A Bad Case of the Blues

cookiesforthedarkside:

shine-of-asgard:

foundlingmother:

Get it? Cause they’re both blue? And bad guys? I’m hysterical, admit it.

In this meta, I will be examining the similarities between the sibling relationship arcs of Thor & Loki and Gamora & Nebula, from their childhood to their reconciliation (or “reconciliation”, as the case may be).

This meta will be split into two parts: Context and Argument.

The purpose of this meta is to explain why I am dissatisfied with the conclusion to Thor & Loki’s relationship arc. If you’re not a fan of Ragnarok criticism/discussion, this meta isn’t for you, and the tag you should blacklist if you’re following me is “ragnarok discourse”. It’s perfectly fine to tailor your dashboard to your preferences. I do it too. If you aren’t a fan of Ragnarok criticism, but would like to rebut my arguments, you’re more than welcome to do so politely.

Some people who might find this interesting/want to add something… @philosopherking1887, @imaginetrilobites, @lucianalight, @princess-ikol, @illwynd, @incredifishface, and @iamanartichoke (I know Ragnarok criticism isn’t always your thing, but when it comes to the Brodinsons’ relationship we seem to agree). I hate tagging people, but this post was too much work not to. I always feel like I’m bothering everyone. Do feel free to disregard if you would like.

Context

Childhood

Gamora and Nebula both lose everything, Thanos kidnaps them, and they’re trained and mutilated, turned into assassins who travel the galaxy and do his bidding. Thanos pits them against one another in a competition where Gamora always comes out on top. Nebula grew to resent Gamora for winning–that they were in this competition at all since she just wanted a sister–even though Thanos was ultimately responsible/the one at fault for this. Through it all, Gamora remained focused on her own problems, and in so doing unintentionally contributed to Nebula’s (ex: Gamora winning results in Nebula being augmented).

Thor and Loki, compared to Gamora and Nebula, have an idyllic childhood. They’re actually Odin and Frigga’s children. Odin and Frigga are bad/abusive parents, but they are parents. Both Odin and Frigga conceal from Loki his heritage. They allow Thor and others to spout racism against Frost Giants, even in Loki’s presence. They permit Thor’s worst impulses until after someone gets hurt. Odin pits them against one another in a competition where Thor always comes out on top. Loki grew to resent Thor for being the favored son–that they were in this competition at all since he just wanted to be equals–even though Odin was ultimately responsible/the one at fault for this. Through it all, Thor remained focused on his own problems, and in so doing unintentionally contributed to Loki’s (ex: Thor’s own insecurities and resulting arrogance lead to him reinforcing Loki’s insecurities with commands like, “Know your place, brother.”).

Conflict

To summarize the entire active conflict between Thor and Loki (two+ fucking films worth!) would be exhausting, so I’m merely going to enumerate the similarities where I see them.

Both pairs of siblings begin at a relatively equal moral position. Gamora and Nebula have both committed grave crimes against the galaxy at the behest of Thanos and Ronan. Thor and Loki both start firmly convinced of the vileness of the Frost Giant race. Gamora and Thor are, perhaps, worse than their siblings. Gamora easily steals an opportunity from Nebula in GotG. It’s not a stretch to infer Thanos and Ronan favored sending her on jobs, meaning she would have committed more crimes. Thor
has genocidal aspirations, where Loki does not (at first), wanting to destroy the Frost Giants in whole or in part (look at me exercising my knowledge of the U.N. definition of genocide like some pedantic asshole) because of the prejudice he’s absorbed from society and, almost certainly, Odin specifically.

Gamora and Thor both come to the realization that they were wrong. Gamora betrays Thanos and finds a new family, while Thor confronts his greatest flaws and adjusts his behavior and values.

Meanwhile, Nebula and Loki hurt innocent people to achieve their (sympathetic) desires. In Nebula’s case, she helps Ronan attempt to annihilate the Nova Empire in exchange for the opportunity to destroy Thanos, the “father” that’s tortured her all her life. In Loki’s case, he first attempts genocide against the Frost Giants in the midst of a mental breakdown/identity crisis in order to win Odin’s approval, and then attacks Midgard to survive Thanos, get away from the torture, and to lash out at the people he feels did him wrong (Thor and Odin).

At various points, Nebula and Loki attempt to kill their siblings. (I’m not going to list them–you know them.)

Gamora and Thor initially attempt to reason with their siblings, to talk them down from the conflict, but they both, inevitably, give up on them. Gamora gives up on Nebula at the end of GotG. At the beginning of GotG Vol. 2, Nebula is a bounty Gamora means to collect. Thor gives up on Loki twice. First, at the end of Avengers. Second, in Ragnarok.

