Loki Appreciation 2018

[Raye]

Just saw this, pencils and inks from a panel in issue 384:


https://twitter.com/ghwalta/status/938773326788485121

I am a bit surprised how layered and built up the pencils are, still, cool.

[Fanto.mx]

Here are my kind of rambling reactions to Doctor Strange:

spoilers:

I've said before in this thread that Strange is a supervillain and crossed into that territory a long time ago. But that could have been maybe justified if you subscribed to a utilitarian worldview (I don't) wherein misery for a few is worth good for the greater number. That's a really slippery situation, but sure, if you're convinced that he had good at heart and that the ends justify the means to some extent, maybe he's not a supervillain. But this SO crosses that line. Reviving Sentry is purposeful and premeditated and Strange is fully aware of his own actions and their expected consequences. There's no "heat of the moment" when you literally climb a mountain and explain the entire thing to yourself while you're climbing. And it's not as if it's a last resort, even. Zelma will cool down. He can try talking to her again. If he hadn't decided to whip out the nukes because he's throwing a fit, he KNOWS he could talk to Loki and Zelma. He couldn't tell Loki the truth and if he really thinks Zelma is on Loki's side, he might have to lie to her, as well. But "I feel bad about the way I left and I want to make things right" could get him to the point where maybe he could figure out a way to get the spell off of her soul. (Which he put there without consent, so even that part is his fault.) And apparently he's unleashing Sentry on Asgard. I assume that's because he can't unleash Sentry on Earth and expects Loki to run to help defend Asgard. But that means Strange is throwing a nuke at civilians so that an exile who might eventually find a nuke will come back and possibly get nuked himself. Maybe this will be the point where, in-universe, people start to realize he's a bad guy.

end of spoilers

[Raye]

Right? Strange has crossed several lines this issue alone. Linking the spell to Zelma without her knowledge or consent, thus placing her in danger. Not to mention how it was revealed he left without so much as talking to her or even giving her his phone number so they could talk. This is not exactly earth shattering, sure, he only hurt one person's feelings, but it turns out treating your friends badly can have some bad consequences. But it is a situation that could still be saved without resorting to extreme measures. Apologize, get her a present, make it up to her, there's no reason to get out the nukes just yet. And then going to unleash a living weapon who had attacked Asgard previously and came very close to destroying it, not to mention killed Loki among others, on innocents who have NOTHING to do with what Loki is or isn't doing. That Loki is Asgardian is irrelevant, there is no reason to believe that Asgard has any part in this particular situation. Thor herself confronted Loki about it weeks, perhaps months, after he had acquired the title, so it obviously wasn't something widely known about around Asgard, let alone something they had assisted with. They don't like Loki any more than Strange does, they're not going to help him, and they aren't responsible for him becoming the Sorcerer Supreme or his hunt for this spell. While all Loki has done is, as far as we can gather, win the title of Sorcerer Supreme legitimately. Are his reasons suspect? sure, but he hasn't done anything bad yet. and then this issue, accidentally kill a dog, with absolutely no intention to do so, and, yeah, it was sad, it was tragic, but it was also clearly an accident. And he is searching for something which MIGHT be used badly. Given his history, i can understand being worried, thinking he's likely up to no good, but...

Okay, so I had another look at the issue just now, and a few things jump out at me second time around.

- Strange is a hypocrite. says to Bats he doesn't like liars, presumably referring to Loki in particular, then immediately lies to him about the spell. Well, half truths and omissions, and sure, he's just a dog, but still.
- Strange's description of the spell doesn't necessarily say that it places all magic into one person, though that's what most people, myself included, assumed, he said it places all the magic power "at the summoner's sole discretion" an important distinction, and i think one that supports Loki trying to become the god of magic. to try and 'fix' magic, even though I suspect this will not go the way he wants.
- The bars and chains on the mystery door are on THE OUTSIDE. I think Strange wasn't keeping Loki OUT, he's keeping something IN. That it's also keeping Loki out is incidental. I mean, we already know the spell isn't in there, so what is? And if it's so bad, maybe Strange should have, again, told Zelma and Loki about it so they don't end up unleashing something unintentionally. All this secrecy (from Loki as well) is just going to keep making things worse.

