particular shape, hit certain beats time and again, or those myths will not have the correct themes and messages. Random strings of events are not a story, it's just history, it needs certain story elements like heroes and villains, themes and lessons, emotional highs and lows, following a certain structure, to make it a story. You can see elements of this in JMS' run, it's expanded further in Gillen's JIM, and further still in AoA, Aaron's run and now with Cates. Without that story, myth, structure to things, their stories lose power. So it ends up using familiar tropes, familiar beats, familiar archetypes, because these are proven tried and true stories that work and are powerful. You see mythologies all over the world that share similar elements for this reason. And to accomplish this, fate isn't puppeteering every character down to their personality, all it's doing is throwing inciting incidents in their path, maybe a nudge on their emotions here and there.

    When writing a story, you decide which character is the hero, which is the villain, and so on, and fate here is doing the same thing. But the roles are not the plot. To get that going, you need to spur the characters into action, you have to throw things in their path that they respond to, things that motivate them, things that create the plot and alter the course of their lives. Their personality and circumstances will determine how they respond to whatever this inciting incident is, whether it be big or small. A lot of this can also cause chain reactions that ripple down to other characters in the story, or down to the future, cause what was a little nudge of an inciting incident to snowball over time. You can see this explicitly explained in JIM, when Kid Loki inserts Leah into Cul's story. What Kid Loki was doing there, was what fate does all the time, but you could see there what effect a small change had, and it would not have worked, if the gods did not operate on story rules. It did affect Cul's personality, but it did so not by just rewriting how he thought, but by inserting an incident into his past that changed his perspective because of what happened.

    So for a character to fit a role, they have to already have qualities that will make them respond to the inciting incidents in an appropriate way. You can't place someone who doesn't care about helping people into the hero role, because when you throw an incident of someone that needs rescuing into their path, they're likely to just go 'meh, not my problem' and the story falls apart. (well, you can still have that but they have to learn from it, an Uncle Ben moment) Fate can help create these qualities, to an extent, by throwing incidents that cause them to undergo some kind of character development (either positive or negative) into their path. But ultimately they are still responsible for their actions. Loki's big inciting incident was being adopted by Odin, and he did not HAVE to respond to his shitty childhood by becoming a bad guy, but he did, he possessed some qualities that led him to respond to this event in a certain way, which in turn led to him becoming the Big Bad (when I said 'the villain' before, i meant THE villain, not just A villain. The Thor story only has one character in the role of THE villain, even though it has many other additional villains as well, so will begin calling the role 'the big bad' for clarity's sake) of the story. He probably would not have become as bad as he did had fate NOT thrown this in his path, we saw that in the What If that came out a few years ago, but... At the same time, no one was forcing him to respond in the way he did, it's still his responsibility. Same with Blake. Inciting incident that led him to become a villain was the illusion of his pocket dimension breaking down, causing him to be aware of the nature of his reality. This broke him, and he went berserk. Someone else may not have responded the same way, but he did. And no one was forcing him to respond in the way that he did, but he possessed the right qualities, both in terms of backstory, relationships, and personality, that caused him to respond to that in a way that caused him to step into the God of Lies role. Loki never bestowed it on him, he just formalized the transfer. Fate gave that role to him, by creating the situation that caused him to snap, but he's still responsible for what he did. On a more positive note, Loki had other incidents more recently that caused him to reconsider and grow in a more positive way. Dying to the Void was the start, it created a snowball effect that's still going today. But, the first snowball that got rolling for him, when he got adopted, was still going. So we had to wait until that old snowball started falling apart, hit some rocks on the hill, and the new snowball had to build up enough mass and momentum for fate to start really following the new one, using that rather than the old one in terms of what role he was in. As much as Loki rails against fate, it was still fate that helped get this new snowball started. It was just that Loki was stuck in this limbo where he didn't yet fit a new role, but also was starting to not fit his old one. But that weird gray area he was stuck in also helped further his charactrer development, helped him solidify his new beliefs. He had failures thrown in his path, but he also kinda needed those, and they helped keep the story going.