Argument

You know, looking at the similarities between the sibling arcs, I have to wonder about fandom’s treatment of Nebula vs. Loki. I, for one, have never seen anyone claim that Nebula doesn’t deserve Gamora, despite the fact that both Nebula and Loki try to kill their siblings, lead armies that devastate a city, and attempt genocide/to massacre the people of an empire, not primarily out of a desire to kill (though in Loki’s case there’s certainly a bit of that when it comes to the Frost Giants), but for other reasons (family issues/Thanos issues). Granted, Nebula does both at the same time, whilst Loki spreads these things out, but that doesn’t explain the difference in the fandom’s treatment of these characters and their relationships with their siblings.

Seguir leyendo

It’s a very thoughtful description of the two relationships. To summarize, Nebula and Gamora are independent characters with independent goals who reconcile as equals. Loki is narratively a prop for Thor and he skunks back to Thor’s shadow under the pain of abandonment.

A interesting detail is that Nebula is allowed a clean win in the field where their rivalry was centered (physical prowess). Loki is denied a clean win in the two fields where his rivalry with Thor was at its peak: he’s shown as a very lousy king/leader AND the generally unworthy brother throughout the film.

Not only that, but the movie shows him up in areas where he used to have the upper hand on Thor – manipulation and trickery. If you can call Thor’s hamfisted tactics “manipulation” and not bludgeoning. What next, are they going to make Thor an accomplished sorcerer? Oh wait, they already got Strange to overshadow Loki there too.

That’s a pretty standard narrative/mythic trope, the “trickster tricked.” It happens in the Norse myths, as when Loki turns into a salmon to try to escape punishment for causing Balder’s death and then Thor catches him in the fishnet that Loki had been weaving. (A very literal version of the weaver of schemes being caught in his own net.) We saw a little bit of that in TDW, when Thor handcuffed Loki instead of arming him (“I thought you liked tricks”) and pushed him out of the Dark Elf ship onto the skiff (“You lied to me. I’m impressed”). In theory, I don’t have a problem with that.

What @foundlingmother points to as the problem with their “reconciliation” is exactly right. Unlike GotG2 with Nebula, TR doesn’t even acknowledge, let alone validate, Loki’s perspective on the sibling conflict. Of course the in-story reason Loki doesn’t rebut Thor’s assessment is because he’s paralyzed by the obedience disk… but that parallels the structural narrative situation, too. He’s being silenced, physically by Thor* and narratively by the film’s implied perspective (which basically lines up with Thor*’s). By acquiescing to Thor*’s demands, apparently because he’s responded to the ultimatum, Loki appears to confirm Thor*’s and the film’s diagnosis that all of the problems in the relationship were the result of Loki’s selfish, capricious badness – never mind that 3 previous films made a point of showing that this is not the case.

musclesandhammering:

drachenkinder:

dictionarywrites:

maneth985:

philosopherking1887:

thorduna:

cookiesforthedarkside:

sb: thor isn’t made of sunshine and rainbows, and is actually a complicated guy who’s done some bad shit, and shouldn’t be treated as an innocent teddy bear

thor stans: is this character hate?

thor stans: thor isn’t perfect but he’s not malicious and sure as shit didn’t try to commit genocide

sb: wow such a flat outlook on character. thor stans just can’t see thor as anything but perfect. sad.

As a fan of both Loki and Thor who finds Loki more interesting as a character but certainly does not deny that he has more moral problems than Thor, I have to point out that that’s a peculiarly bad example. Kid Thor saying “When I’m king, I’ll hunt the monsters down and slay them all” can be dismissed as little-boy careless bravado. Young man Thor, after starting a destructive battle on Jotunheim, shouting “Father! We’ll finish them together!”… harder to dismiss. Maybe he just means “defeat them definitively”; maybe it’s just the rage of battle talking. Or maybe he meant what he said when he was a kid.

Loki certainly has a more effective plan to commit genocide, and probably comes closer to succeeding. It’s indirect and technological rather than direct and warrior-like; that’s part of the difference between their characters. Loki’s attempt also has the complexity of being undertaken after finding out that he’s a member of the group he’s trying to wipe out. Does that make it morally better? Not exactly, but it does add an element of twisted pathos. In both cases, Odin’s miseducation deserves a large share of the blame.

exactly, they both have done wrong things, Thor changed and realised genocide isn’t the answer while Loki went the other way. And yet….they were both raised by a conqueror, someone who taught them their history in which it obviously shows that wiping out entire civilizations was alright cause they were inferior.

Thor says that you can’t kill an entire race while Loki answers: Why not? And what is this newfound love for the frost giants?You, could have killed them all with your bare hands!