[Rosebunse]

Since you seem to be more of a Strange fan judging by your avatar, I am glad you are liking it. Suspect you will like 382 more since Strange appears more.

Random idea! And admittedly this is a shot in the dark with nothing to back it up, I still think drawing power from the buried Celestial is pretty likely. But... We have seen with Mr Misery and those people Wong/Strange were using in Tibet the the magic cost can be transferred to others, willingly or not. So, what if all this time with Malekith, Loki was working magic to transfer his cost to Malekith, Laufey, their armies? If he spread it thin enough, they may not have ever known, and gives him a reason to not put an end to the conflict right away. But they can't last forever, he has to know they need to be stopped sooner or later, so he is looking for power sources to replace them. Infinity Gems, the Celestial, this spell.

Oh, that would be cruel, but not a terrible idea. How is he transferring the price to the Celestial now? Wouldn't that require a spell?

And the more I think about this issue, the more I find what Strange is doing to be so despicable. Does Strange really care about Zelma or does he just not want Loki to have that spell and everyone finding out what he did? Plus he's forcing Bob/The Sentry to give up his peace and quiet for what looks like rather petty revenge. Yes, the fate of the world and all that, but mostly it just seems like Strange just hates Loki right now.

Another interesting thing about The Sentry...does he have a Death seed from when he was resurrected by the Apocalypse Twins? This is somewhat important because we're seeing Daken more and more there's basically confirmation that he still has his Death seed. What makes Death seeds so important here is that they're basically little time bombs from the Celestials.

This is all just guessing at this point and there's a very good chance that none of that will matter, but just putting it out there.

[Raye]

I am not sure of how he is doing it specifically, or even if he actually is. I just know we saw him approaching the Celestial looking for power, and now here he is and everyone is commenting on how he is flaunting the magic costs. There must be some explanation for it beyond simply being a god. And if Strange was able to transfer his cost to Mr Misery, the many followers in Tibet from all around the world, and then the Imperator/Misery 2.0 (kinda annoys me that he is not so much as mentioned since he got locked away, but it may be him behind that door. Though if that were the case, you would think Zelma would know) then it must be possible for Loki (and others) as well. And a Celestial would have a massive capacity for such things, and I wouldn't feel too bad about Malekith, Laufey and their armies absorbing his cost. The probelm for me there is that he can't let them be defeated if that's the case, or his cost absorber is gone, and innocents have and will continue to die during the war.

And yeah, I am not sure how this can be reconciled with the whole Horseman thing. Didn't he fly off to become some sort of galactic protector?

[Assgardian]

Just saw on twitter that Mackenzie Lee is writing a young adult book about Loki! She’s confirmed that she’ll be writing him as pansexual and gender fluid, which is cool. I loved her newest book, Gentleman’s Guide to Vice and Virtue, so I’m looking forward to another awesome historical read from her. Also, Loki!!

[Raye]

wait, do you mean a novel, not a comic?

[Assgardian]

wait, do you mean a novel, not a comic?

It’s a young adult novel!

[dr4conianlaw]

Dug through her twitter and found the tweet: https://twitter.com/themackenzilee/s...79497918328833

Apparently it'll be historical fiction, so I wonder what the version of Loki that shows up will be like.

[Raye]

nice! I am not familiar with her work, but should be fun.

edit - Was thinking about it, and some thoughts occur to me.

Is this based on the MCU, comics or is it it's own thing? I had a look around, and looks like the Black Widow novels, another character who is a major player in both, were initially supposed to be set in the MCU, but it later got changed to comics continuity, so... not really sure what this would be. I think the movie version has more fans, and they would have less baggage and continuity to worry about, no Sigyn, for one, but since she said he was canonically pansexual and genderfluid, that only applies to the comics. But it's not like he's NOT those things in the MCU, it's just that side of his character has never been explored.

