Thor Odinson, God of Thunder Appreciation 2019

[Wall-Crawler]

Guys, what's the general consensus on Roy Thomas' run on Thor ?

[kilderkin]

Thinking back I enjoyed this period a lot in some ways

But it's not without its issues

It's not my favourite but I especially liked the use of Loki in this period

[Electricmastro]

Hmm, I get the feeling Avengers #20 is implying that this is what Jason Aaron thinks of people who think Jane Foster shouldn't be called "Thor."

[kilderkin]

Hmm, I get the feeling Avengers #20 is implying that this is what Jason Aaron thinks of people who think Jane Foster shouldn't be called "Thor."

I'm not in any doubt it's an attack at them, even if it's under the pretense of it being humourous

[JKtheMac]

Or examining whether the gods should even involve themselves with Earth to begin with.
I always took Asgard (and by extension Olympus's) hands-free approach to humanity as less, malicious or irresponsible or more just leaving humanity to face it's fate on its own terms rather then try and solve all of their problems.

Aaron wasn’t necessarily suggesting otherwise. Just that Asgard was on a path of separation, moving in the wrong direction, that they could so easily drift the way of the cruel alien gods that no longer cared what their worshippers wanted. Indeed Cul was making it drift even more towards isolation.

Cul was already the God of Fear and had drifted far from his true divinity as the God of Love, just as the alien gods in God of Thunder were all dark reflections of what they probably were before.

Like I always say, it’s all there in the text and was from the start. One only needs to look for the clues.

[JKtheMac]

Hmm, I get the feeling Avengers #20 is implying that this is what Jason Aaron thinks of people who think Jane Foster shouldn't be called "Thor."

That if they see things differently they are capable of love? I agree.

[JKtheMac]

Guys, what's the general consensus on Roy Thomas' run on Thor ?

There are two. Both are controversial. They were at the time and they remain so by those of us that still see his influence. I mean he is a renowned writer who has contributed much to comics, but boy did he set Thor on a strange path. The first was mostly papered over. The second is responsible for a lot of the things so many people here complain about but blame other writers for.

They are also essential reading if you want to deep dive into why Thor continuity is weird and convoluted. Especially why modern writers think of Odin as a problem character.

[Frontier]

Aaron wasn’t necessarily suggesting otherwise. Just that Asgard was on a path of separation, moving in the wrong direction, that they could so easily drift the way of the cruel alien gods that no longer cared what their worshippers wanted. Indeed Cul was making it drift even more towards isolation.

I don't think isolationists necessarily equates to "doesn't care," although the level of how much the Asgardians actually need to be worshipped has never been clear. Certainly it doesn't seem to be their main perogative as gods.

Cul was already the God of Fear and had drifted far from his true divinity as the God of Love, just as the alien gods in God of Thunder were all dark reflections of what they probably were before.

Cul as "God of Love?" Okay .

[Cronus]

Not particularly effectively in my opinion. For me the previous examples, and there have been a few so it’s not as if this isn’t an ongoing theme, have mostly raised more questions in my experience.

The messianic side of Thor is very much a reoccurring theme. Take Beta-Ray Bill for example, he is partly in the story to emphasise this aspect of Thor. A saviour that can lift Mjölnir. It points out that Thor may also be a messianic figure. There are other examples baked in, like the fact Thor was sent to earth as a mortal. This issue will always be explored.

I hope it's a subject they let die honestly, at least in connection with Thor. The whole messianic theme is something done to death with the Silver Surfer. I just dont get Aaron's motivation for revisiting the subject with Thor...particularly by a professed atheist. As well, when church attendance world wide (Catholic church) is on the wane... I just dont get why he thinks this is interesting.

To anyone?

[Electricmastro]

That if they see things differently they are capable of love? I agree.

Ah, you mean the type of love that involves being smashed in the face with a hammer until you start bleeding, right?

[Cronus]

There are two. Both are controversial. They were at the time and they remain so by those of us that still see his influence. I mean he is a renowned writer who has contributed much to comics, but boy did he set Thor on a strange path. The first was mostly papered over. The second is responsible for a lot of the things so many people here complain about but blame other writers for.

They are also essential reading if you want to deep dive into why Thor continuity is weird and convoluted. Especially why modern writers think of Odin as a problem character.

