Theory about the Asgardians

[ElliotJA]

It's been noted that flashbacks to the pasts of the current iteration of Asgardian gods are frequently inconsistent. It has also long been known that there have actually been many different cycles of existence for the Asgardians, all ending in Ragnarok, after which they are reborn with new histories, all orchestrated by Those Who Sit Above In Shadow. A theory I have developed is that, after Thor broke the cycle and then resurrected the gods, he did not just bring back the most recent cycle, but all prior cycles, so in effect the current gods are amalgamations of all their past selves blurred into one. This is how they remember all their different pasts as though they happened to them.

Also, I'm wondering if, while the past cycles were sequential in their own dimension, they may have overlapped slightly on ancient Earth, so different versions of characters like Thor were active at the same time. This is what I think the case is with stories like AGES OF THUNDER, which depict the activities of past cycles of Asgard, but their interactions with Earth appear to take place at times when the current cycle should have been around.

[JKtheMac]

It's been noted that flashbacks to the pasts of the current iteration of Asgardian gods are frequently inconsistent. It has also long been known that there have actually been many different cycles of existence for the Asgardians, all ending in Ragnarok, after which they are reborn with new histories, all orchestrated by Those Who Sit Above In Shadow. A theory I have developed is that, after Thor broke the cycle and then resurrected the gods, he did not just bring back the most recent cycle, but all prior cycles, so in effect the current gods are amalgamations of all their past selves blurred into one. This is how they remember all their different pasts as though they happened to them.

Also, I'm wondering if, while the past cycles were sequential in their own dimension, they may have overlapped slightly on ancient Earth, so different versions of characters like Thor were active at the same time. This is what I think the case is with stories like AGES OF THUNDER, which depict the activities of past cycles of Asgard, but their interactions with Earth appear to take place at times when the current cycle should have been around.

I think any theory trying to account for Ragnarok cycles is doomed, mainly because Marvel seem to have ditched them with Secret Wars. I don't believe the editors at Marvel are particularly attached to the notion, and have sought to sweep the idea aside, to be ignored. While the association with The Beyonders wasn't a cast iron end to TWSAIS, I think it is seen as such at Marvel. Some iterations of the Ragnarok cycle worked, but often they were just confusing and messy. Or an excuse to tell time displaced stories in mini-series.

[ElliotJA]

How precisely does Secret Wars discredit the notion of past cycles of gods?

There pretty much have to have been past cycles to account for all the discrepancies in the gods' histories in the comics.

[JKtheMac]

How precisely does Secret Wars discredit the notion of past cycles of gods?

There pretty much have to have been past cycles to account for all the discrepancies in the gods' histories in the comics.

I didn't say it discredited the idea. It removes it from the table. Loki identified TWSAIS as Beyonders. By doing this he allowed them to be killed. It is actually a type of magic that Loki uses to do this, which simultaneously acknowledges they may not be Beyonders but it makes them Beyonders anyway.

The point is TWSAIS have been discarded as part of general reordering of Secret Wars. That appears to me to be an editorial decision. I am probably biased because they were one of my pet hates about Thor canon, one I try and ignore as much as possible. Writers kept trying to erase them and they kept coming back. Ragnarok cycles are just daft. Indeed Aaron is taking pains to suggest a continuity of character for Odin from One Million BC to now. As if he has always been the same guy. I imagine this will be canon from now on.

[theoneandonly]

reed now seems to be the arbiter of all the destinies of the gods and everything if SW is to be taken literally so long as he has the cooperation of MM. lol. I wonder if he has a direct channel to the one above all. shame he didn't make a appearance in ultimates 2 ad we had to do with maker when MM put in a appearance.

[vitruvian]

I didn't say it discredited the idea. It removes it from the table. Loki identified TWSAIS as Beyonders. By doing this he allowed them to be killed. It is actually a type of magic that Loki uses to do this, which simultaneously acknowledges they may not be Beyonders but it makes them Beyonders anyway.

The point is TWSAIS have been discarded as part of general reordering of Secret Wars. That appears to me to be an editorial decision. I am probably biased because they were one of my pet hates about Thor canon, one I try and ignore as much as possible. Writers kept trying to erase them and they kept coming back. Ragnarok cycles are just daft. Indeed Aaron is taking pains to suggest a continuity of character for Odin from One Million BC to now. As if he has always been the same guy. I imagine this will be canon from now on.

How have the cycles been discarded or removed? Have we been told that there was no final Ragnarok, after which Thor and Asgard were absent for a good long while before he came back and brought Asgard back over Oklahoma? There was no Siege? Loki never confronted TWSAIS, even though you reference it? In which issues of which comics has this retcon been shown?

TWSAIS may have been killed, but as far as I can tell their history of causing and feeding upon many Ragnaroks remains intact.