If it is based on either of the existing universes, would it be considered canon? are the other novels considered canon? I have no idea.

If based on the comics, yeah, not sure what his character would be like. In the movies, he didn't heel turn until the modern day, Balder may not even have existed at all in the movies. In the comics he did it waaaaay back. But when they flash back, it's usually to around the viking age/middle ages, 800 to 1300 or so, (and his depiction back then is wildly inconsistent) sometimes earlier than that, bronze age or thereabouts, but I can't think of anything later than the middle ages. there is hundreds of years in between then and now which are virtually untouched by continuity, particularly in regards to the Asgardians, so for all we know he could have eased up on the villainy during that time, or he could have doubled down, we dunno. From what i can tell she seems to favor around the 1700's-1800's in her writing? as far as I am aware, not so much as a panel has shown the Asgardians during that period in the comics. It's like they just skip from the middle ages to the modern day. Presumably stuff happened over that period, but we dunno what. We've seen around the 1800s in North America, with the Western stuff and later Wolverine, that's probably about the closest, while this would presumably be in Europe and possibly a different timeframe. So it is almost completely open territory. She basically just can't use Wolverine to avoid fucking up his continuity. And not like, kill Thor or something.

[kaimaciel]

Hmm... I'll wait for the review when it comes out. DC is currently doing the same, Leigh Bardugo wrote a Wonder Woman novel that was set in another universe, very different from the comics or the movie. Marie Lu is going to release a Bruce Wayne novel in 2018 about his youth in Gotham.

It's very hard to beat Joanne Harris take on Loki in my eyes, especially after reading the Runemarks series for so many years and the Gospel of Loki (and now another Loki book next year, YAY!). She writes him so well, very classic Norse Mythology, but I adore him. Though he's both pansexual and gender fluid in her books, it's treated as part of his shapeshifting nature and it doesn't define his character, something I fear MacKenzie could do (I haven't read her book, so probably that's not her style at all, but I've been very disappointed with several YA novels lately who pulled this gimmick).

I can't stand when characters are defined by their sexuality, race, gender, mental illness, in novels. I want to read about interesting characters. So far, the only one who managed to write LGBT novel that I loved to death was Rainbow Rowell, who is now writing the Runaways mini-series. Would you recommend Gentleman’s Guide to Vice and Virtue?

[Rosebunse]

I feel like saying characters shouldn't be "defined" by their sexuality or gender or race is often an excuse not to use anything other than a straight white male. The fact is, our experiences from our sex or gender or race are important determining factors for most of us. That doesn't mean you can't make a good story out of it.

[Riimi]

Okay, first, from the previous page:

removing the spoiler tags since the big reveal is posted anyway, and it's late in the day...



Been thinking on this, and I think Cates and Loki may have already told us what he wants. I have been so hung up on Legacy and what he's doing there, that I wasn't thinking of what he's doing as the Sorcerer Supreme as just something he wants for himself. (though still probably tying into other things) I think he wants to be the god of magic. Cates said in an interview that Loki figures he's a god, and magic should follow his rules, and in the first issue, he offered to take everyone's magic costs. They didn't take him up on it, but he still offered. And if he does this spell, takes all the magic into himself, and this is the key part, redistributes right back, but now with his own rules attached, then he is effectively the god of magic. Problem is, he already knows damn well that's Wiccan's thing to rewrite the rules of magic. but this would be appropriately selfish for Loki, but also not necessarily bad.

Ooooh, I hadn't thought of Loki wanting to be the god of Magic,but it makes sense. Both for how he's been trying to redefine himself as well as in line with his ambitious personality (he doesn't set his sights low, does he?). In my opinion, this is more evidence of his actions being questionable, since the reason he basically ruined Steven's life (even if it's only temporary, only Loki knows that) was selfish. Now, I do think Steven's way out of line--further than Loki--but I think Cates is using a nifty mirroring technique with them both, where they look different on the surface but a lot of their bad tendencies are the same. I think Steven currently looks very much what Loki could look like/become if he (Loki) keeps pursuing goals believing that the ends justify the means. Such a philosophy definitely requires care.