...and I'm one that wasn't a fan of some of Roy's stuff, no disrespect to him. But...yeah. Some strange stories.

I suppose I'm a "grass roots" Thor fan (nope...I'm not Republican nor did I vote for Trump). My basic interpretation of how Thor should be written was fleshed out in the fourth prologue of "Origins of Marvel Comics", by Stan Lee.

The basic template is there. It's a shame writers dont give it a glance.

As well, I feel like if more writer's adopted a more "Geoff Johns" approach in writing Thor stories particularly (write stories that revolve around the character's personality and power set...and let them shine) maybe fewer would complain?

I was chatting with Kurt Busiek sometime ago about the process that goes into evaluating and writing a given character's power set in a given story. His comment? There are no industry standards in place for writing these things. IIRC, he believed Thor could not withstand bullet fire..

Which I thought was ludicrous.

But I get it: what writer wants to...or has time...to slog through 50 years of continuity just so they can please fans. On the other hand, some writers just seem to "get it". J Michael Stracynskis interpretation of Thor is the last one that really knocked my socks off. Fraction, not too shabby as well.

But I get it. You think Jason Aaron is great. But I honestly cant wait until the guy is off Thor and my intuition tells me he cant wait to be done with Thor as well.

I think long time fans of Thor can tell which writers are enthusiastic about Thor (any character really) and those more interested in making "their mark" or otherwise writing something they think is cleverly written.

[THORPERION]

I have yet to see what Aaron has accomplished that is so revolutionary that some people here defend it as if they were him? The entire run was terrible. The only saving grace was the artwork. Even then, I’ll buy bad art with a great story. Great art and terrible story? Heck no! After issue 4 of the She-thor fumble I was out. I’ve read all the complaints and all the attempts by some to make this story seem anything other than a complete waste of time and an insult to Thor’s mythos!

It’s clear that Aaron wished he was as talented as Mr. Simonson. Beat by beat, Aaron has repeated what Simonson achieved but badly. However, the one thing I want to argue here the most is the fallacy that Foster was in any way a “Goddess.” She was and is not. Easiest way to point this out is that Thor is still powerful without his hammer. What happened when Foster let the hammer go? Was she still strong? Was she still beautiful? Did she still kick ass? Did she talk like and have Thor’s attitude? NO.

Therefore she was never a “goddess”. It’s sad that some here argue over and over and make long and over analyzed posts about mediocre writing to try and prove a point that is as plain as the nose on their face! Beta Ray Bill is not a deity. Nor was Red Norvell. The closest a mortal got to being the actual God of Thunder was Eric Masterson, of whom Aaron even stole the face-masked helmet that he gave Foster. Masterson actually had Thor’s body while Thor was in exile and he actually controlled it. But even he let go of the hammer and became Eric again. So, how the heck can someone even argue that Foster is an actual “goddess” when she dies more every time she uses the hammer and looks like the embodiment of death when she’s not wielding the hammer?!

Thor had stories where he was sick and his body was emaciated but he was still a force to be reckoned with! Foster, without the hammer, was nothing. In fact, the biggest mistake Aaron made was to make Foster so adept at using the hammer. By doing this he both made her a phony and destroyed her attempt at a heroes tale. Why? Simple. If she was so much of a “goddess” why did she continually talk to Mjolnir and have him do everything for her? It fought her battles! It told her when and where to go? Where a “Thor” was needed. She never guided the story. She was led every bit of the way and like it or not she is cast in HIS (Thor’s) image. Forever his inferior. No matter what. Same as all the other characters who bare Thor’s look. Funny how Cap never took his look huh?

Further, why would she talk to and ask the “Mother of Storms” to grant her this, that, and the other? Why was there even a Mother Storm created? To justify Foster’s effectiveness that’s why. That issue added absolutely nothing to the story other than an excuse for Foster’s phony prowess. That and to make men (Odín) the villains.

So, the real reason for this story was to apologize to the SJWs for having Thor be such a powerful and masculine character. That’s the truth. The point of the entire story is that men are bad. Women are better. That’s it. Women had no business being at the forefront of this “what makes you” THOR (only birth) story unless it was Sif or Gaea. The woman who bore him and gave him his power (power that the hammer does not wield by the way) and the woman who shared his thoughts and bed. It’s Sif who should’ve wielded the hammer. That would’ve been awesome! But no. The atheist had to make his point about humanity being better than the gods.