It did surprise me that when Loki had the throne, he chose to stay put, and only care for Asgard, the Loki in Thor and Avengers would’ve turned into Hela, and he knows it.

Problem is, Thor is always painted as the Hero™ and that means that he can do or has done nothing wrong, and is not that simple.

Egh, I actually don’t agree that Loki really hated the Frost Giants and wanted to kill them. I think that was a panicked response to a situation he’d already escalated to fuck, and was very much prompted by self-loathing – barely ten minutes after attacking the Jötnar he tried to kill HIMSELF, and I think it was all to do with his hatred of himself that he wanted to attack Jötunheimr. A mix of hating himself and wanting desperately to make Odin proud.

Attempted Genocide round two. The invasion of Muspelhiem, the assassination of Surtr. The slaughter of its people. Thor was under the evil influence of Thanos after being tortured by him, wait that was wrong. Thor had just found out that he was a fire giant and his father told him his destiny was to die, and his brother had just gone off and tried to kill all the fire giants. No wait that’s wrong too. Umm.. Three fire giants sneaked into Asgard and tried to steal the cask of summer?? No.. Oh I remember. Thor was attacked by the Scarlet Witch and she had him hallucinate about Ragnarok. He became so obsessed by his hallucination, even though every other hero had experienced a similar attack he decided to drop all his obligations and race off across the nine realms trying to stop his hallucination from becoming reality. That was his reasoning. Sorry dude I’ve dropped acid in my time. I don’t go around cutting down trees because of the one bad trip where I hallucinated a tree was following me around all night, to eat me. You only had a 20 minute spell. I call bullshit on his heroism.

Ok so I wasn’t gonna get into this because I haven’t seen the first movie in awhile and I’m not even in the headspace to discuss character motivations right now, but I think I’m gonna have a go.

The problem with this whole thing, in my opinion, is that- to most normal audience members who aren’t obsessed with all the intricacies of these films (*cough* not nerds)- it seems that Thor is constantly in the right, not because he’s never tried to commit genocide or expressed disturbing bigoted ideals and flawed morals, but because every time he has done these things, the film makers have made it out to seem like he’s doing them for all the right reasons.

It’s like: He hates jotuns and sees them as nothing more than monsters to be slain? Well that’s just because they attacked Midgard long ago, so technically he’s right. Oh, he wants to kill all of the jotuns? Well, they did ruin his coronation and they do seem like cold cruel people, so he’s just doing the universe a favor, probably.

More examples: What, Thor chooses to strangle Tony instead of talking like a civilized individual? Well, Tony did just accidentally create a murder robot so he deserves to be physically threatened by a being much stronger than him. Oh, Thor runs off to assuage his paranoia over the hallucinations instead of staying and protecting Midgard (like he said he’d do) or returning and checking on Asgard? Well, it ultimately led him back to Asgard, so it’s cool.

I have a ton more examples, but I can’t add them right now because I’m posting this on my phone and mobile gets glitchy once you’ve typed so much.

But yeah, the issue isn’t that people don’t acknowledge his wrongdoings. It’s that they brush them aside simply because Thor is made out to be this heroic honorable awesome Good Guy, and they assume that means every single one of his dick moves are justified.

And it’s not just Thor. Almost every single one of the Avenegers gets the same hypocritical treatment from fans. Steve started an entire war and was a complete arrogant fuckface while doing it? Oh, he was protecting his friend so we can argue that all of that was the right move and even congratulate him for it. Natasha, Clint, Tony, and Bruce all killed lots of people in their pasts? It’s fine, they’re heroes now. Wanda literally messed with everyone’s minds and she and Pietro fought against the Avengers to achieve the goals of their evil leader? It’s ok, he manipulated them and they were heroes in the end so it’s totally fine.

I mean, I love all of the people I just mentioned. They’re great and they absolutely are heroes, but it’s extremely irritating when people don’t hold them accountable for their past actions simply because they “meant well” or because “they’re heroes now”. Because how much do you wanna bet that those fans are the same ones shitting on Loki and Odin and others for their flaws and mistakes and refusing to acknowledge their heroic traits.

I think @musclesandhammering is quite right about the interpretive pattern. Framing is powerful, and framing certain characters as “heroes” (i.e., we root for these ones) and others as “villains” (we boo them) primes us to read their actions in predetermined ways.

Thor’s character development and types of morality

@foundlingmother, I’m making this a separate post instead of reblogging because this is getting well off the trail of the original post and I don’t want to keep dragging poor writernotwaiting into it. Here is the thread of discussion and here’s what you said in your reblog:

That’s an interesting distinction between compassion and respect. I think I would say, taking into account @illwynd‘s explanation of the ways Thor shows that he’s compassionate, or at least trying to be, that part of Thor’s character growth may be that he feels worthiness is tied to, to use the Nietzschean terminology, a slave morality (the contrast between being a good man and a great king, for instance).