[JKtheMac]

How have the cycles been discarded or removed? Have we been told that there was no final Ragnarok, after which Thor and Asgard were absent for a good long while before he came back and brought Asgard back over Oklahoma? There was no Siege? Loki never confronted TWSAIS, even though you reference it? In which issues of which comics has this retcon been shown?

TWSAIS may have been killed, but as far as I can tell their history of causing and feeding upon many Ragnaroks remains intact.

And again I didn't say it was removed. I said it looks like it is being ignored. I believe it will not be referenced again as a cyclical thing that resulted in new iterations of the characters or the myth. In a way, maybe that is just agreeing with the OP for different reasons.

[ElliotJA]

How else do we explain the numerous discrepancies in the backstories of the gods?

[vitruvian]

How else do we explain the numerous discrepancies in the backstories of the gods?

Well, there is always Loki's take that the Asgardians and other gods are more stories than actual people with actual, verifiable histories. But then, being God of Stories (or Lies, depending on your perspective), he would say that, wouldn't he?

[ElliotJA]

Is this necessarily inconsistent with the idea of TWSAIS and earlier cycles?

[Mike_Murdock]

I think the problem you run into is your solution would account for current instances of the gods remembering actions prior their supposed current cycle, but it wouldn't account for instances of this prior to Thor Disassembled.

I think a more accurate answer is that Roy Thomas introduced the concept of the cyclical nature of the gods and then other writers (notably Walter Simonson) decided they didn't like it. Simonson quite deliberately retconned this out (basically saying "why are you believing what a giant floating eyeball is telling you anyway?"), but other writers have still used it. The cycle was useful in the sense that it allowed Ragnarok stories without ending the book, but it's ultimately meaningless. I suppose it explains why we seem to see flashbacks of Odin with one eye when he clearly plucked out his eye after Kirby stopped penciling for the book.

[JKtheMac]

I think the problem you run into is your solution would account for current instances of the gods remembering actions prior their supposed current cycle, but it wouldn't account for instances of this prior to Thor Disassembled.

I think a more accurate answer is that Roy Thomas introduced the concept of the cyclical nature of the gods and then other writers (notably Walter Simonson) decided they didn't like it. Simonson quite deliberately retconned this out (basically saying "why are you believing what a giant floating eyeball is telling you anyway?"), but other writers have still used it. The cycle was useful in the sense that it allowed Ragnarok stories without ending the book, but it's ultimately meaningless. I suppose it explains why we seem to see flashbacks of Odin with one eye when he clearly plucked out his eye after Kirby stopped penciling for the book.

Maybe he has an eye-patch affectation.

Seriously though, the cycles are just another example of how Thor continuity was messed around with to try and find a winning formula for the book. If Thor was a DC character we wouldn't care because they would have reinvented him over the years as they did with Superman.

Thor has often struggled to find an audience and some people, especially Roy Thomas, but let's be honest Walt Simonson also, couldn't resist tinkering with the core concept. Personally, I believe that is because the core concept has never been quite right, and writers can feel that when they get on the book. Addressing this problem has created interesting stories along the way, but has also resulted in unnecessary stuff.

[ElliotJA]

The cyclical nature of Ragnarok is pretty much integral to Thor Disassembled though, so it cannot be ignored.

[JudicatorPrime]

Maybe he has an eye-patch affectation.

Seriously though, the cycles are just another example of how Thor continuity was messed around with to try and find a winning formula for the book. If Thor was a DC character we wouldn't care because they would have reinvented him over the years as they did with Superman.

Thor has often struggled to find an audience and some people, especially Roy Thomas, but let's be honest Walt Simonson also, couldn't resist tinkering with the core concept. Personally, I believe that is because the core concept has never been quite right, and writers can feel that when they get on the book. Addressing this problem has created interesting stories along the way, but has also resulted in unnecessary stuff.

Could it be something as simple as everyone having a Ragnarok story in them that they want to tell? I know I've had a few good Twilight of the Gods stories running around my head over the years. And Thor has been reinvented a number of times. His current presentation is proof of that. Strict adherence to the myth can be difficult to market sometimes and the Marvel twist means everything in terms of adaptation, relevance and appreciation.

[JKtheMac]

Could it be something as simple as everyone having a Ragnarok story in them that they want to tell? I know I've had a few good Twilight of the Gods stories running around my head over the years. And Thor has been reinvented a number of times. His current presentation is proof of that. Strict adherence to the myth can be difficult to market sometimes and the Marvel twist means everything in terms of adaptation, relevance and appreciation.

I have posted here in the past that it seems every writer wants to do their version. I was catching up on some minis that I hadn't read and it seemed that all of them we're Ragnarok stories. I don't think this is a good thing.

There has never been adherence to the Myths, which is definitely a good thing. Again some of the minis try and retell the myths and they were ok as far as they went.