Thor is the epitome of nobility. The bastion of all that is good! Self sacrifice is no stranger to this deity even when he has no reason to do so to save an ungrateful humanity. Jurgens’ run explored the worship aspects towards gods. When people prayed to Thor, he listened and failed in properly managing the needs of his believers ending up making wars and zombies out of the needs he was asked to fulfill. Imperfection of the gods: check!

So now, what did this alleged “incredible author” teach us about Thor that we didn’t know before? NOTHING. Not a damned thing! And that’s the truth.

[Cronus]

I have yet to see what Aaron has accomplished that is so revolutionary that some people here defend it as if they were him? The entire run was terrible. The only saving grace was the artwork. Even then, I’ll buy bad art with a great story. Great art and terrible story? Heck no! After issue 4 of the She-thor fumble I was out. I’ve read all the complaints and all the attempts by some to make this story seem anything other than a complete waste of time and an insult to Thor’s mythos!

It’s clear that Aaron wished he was as talented as Mr. Simonson. Beat by beat, Aaron has repeated what Simonson achieved but badly. However, the one thing I want to argue here the most is the fallacy that Foster was in any way a “Goddess.” She was and is not. Easiest way to point this out is that Thor is still powerful without his hammer. What happened when Foster let the hammer go? Was she still strong? Was she still beautiful? Did she still kick ass? Did she talk like and have Thor’s attitude? NO.

Therefore she was never a “goddess”. It’s sad that some here argue over and over and make long and over analyzed posts about mediocre writing to try and prove a point that is as plain as the nose on their face! Beta Ray Bill is not a deity. Nor was Red Norvell. The closest a mortal got to being the actual God of Thunder was Eric Masterson, of whom Aaron even stole the face-masked helmet that he gave Foster. Masterson actually had Thor’s body while Thor was in exile and he actually controlled it. But even he let go of the hammer and became Eric again. So, how the heck can someone even argue that Foster is an actual “goddess” when she dies more every time she uses the hammer and looks like the embodiment of death when she’s not wielding the hammer?!

Thor had stories where he was sick and his body was emaciated but he was still a force to be reckoned with! Foster, without the hammer, was nothing. In fact, the biggest mistake Aaron made was to make Foster so adept at using the hammer. By doing this he both made her a phony and destroyed her attempt at a heroes tale. Why? Simple. If she was so much of a “goddess” why did she continually talk to Mjolnir and have him do everything for her? It fought her battles! It told her when and where to go? Where a “Thor” was needed. She never guided the story. She was led every bit of the way and like it or not she is cast in HIS (Thor’s) image. Forever his inferior. No matter what. Same as all the other characters who bare Thor’s look. Funny how Cap never took his look huh?

Further, why would she talk to and ask the “Mother of Storms” to grant her this, that, and the other? Why was there even a Mother Storm created? To justify Foster’s effectiveness that’s why. That issue added absolutely nothing to the story other than an excuse for Foster’s phony prowess. That and to make men (Odín) the villains.

So, the real reason for this story was to apologize to the SJWs for having Thor be such a powerful and masculine character. That’s the truth. The point of the entire story is that men are bad. Women are better. That’s it. Women had no business being at the forefront of this “what makes you” THOR (only birth) story unless it was Sif or Gaea. The woman who bore him and gave him his power (power that the hammer does not wield by the way) and the woman who shared his thoughts and bed. It’s Sif who should’ve wielded the hammer. That would’ve been awesome! But no. The atheist had to make his point about humanity being better than the gods.

Thor is the epitome of nobility. The bastion of all that is good! Self sacrifice is no stranger to this deity even when he has no reason to do so to save an ungrateful humanity. Jurgens’ run explored the worship aspects towards gods. When people prayed to Thor, he listened and failed in properly managing the needs of his believers ending up making wars and zombies out of the needs he was asked to fulfill. Imperfection of the gods: check!

So now, what did this alleged “incredible author” teach us about Thor that we didn’t know before? NOTHING. Not a damned thing! And that’s the truth.

Well said and agreed. Didn't Aaron do something similar with Ghost Rider, making him female or some such?

I agree too, all this talk of Aaron and what a talented writer he is. Maybe so.

But was he a good writer for Thor?

Methinks not!