That might be some of what’s going on; Thor is probably picking up some (post-)Christian moral ideas from all the Western-educated humans he’s hanging out with. And of course I don’t expect most of the MCU writers to have a very thorough understanding of when certain moral ideas developed and where they came from. So of course to most writers and audiences, “becoming morally better” is going to be more or less synonymous with “becoming more selfless and altruistic.” That said, a noble value system certainly doesn’t preclude caring about other people, and the kind of narcissistic selfishness we associate with people like Trump is still an ignoble mindset, a way of being bad or contemptible according to noble value systems like those of ancient Greece or feudal Europe.

As I’ve said before in discussions of various philosophical issues in the MCU, I think the “good man vs. great king” issue is actually more about deontological vs. consequentialist modes of moral reasoning (I discuss the contrast a bit in this post on Thanos and Ultron and a bit more in this follow-up; apparently I also touched on it in this weird exchange). That’s a distinction that mostly comes up within what Nietzsche calls “slave morality” – the standard examples are Kantianism and utililtarianism, both of which are secular adaptations of Christian morality – but it can actually cut across the slave vs. noble morality distinction. So there can be deontological or consequentialist ways of implementing a noble morality. The reason I think that’s what Thor was talking about is this line: “The brutality, the sacrifice, it changes you.” I think what he had in mind was Odin’s willingness to sacrifice many Asgardian lives (and Malekith’s willingness to sacrifice most of his people) for the sake of victory. The reason this is relevant to ruling is that when you’re making decisions about large numbers of people with different needs and interests, you’re always going to have to trade the well-being of some for the well-being of others. I think we all saw the stupidity of Steve’s “We don’t trade lives” claim in Infinity War, because he was trading lives: in order to buy time to save Vision, he knowingly risked a whole bunch of Wakandan lives. In trying to keep his deontologist conscience clean, to remain “a good man,” he just hid from himself that he was being a bad leader making an indefensible trade, sacrificing many lives for one instead of vice versa.

This got very long, so I’m putting most of it under a cut.

A note on terminology, because it’s clearly very loaded: the “noble” and “slave” labels on moralities/value systems refer to whom the value system ultimately benefits. A noble value system is posited and maintained by the noble class (which may be either a knightly or a priestly caste) and works to justify and preserve their dominant position in society. A slave value system may or may not be invented by the lower classes of society (Buddhism, which counts as a slave morality in Nietzsche’s sense, was invented by a prince), but it definitely works to their advantage, because it protects the vulnerable and promotes social equality. The terminology is unfortunate in a context where the word “slave” immediately brings to mind the American system of Black chattel slavery; that is definitely not what Nietzsche had in mind. He was a classicist before he became a philosopher, so he’s usually thinking about slavery in the ancient world as well as serfdom in pre-modern Europe. This is definitely unorthodox, but I’m going to start using “serf morality” instead of “slave morality” to avoid irrelevant racial connotations.

The main difference between noble and serf morality, on the issue of caring for and helping others, has to do with the way you think about the obligation to do so. The type of serf morality that Nietzsche calls “the morality of compassion” or “the morality of suffering” says that you have an obligation to relieve all suffering, and to care about all others who suffer. (Sometimes an exception is made for those who make others suffer and you’re allowed to hate them and want them to suffer; sometimes you’re supposed to pity and help them too.) You’re supposed to make the happiness and/or well-being of other people your primary goal in life, and you’re supposed to care about everyone, regardless of their relationship to you. Some forms of (post-)Christian morality permit you to prioritize people to whom you have special relationships (family and friends), but the purest form of this morality requires you to care about everyone equally, and ascetic or monastic Christianity discourages forming special relationships because that will inject an element of selfishness into your desire to benefit certain people. The purer forms of this morality – philosophical Christianity, with or without God – also consider the salvation of one’s own soul to be an unacceptably selfish motivation for helping others. Ideally, everyone’s entire motivation is to eliminate the suffering of others, not because of anything particular about them or their relation to you, but simply because they exist and they suffer. The morality of compassion is universalistic, egalitarian, and outward-focused.