Most of what Strange has done wrong has already been covered. Personally, I still find him sympathetic, but one of my current fascinations is also how to write people who do questionable or even inexcusable things for understandable reasons (understandable does not mean right). As a result, I'm actually much more impressed with Strange's treatment than Loki's thus far--not that Loki has been written poorly, I'm just extremely impressed with Cates' handling of Strange. Those who already find Strange a truly despicable villain are free to disagree

On to the current topic of how much a character's...and now I'm realizing I don't really know how to say this--traits? but less-represented/those seen as societally negative ones?--affect the setting, I tend to prefer a more incidental treatment, but I would also say that it's very heavily setting dependent.

The former part is two-fold and rather personal, but maybe it will help someone. Part of my preference, now that I think about it, is most likely because of a touch of OCD--I worry/obsess about what people think and transgressing social norms to an unhealthy extent. This manifests in me becoming terrified/pre-occupied with doing the worst/most bigoted thing around minority groups, especially in a new situation. It's like thinking about making noise in a library (as a much more harmless example), but worse. Thus, being aware that there's a difference makes me treat people differently (and not in a positive way that enables their life stories to be told). I do my best, but it's always there, in the back of my mind. (Also, maybe I'm wrong and this is a more common occurrence, just not one people are comfortable talking about).

Secondly, I then internalize that this "abnormality" is a source of shame, partly due to the above and perhaps in an attempt to rationalize bigoted behavior. This happens even (arguably especially) when I am part of said minority--it took me years to admit to myself I was bi. Admitting some other stuff (that I guess I'm still not entirely comfortable discussing) used to give me panic attacks when the subject came up.

With all that said, some people find comfort in reading about people who have undergone experiences with similar prejudice. Ideally, the degree to which these traits affect characters should just mean the difference between having a character who belongs to a Conservative family and has to come to terms with their sexuality (something that's a valid story but I wouldn't like as much) vs having a gay character who, say, lives in a liberal part of the country and is comfortable with their sexuality, finding a significant other. I also definitely think we need more minority representation and that most excuses against including said minorities don't apply. Despite our typical insistence to base fantasy worlds off of medieval Europe (and likely not that accurate a historical representation), any world that has dragons can also have blended human/non-human populations and more advanced views of gender and sexuality. In fact, one of these is rather more probable than the other, and it's not the dragons.

Edit: Behold, my long post mostly about not-Loki!

[Rosebunse]

Okay, first, from the previous page:



Ooooh, I hadn't thought of Loki wanting to be the god of Magic,but it makes sense. Both for how he's been trying to redefine himself as well as in line with his ambitious personality (he doesn't set his sights low, does he?). In my opinion, this is more evidence of his actions being questionable, since the reason he basically ruined Steven's life (even if it's only temporary, only Loki knows that) was selfish. Now, I do think Steven's way out of line--further than Loki--but I think Cates is using a nifty mirroring technique with them both, where they look different on the surface but a lot of their bad tendencies are the same. I think Steven currently looks very much what Loki could look like/become if he (Loki) keeps pursuing goals believing that the ends justify the means. Such a philosophy definitely requires care.

Most of what Strange has done wrong has already been covered. Personally, I still find him sympathetic, but one of my current fascinations is also how to write people who do questionable or even inexcusable things for understandable reasons (understandable does not mean right). As a result, I'm actually much more impressed with Strange's treatment than Loki's thus far--not that Loki has been written poorly, I'm just extremely impressed with Cates' handling of Strange. Those who already find Strange a truly despicable villain are free to disagree

On to the current topic of how much a character's...and now I'm realizing I don't really know how to say this--traits? but less-represented/those seen as societally negative ones?--affect the setting, I tend to prefer a more incidental treatment, but I would also say that it's very heavily setting dependent.