Man I wish Jurgens would take another stab!

[JKtheMac]

I don't think isolationists necessarily equates to "doesn't care," although the level of how much the Asgardians actually need to be worshipped has never been clear. Certainly it doesn't seem to be their main perogative as gods.

I am not equating isolationism to don’t care, but it was a step in that direction. By its very nature, isolationist means you either ignore problems outside your own system, or only respond with your own interests in mind. Cul was closing borders, and refusing to get involved in the war. He wanted to actively stifle the council too. The people of Asgard were slowly moving towards a police state out of ‘fear’. Cul wanted to protect everyone in his care and chose a very extreme way of doing it.

I am not convinced the Asgardian’s are worshipped directly very often in the MCU. That’s not actually necessary for the story is it? This is about how the gods shape themselves, what they consider their role is, and how it conforms to what mortals think of them and need from them. Humans, or at least proto-humans shaped them to be responsive. What happens when humans stop believing in the gods of Asgard but at the same time know they exist and are gods? What is their role then? Thor would probably say it doesn’t matter. That they should still try and be worthy of them. Help them and support them. Try and make their lives better. Thor has always done that.

Cul as "God of Love?" Okay .

I presume you are up to date with Thor comics. If not then sorry that’s perhaps a spoiler. Or maybe you were not invested enough in the issue to realise that was the message. But yes it turns out Cul was repressing his real nature and had allowed himself to be turned into one of the dark shadow aspects of love. Fear. This is a subtle call back to the gods that Thor finds murdered by Gorr in TGOT.

[JKtheMac]

...and I'm one that wasn't a fan of some of Roy's stuff, no disrespect to him. But...yeah. Some strange stories.

Exactly. Can’t disrespect him because he is so important in the history of comics. So much good material. I just don’t think his Thor work was necessarily his best, and may have hurt the character. I said somewhere here that I have mostly come to terms with it. Aaron has activity sought to tidy up some of the more subtle issues that Thomas left us with.

I suppose I'm a "grass roots" Thor fan (nope...I'm not Republican nor did I vote for Trump). My basic interpretation of how Thor should be written was fleshed out in the fourth prologue of "Origins of Marvel Comics", by Stan Lee.

I understand this view, and you are by no means alone in this view. But there has always been a tension in this, and Stan may not have been as clearly in your camp as you think. He often said things that he didn’t stick to. I take him on his actions not his thoughts about what he was up to. Stan very clearly challenged characters and allowed them to shift and change. Grow and adapt. There is probably an entire thesis in that if anyone is looking for one.

I think today people like to put Stan in a cosy box. Say he was a better salesman than writer. Actually his instinct for story was second to none, and this changed the entire industry. He was best when he worked on instinct though. Once he began to theorise and shape stories based on those ideas he seemed to loose his edge.

Theory and practice are so often at odds. I theorise about writing all the time. When I write I try and forget everything and write on instinct. If I don’t its a mess. People like Hickman fascinate me because they so clearly write directly from their intellect. I love his work because it is so different to anything I could ever do.

I was chatting with Kurt Busiek sometime ago about the process that goes into evaluating and writing a given character's power set in a given story. His comment? There are no industry standards in place for writing these things. IIRC, he believed Thor could not withstand bullet fire..

For an insight into why Busiek is one of the best writers in comics, and why I would trust him implicitly, read his Astro City work. It may help you understand why he didn’t agree with you. He squares the circle perfectly. He is very continuity aware and very conscious of the way fans think, but he is also able to craft stories about emotional change and tensions like no other in the business. Personally, I can’t imagine Stan disapproving of anything he wrote, even if he appears to break one or two of Stan’s apparent rules.

I think long time fans of Thor can tell which writers are enthusiastic about Thor (any character really) and those more interested in making "their mark" or otherwise writing something they think is cleverly written.

Long term fans are not a homogeneous group. Some have read it all and are not really looking for continuity, some, like myself, love continuity but especially love the messy parts, some love continuity but like to hold onto what they consider core elements and reject or ignore anything that doesn’t conform to that notion. None of these are wrong ways to look at things. We need to be more aware of how we are not a single group though.

No writer can please everyone. The attitudes of the editors and who they choose to write their comics is key. Currently an attitude of creative, story first change is the predominant mindset. I actually think this was closer to what Stan practiced than what he preached.