Noble value systems allow agents to be selective in whose well-being they care about. Special relationships are extremely important. Traditionally, this usually means family relationships and comradeship-in-arms because aristocratic societies have conventionally been very heredity-focused and martial. But it also includes what Aristotle scholars call “character friendships”: friendships formed with kindred spirits because of mutual admiration for each other’s qualities and abilities. The standards of a noble morality only apply to a small class of people, namely, the nobility; it’s largely silent on how non-nobles should behave, and different versions have different rules about how nobles should treat non-nobles. Respect is reserved for other nobles, but some noble moralities, especially medieval hybrids of Christianity and Roman/pagan noble morality, also encourage benevolence, generosity, and forbearance toward commoners. Under certain circumstances, nobles can be obligated to care about the well-being of certain non-nobles, but it’s virtually always a matter of regarding them as your own, as your responsibility. Lords are supposed to care about the commoners who live in their lands and are obligated to protect them and provide for them; Christian knights are supposed to care about other Christians. In the ideal city described in Plato’s Republic, the guardians (the warrior class) are compared to guard dogs who are friendly to their master’s family but hostile to strangers. Their responsibility is to all the citizens of their city, even the lower-class ones; to that extent, all citizens are their own in the same way family members are. Caring for others in noble moralities is selective and is always a matter of regarding certain others as an extension of oneself and, therefore, regarding their well-being as part of one’s own well-being. Noble moralities also don’t preclude sacrificing yourself for others – that would be very silly in a warrior’s code of conduct – but self-sacrifice is not selfless when you’re sacrificing a part of yourself (your life, your body) for another part of yourself: the people who matter to you, your family, your comrades, your countrymen. There’s also the understanding that those who sacrifice themselves in such a way will be remembered and honored; you exchange a brief life for long-lasting glory.

(To be clear: Nietzsche was not in favor of going back to a Homeric-style warrior noble morality; he was very aware of the many cultural changes that have made that both impossible and undesirable, mostly involving the internalization and intellectualization of human life and activity. He was imagining communities being constructed and battle lines drawn on the ground of ideas, not geography or ethnicity, which can no longer defensibly be said to have the significance they once did. Nationalism, he thought, was a spasm of an outdated worldview. But he also questioned the value of selflessness and wondered about the end goal of a moral system whose primary motivation is the alleviation of suffering.)

So… I’m not sure if Thor’s moral improvement was a matter of moving toward serf morality or just becoming a better representative of noble morality. I definitely think Odin’s goal was the latter. “Humility” considered as an absolute value, as in the more of it the better, definitely belongs to serf morality, but there is a place for humility as a balancing quality in noble morality: Aristotle places magnanimity, or “greatness of soul,” as the virtue at the mean between vanity or arrogance – claiming more honor than you deserve – and an excess of humility or “smallness of soul,” which is effectively meekness, laying claim to less honor than you actually deserve. Thor was arrogant and vain; he invited adulation, he overestimated his own abilities and (as we saw in the deleted scene) the amount of credit he deserved for victories he shared with others. He needed to be shown that he isn’t invincible and that he sometimes has to rely on others, but the goal wasn’t for him to become self-effacing. His maturation also involved a greater awareness and sensitivity to the needs of others: contrast his complete obliviousness to the danger his friends are in during the Jotunheim battle with the slow-motion sequence in the Puente Antiguo battle where Thor looks around and really takes in how much his friends are struggling. That – along with his acknowledgment that he might have done something to wrong Loki and his attempt to apologize – might be considered an increase in empathy and/or compassion; in any case, it’s definitely doing a better job of caring for the people with whom he has a relationship, and for whom he is responsible. Making friends in Midgard does seem to have done something to widen the scope of his compassion and/or benevolence, since he now sees a problem with wiping out the Jotnar.

anais-ninja-bitch:

fuckyeahrichardiii:

loki-thou-art-drunk:

maneth985:

toomanylokifeels:

maneth985:

toomanylokifeels:

The amount of Christian iconography and references in Thor: Ragnarok kinda… confuse me. You have halos in painted depictions of Odin and his family. You have the Ark. Why. In previous films, you got Captain America asserting there’s only one god and Thor and his people demoted to demi-gods and/or aliens, who aren’t “immortal.” Like… ??? ??? ???? ????? ? ? ? ?

is not that complicated. Is symbology, the halos are simply depicting everyone as saints, as good people, and yes is mostly used in Christian religion and kinda had me a bit confused but I don’t think it had anything to do with gods, just burrowing references, such as the murals that look Church-ish and the ark, they don’t call it an ark tho, do they? is just on the script. It’s simply a huge spaceship used to save an entire population.

That’s an explanation that on the surface, “makes sense,” but that’s not what I’m asking or why I’m asking it. I’m well aware of what Christian iconography means as I was raised Roman Catholic. I’m more-so asking why it’s preferenced, when there is a wealth of symbolism behind Thor as a god, as well as the mythos and religion(s) and their practices that inform Marvel’s Thor.