The former part is two-fold and rather personal, but maybe it will help someone. Part of my preference, now that I think about it, is most likely because of a touch of OCD--I worry/obsess about what people think and transgressing social norms to an unhealthy extent. This manifests in me becoming terrified/pre-occupied with doing the worst/most bigoted thing around minority groups, especially in a new situation. It's like thinking about making noise in a library (as a much more harmless example), but worse. Thus, being aware that there's a difference makes me treat people differently (and not in a positive way that enables their life stories to be told). I do my best, but it's always there, in the back of my mind. (Also, maybe I'm wrong and this is a more common occurrence, just not one people are comfortable talking about).

Secondly, I then internalize that this "abnormality" is a source of shame, partly due to the above and perhaps in an attempt to rationalize bigoted behavior. This happens even (arguably especially) when I am part of said minority--it took me years to admit to myself I was bi. Admitting some other stuff (that I guess I'm still not entirely comfortable discussing) used to give me panic attacks when the subject came up.

With all that said, some people find comfort in reading about people who have undergone experiences with similar prejudice. Ideally, the degree to which these traits affect characters should just mean the difference between having a character who belongs to a Conservative family and has to come to terms with their sexuality (something that's a valid story but I wouldn't like as much) vs having a gay character who, say, lives in a liberal part of the country and is comfortable with their sexuality, finding a significant other. I also definitely think we need more minority representation and that most excuses against including said minorities don't apply. Despite our typical insistence to base fantasy worlds off of medieval Europe (and likely not that accurate a historical representation), any world that has dragons can also have blended human/non-human populations and more advanced views of gender and sexuality. In fact, one of these is rather more probable than the other, and it's not the dragons.

Edit: Behold, my long post mostly about not-Loki!

I think a lot of people feel this way. The main thing is to realize it and try to make yourself as better as you can. Some people need help with that and that's OK.

My thing is, I feel like many people use this all as an excuse to not use different characters. It becomes a form of subtle racism and sexism and leads to stagnating creativity.

As for Loki and Steven, it is interesting how Cates is able to give us Strange doing something truly terrible, but because we see the lead up and the events surrounding it, Strange is given sympathy. However, Cates never veers away from just how horrible using Zelma and the Sentry is.

[kaimaciel]

I feel like saying characters shouldn't be "defined" by their sexuality or gender or race is often an excuse not to use anything other than a straight white male. The fact is, our experiences from our sex or gender or race are important determining factors for most of us. That doesn't mean you can't make a good story out of it.

I'm not saying novels shouldn't have diverse characters or themes, but they should be well written. I have bought books based on reviews praising them for their diversity, only to be disappointed with bad writing and bland characters. It's not enough.

My guess is that it is a matter of preference and how the author portrays the characters. There are certain situations and certain books where the characters gender, sexuality, race, etc is the center of the plot (a romance, a coming out story, etc), while in others is just an aspect of the character that is inconsequential to the story.

I have a chronic illness that I have never seen portrayed in media except for bowel humor (believe me, there's nothing funny about it). I would love to see a character with the same illness, but mostly I want a well-written book, interesting characters, good world building, and a good plot. If a book has diversity and all those elements, it's win in my opinion. Leigh Bardugo and Rainbow Rowell wrote fantasy YA novels with diverse characters that were likable and well written.

In Loki's case, we've had the pansexuality and gender fluidity for years, but I honestly care more about his adventures and his relationship with Thor and his family than romance and his sex life. But that's just me. If MacKenzie Lee follows the same route the other YA writers are using for DC characters, were probably going to see Loki meeting and falling in love with an OC, which... doesn't exactly appeal to me.

But a lot of people love that (considering the thousands of fanfics), so that's fine. If we all read the same thing, there would be no creativity.

As for Dr. Strange, I wonder if Cates doesn't realize that what he's doing with Zelma and bring back Sentry is terrible. From some reactions that I have seen, readers were excited to see Bob again and congratulating Stephen for bringing Loki's killer back, claiming it's only fair because "Loki killed his dog". Oh boy...

PS: This is just my opinion. I hope I haven't offended anyone.