    The main issue in Thor right now though is that Thor is NOT responding to the inciting incidents placed in his path in the way the role of King is supposed to. That is the entire premise, pretty much. Something, somewhere, screwed up, and the story is falling apart as a result. (in-universe i mean, the actual book is fine) What the King in this story is SUPPOSED to do, is delegate the heroing to the Champion/Warrior, and other characters. (and sometimes act as an antagonist, in this particular story, but that comes later, need to have the Champion first for that to happen) Thor is responding as if he were still the Champion, by facing things himself. He is so accustomed to following the Hero's Journey on repeat that he can't help but answer the call, leading him to answer calls meant for someone else. I think this is why the Black Winter arc was a warped version of the Hero's Journey. It was a journey meant for a different Hero, and Thor's presence warped things. It's causing him to neglect Asgard, get lost in the past, and preventing the new Champion from being revealed. Either Thor needs to step up and fill his role properly, as many characters have told him, and he himself seemed to realize during Revelations, though he immediately went back to his old ways afterwards, or fate simply placed the wrong character into the role, and he needs to be replaced. And until one of those two things happens, it is causing chaos. One character in the story acting in a way their role isn't supposed to, and everything is falling apart. But Thor would not be able to act against the needs of his role if Fate just puppeted him, would he? He's still himself, and that's part of the problem.
    Last edited by Raye; 01-17-2022 at 04:02 PM.

  12. #72
    Spectacular Member Fanto.mx's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raye View Post
    The main issue in Thor right now though is that Thor is NOT responding to the inciting incidents placed in his path in the way the role of King is supposed to. That is the entire premise, pretty much. Something, somewhere, screwed up, and the story is falling apart as a result. (in-universe i mean, the actual book is fine) What the King in this story is SUPPOSED to do, is delegate the heroing to the Champion/Warrior, and other characters. (and sometimes act as an antagonist, in this particular story, but that comes later, need to have the Champion first for that to happen) Thor is responding as if he were still the Champion, by facing things himself. He is so accustomed to following the Hero's Journey on repeat that he can't help but answer the call, leading him to answer calls meant for someone else. I think this is why the Black Winter arc was a warped version of the Hero's Journey. It was a journey meant for a different Hero, and Thor's presence warped things. It's causing him to neglect Asgard, get lost in the past, and preventing the new Champion from being revealed. Either Thor needs to step up and fill his role properly, as many characters have told him, and he himself seemed to realize during Revelations, though he immediately went back to his old ways afterwards, or fate simply placed the wrong character into the role, and he needs to be replaced. And until one of those two things happens, it is causing chaos. One character in the story acting in a way their role isn't supposed to, and everything is falling apart. But Thor would not be able to act against the needs of his role if Fate just puppeted him, would he? He's still himself, and that's part of the problem.
    Hmmm. This is an interesting take. From this framework, it's not just that Thor is bad at being a king or is neglecting his duties, but is breaking the very fabric of Asgardian reality by breaking the storystuff that it's made of. That makes sense from what we've seen; since Thor stepping in as All-Father, Blake and now Mjolnir have sprouted out of broken magic in a literally world-shattering way. If we're thinking of this through the archetypical role lens, then there should have been new challenges for the Champion that helps hone their skills and prove their worth, but instead the challenges are coming in on the All-Father line, which turns them up to 11. Using your "call" metaphor, the story dialed up the new Champion but it got forwarded to the All-Father. Had they gone through to the new Champion, they would have been tailored for them, challenges for them, but instead they get shaped by the double role:

    All-Father challenges tend to be shaped around direct relatives -- siblings and children -- and destruction of realms, but you can't get much more directly meant for Thor than his alter ego and his weapon. Thor got both challenges at once, which makes them worse, since they have to be both realm-threatening for the All-Father AND tailored to test the personal strength of the Champion.