Good question, I too wonder why use Christian symbols when there’s plenty to borrow from Norse mythos

Because Christian symbolism is the easiest way to connect with Thor’s intended audience of ppl raised on Western films – which the movie-makers care about way more than fidelity to Norse lore. That’s all.

In surviving written and archaeological sources, the iconography of Thor has ALWAYS been intertwined with Christian symbolism. “Norse mythos” and early Christianity in Scandinavia are not exclusive of each other.

People who do medieval Scandinavian studies nowadays are constantly having to make this point.

this whole conversation is missing some really important information:

Christianity did not invent halos and halos are not exclusively Christian.

the concept of divine beings emanating light from their bodies is, like, really popular across time, geography, culture, and religion. and when attempting to represent that in 2d painted art, there are only so many solutions to the problem. circular halos around the head are currently the going theme for Christians, but it’s just not correct to equate them exclusively to Christianity–other cultures use the imagery and Christianity uses other imagery to represent the same concept.

but as for why Taika Waititi chose that particular iconography? i bet he’s cognizant of what i’m talking about above, AND ALSO deliberately engaging current western association with Christian colonialism/imperialism.

so, like. it’s both less and more problematic than OP seems to suggest.

I’m also not sure what the problem is with “demoting” the Asgardians to very long-lived aliens. Is that not what they were in the comics? I don’t think Cap’s “there’s only one God” remark should be read as Marvel Studios somehow plumping for Christianity; it’s just a reminder that Steve Rogers was raised Catholic (Irish immigrant family, remember) and probably still believes in God, even if not all that devoutly (he’s no Matt Murdock). What would be incredibly weird is if Marvel Studios decided to stand behind the truth of Norse pagan religion. Instead they’re going with the fairly common fantasy/sci-fi trope that powerful, technologically advanced aliens were interpreted by a less advanced human society as gods.

is it just me or does taika waititi have a lot of contempt for thor and loki? he’s said that they’re rich space kids and no one should care about their problems, and it’s kind of bad when you’re making a movie and think no one should care about your two main characters.

foundlingmother:

@philosopherking1887 Another for our apparently racist group.

Don’t be concerned, dear anon. It’s not just you. It’s not a great idea to make anything when you don’t really care about your characters’ problems.

Loki he doesn’t care a fig for. He literally mentions Loki’s biggest issue, being jotun, and dismisses it in a scene where Thor’s written to be in the right. He paints Loki solidly with the narcissist brush. Lucky me I’ve found meta that explains Loki’s behavior in Ragnarok within the context of his actual character and those identity struggles.

Not having so much luck with Thor. I think he likes the idea of Thor, but found his unhappiness and thoughtfulness boring. Oh gosh, a kind and thoughtful male protagonist who wants to negotiate before hitting something… impossible! It’s so damn boring to have a man who cares about the only family he’s got left, and who keeps hoping that family will be redeemed.

(Actually, I’m cool with Thor pretending to not care about Loki’s behavior anymore. I think it’s a smart tactic given the information Thor possess, and there’s no reason he couldn’t have come up with it. However, there are points in the movie where he seems genuinely callous towards Loki, and I can’t picture Thor ever feeling that way. There’s no way that Thor doesn’t become terribly affectionate after what we get to see of the hug scene.)

Yes, welcome, Anon! And while we’re at it, here are links to the rest of my posts bitching about how Taika Waititi clearly doesn’t give a shit about the characters he was making a movie about.

A note about intertextuality

Here is a basic interpretive principle that I think is generally agreed upon in literary scholarship: if Text A makes a reference to Text B, then you can use Text B to gain a better, fuller understanding of Text A. You do have to use your judgment to figure out which elements of Text B are relevant, but it’s just good interpretive practice – not “headcanon” or “fanfiction” – to use Text B as a lens through which to view Text A.

If you know something about Norse mythology and/or the Thor comics, you will have a better understanding of the MCU Thor films. You can understand them on one level if you don’t have the background of the texts they reference, but your understanding will be shallower (or, as my advisor prefers, narrower). You can understand the first Thor film on one level without knowing anything about Shakespeare, but you won’t appreciate all of its complexity.

People who insist that the only things relevant to the interpretation of the films are the films themselves, and you’re supposed to ignore all the other texts in the background*, might be extreme modernist formalists obsessed with the purity of the text (or maybe with the Protestant/democratic principle that any schmuck can read a text just as well as someone with a broad literary education). But it’s far more likely that they’re just bad readers.

* Except the internet commentariat’s version of Maori culture, apparently. That’s relevant; Norse mythology isn’t.

wafflediaries replied to your post “wafflediaries replied to your post “wafflediaries replied to your…”

Wow, thank you, you are proving my point entirely. None of the traits you mentioned in your paragraphs had anything to do with canon MCU Loki and you even acknowledged that. Remember the OOC fan fiction Loki I mentioned earlier? Yeah. I haven’t read any of your writing but I guess I don’t need to. Also, I didn’t know if you were intentionally racist but I guess I don’t have to ask that either LMAO. Have a nice day.

Next time, please keep your racism and fan fiction head canons to yourself when you’re trying to criticize a film maker. Otherwise you just look ridiculous.

Hey, @foundlingmother, @fuckyeahrichardiii, @illwynd, @kaori04, @princess-ikol, @rynfinity, and anyone else who’s been following this saga – @raven-brings-light, you might find this entertaining – I’ve been called a racist by someone who doesn’t understand sarcasm or intertextuality! (Or Hegel jokes either, probably, but that wasn’t terribly important.) Thanks for the laughs,

@wafflediaries, and now I can check off some more squares on my Tumblr veteran bingo card. How many points is this one worth?

wafflediaries

replied to your post

“wafflediaries replied to your post “wafflediaries replied to your…”

Yeah, sorry, I didn’t know you were a fic writer. If I had, I wouldn’t have said that. I didn’t mean to personally attack your writing or anything. However, I will address the points raised in this post. I literally have no idea where you are getting your Trump vibes from. Loki in Ragnarok is a perfectly reasonable development from Loki in Thor.

Loki wants love and admiration, which is unrelated to him being a Jotunn. He found love when he became Odin, however it was unsatisfying because the people loved him for Odin, not for Loki. He is also motivated by the love for his family (opposite of love is indifference) and was taken aback by Thor’s apparent indifference. Both of these drove him to save Asgard in a grandiose fashion, to earn Asgard’s love and prove Thor wrong. I don’t see anything Trumpish about these

Also, people in Asgard don’t like him because he’s a dick. Like, Thor was a dick (in a thoughtless/oafish way) while Loki was an even bigger dick (in a ‘I’ll trick you into doing something and punish you for it’ way). Remember how he thought it was hilarious to let Jotunn into the treasury to ruin his brother’s coronation? And when has Loki ever been a good diplomat? Ragnarok was the height of his diplomatic skills, because his situation with the Grandmaster was way better than his situation with Laufy [sic] or Thanos

It has been explained many times that his portrayal of Thor is due his culture. In Maori (and Australian) culture, the worst thing someone can do is take themselves too seriously. Allowing a character to fall on their face and learn from their mistakes is a form of respect. So yeah, I consider it racist when people ignore Taika’s culture and straight up call him disrespectful or unprofessional. Seriously, even if he disliked Loki, why would he show that in his work?

The classism thing was a response to other comments in the post, which I already noted. Like Jesus, how can one ‘rich boy’ joke be offensive, especially considering MCU Loki and Thor are the epitome of rich boys who haven’t done anything to deserve their wealth. It was stolen from other realms by their father. Also, in response to your other points, Taika is a comedian and gives funny answers. His funny answers are the more well-known ones because people like sharing funny things. However, from his non-comedic interviews, it is clear that he is familiar with the source material (Thor films, MCU, comic books) and he was passionate in creating Thor Ragnarok.

Where am I getting the Trump vibes, @wafflediaries? How about from the giant fucking Jesus statue? (Seriously, it looks like the Cristo Redentor statue in Brazil.) Or that ridiculous self-glorifying play? Or just the fact that Loki is being portrayed as a textbook narcissist, as his detractors are happy to point out, and in the present political environment it’s hard not to think of the other textbook narcissist elephant in the room. The effect of this portrayal is to make into a punchline, mere fodder for ridicule, the very traits that literally drove Loki to suicide in the first movie. Hooray, mental illness is funny…!

“Seriously, even if he disliked Loki, why would he show that in his work?” I don’t know, why don’t you ask him? Taika, why did you make Loki’s entire character into a punchline? And no, I’m NOT talking about the slapstick/physical humor; I’m talking about the fact that his character traits, his psychological and emotional problems, all the things that made him complicated and sympathetic and (in the first film) tragic (as detailed in this insightful post), are reduced to a punchline.

Um… where are you getting the “I’ll trick you into doing something and punish you for it” bit? Not the Jotnar who came to steal the Casket, surely; yes, Loki knew the Destroyer would kill them, showing a reprehensible indifference to their lives, but punishing them definitely wasn’t the point. You mean Thor? It didn’t take a lot of “tricking” to get Thor to charge into Jotunheim with guns blazing; all Loki said was “There’s nothing you can do without defying Father.” It’s really on Thor for being so predictably belligerent, which is exactly why Loki pulled the stunt in the first place: he was making a point to Odin about Thor’s unfitness for kingship; and if he was “punishing” Thor for anything, it was for the general pattern of arrogance and aggression, not for the specific action Loki prodded him into. Or do you mean Laufey? If you were paying attention, you would realize that what Loki is “punishing” him for is not the attempt on Odin’s life that he explicitly invited, but abandoning him to die as a baby. Yeah, Loki is a manipulative asshole, but at least get right the more sophisticated respect in which he is a manipulative asshole.