  13. #73
    Extraordinary Member Raye's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,095

    Default

    Yeah. It may be that by answering the Black Winter call, thereby preventing the ACTUAL Champion from being revealed, things got mushed together and warped afterwards. The call got answered, and subsequent story beats are going to that person, regardless of if they were the intended Champion or not. Could explain a lot of the mixed signals leading up to and during the Black Winter arc. But I do think Mjolnir and the God of Hammers was always going to happen, there are prophecies for that, and the set up in universe goes back thousands of years. But it may have played out differently, with both a Champion AND and All-Father working in tandem to stop it. Yeah it's Thor's weapon, but maybe the original intent was to use it to forge a new weapon for the new Champion or something, like Thor passing the torch. Blake though, that may have been something brought on by Thor answering the call not intended for him, the new God of Lies may have been someone else (like Tyr) if the proper person had answered. We may be stuck with Blake now regardless, even if the All-Father and Champion roles are split again, like they are supposed to be.

    And of course, none of this is helped by the fact that Loki refused the call when Thor did go to him for help with the hammer. Refusing the call is normal in these types of stories, everyone from Spider-Man to Luke Skywalker has done it, but it's certainly complicated by the fact that Thor keeps answering calls not meant for him.
    Last edited by Raye; 01-17-2022 at 06:08 PM.

  14. #74
    Spectacular Member Yoruno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    A cursed place
    Posts
    202

    Default

    I don't think Loki had to accept that call. It was more like a temptation. To my mind, Loki refused it because it was intended for his former self, the God of Lies, but not for a King which he is now, and it shows that Loki is aware of how the roles work and understands it much better than Thor.

  15. #75
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    336

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raye View Post
    S

    Okay, so when I say the gods fill narrative roles that govern their lives and fate, I think a lot of people picture something a lot more controlling of their lives and personality than I think is actually the case, and I think that's leading to some confusion. As I said in the post above, I do not think the roles determine what a character is like. They don't get plunked into a role and then are moulded to fit it. Nothing is controlling their minds, their emotions, their personalities. They are still just themselves, at the end of the day. What is being controlled is events surrounding them, and this is where why they are narrative roles specifically comes in. What fate is, in this scenario, is kind of like the writer of a story, but with less control over how the characters in the story act an think. It is trying to make the story of the gods interesting, but also mythic, because it is the myths people tell about them that gives them power, it's what makes them GODS. And the story has to have a particular shape, hit certain beats time and again, or those myths will not have the correct themes and messages. Random strings of events are not a story, it's just history, it needs certain story elements like heroes and villains, themes and lessons, emotional highs and lows, following a certain structure, to make it a story. You can see elements of this in JMS' run, it's expanded further in Gillen's JIM, and further still in AoA, Aaron's run and now with Cates. Without that story, myth, structure to things, their stories lose power. So it ends up using familiar tropes, familiar beats, familiar archetypes, because these are proven tried and true stories that work and are powerful. You see mythologies all over the world that share similar elements for this reason. And to accomplish this, fate isn't puppeteering every character down to their personality, all it's doing is throwing inciting incidents in their path, maybe a nudge on their emotions here and there.


    [some other very good points that I'm cutting for length.]
    I pretty much agree about the roles. To clarify, my main issue with Loki re: Blake wasn't him declaring the latter the god of lies, it was the whole snake dripping poison in his eyes. I think it was wrong when Odin did it and I think it's wrong now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yoruno View Post
    I don't think Loki had to accept that call. It was more like a temptation. To my mind, Loki refused it because it was intended for his former self, the God of Lies, but not for a King which he is now, and it shows that Loki is aware of how the roles work and understands it much better than Thor.
    I'm inclined to agree here. Thor was asking Loki to do something that would tie him to his old role. Although I agree that Thor hasn't been delegating enough. (In fact, I think he's been shown in a poorer light than Loki in Cates' run, it just fits into what people are used to seeing him do, so they don't see that it's 'wrong'.)

    Right now I'm inclined to believe he's a good candidate for King, but I'm willing to entertain the notion that I'm wrong
    Last edited by Riimi; 01-18-2022 at 11:03 AM.

Posting Permissions

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