But I’m not the only one who got the impression from the first movie that Loki is more than just “a dick,” that we’re not supposed to think all his problems are self-made, and that when we meet him he isn’t already a villain. Thor tells the parallel stories – or should I say the perpendicular stories? – of Thor’s rise and Loki’s fall: not only his self-destruction, but his fall into villainy, precipitated (ironically) by his desperate desire to prove his worth. Yes, of course, he needed to already have some of the traits (the manipulative tendency, the willingness to sacrifice others to his ends) that would lead him into the drastically wrong actions he ended up taking. But I probably can’t say anything to convince you that we’re supposed to read other people’s mistrust and dismissiveness as not entirely earned. Maybe it’s just that I was reading so much commentary from fans familiar with Norse myth and culture about how seidr (witchcraft, effectively) was traditionally regarded as the province of women, and men who practiced it were considered effeminate, incurring a stigma called ergi, translated as “unmanliness” (associated with the assumption that they bottomed during sex with men). Or maybe it’s that I recognized the dynamic between Thor and his friends and Loki the tag-along little brother: they’re jocks, and he’s a nerd. Thor was a dick, too, but he was the right kind of dick: the brash, physical, always ready for a fistfight kind of dick. In a patriarchal warrior culture like Asgard, many of us can absolutely see how being a thoughtless, aggressive asshole is much more acceptable than being a scheming, too smart for your own good asshole.

As for Loki being a good diplomat: unfortunately, they don’t show a lot of that in Thor, but I think we’re supposed to assume it from the fact that he volunteers to sweet-talk Heimdall and Volstagg makes that “silver tongue” remark, invoking the “Silvertongue” epithet of the Loki of Norse myth. And actually, he does perfectly well with Laufey: he would have gotten them out of the situation at the beginning if Thor hadn’t had a violent reaction to being called “little princess,” and he successfully talked Laufey into doing what he wanted him to do later on. He also demonstrates the power of his words in The Avengers, not by winning people over to his side, but by sowing doubts among them, hitting them where it hurts.

Congratulations, all the people who have chimed in to say that they didn’t like the characterization of Thor, either: we’re all racists!! We’re just Too White to understand the genius of the Maori people that Taika Waititi channels, straight from the Volksgeist itself, with no admixture of his own peculiar sensibility; any objection to his work is therefore an objection to the entire Maori culture. Kenneth Branagh didn’t do the “high brought low” trope correctly in Thor, because he, too, was Too White. Screwing up and learning from your mistakes isn’t enough, making a fool of yourself in an unfamiliar environment isn’t enough if you maintain your basic poise, dignity, and decency; you have to be made into an actual, honest-to-God dumbass.

I don’t deny that TW was familiar with the Marvel comics, and he must have watched the other movies before he made Ragnarok (though maybe not before he took the job…). And yeah, I guess he was “passionate” about something (maybe creating the 80s aesthetic of Sakaar, which was pretty cool). But it wasn’t doing justice to the characters he inherited from the rest of the trilogy.

marvel-madness-mishmash:

Ramble time (fucking shock I know)

So, Loki admits that he is jealous and planned on screwing up Thor’s big day, to get his brother to reveal his true colors. And the audience knows by the end of the movie that Loki does have power aspirations (which are exacerbated by having his fucking heart broken.)

HOWEVER

Look at the expression on his face as he talks about Thor. His face completely backs up the words he’s saying. the way he says “but” doesn’t apply the way it usually does.

It’s not “I love Thor more dearly than any of you, but *forget everything I just said*”

It’s more like “I love Thor more dearly than any of you, and because of this I feel I need to say this.”

There’s nothing insincere or ingenue about the first half of that sentence.

“I love Thor more dearly than any of you”

It’s true. He does love Thor the most, more than his parents do, more than their friends do, more than the people do, and because of this I think it does pain him to know that his brother (at the time) wasn’t fit for rule. Even though this fits well with his own power aspirations, it pains him to think of his brother as not being good enough.

After all, Loki knows more than anyone else what it’s like to not be good enough.

What even is Loki’s plan in Thor?

princess-ikol:

philosopherking1887:

foundlingmother:

I’ve discovered there are people who believe Loki intended from the beginning of Thor to commit genocide. I don’t understand how anyone could possibly interpret the movie this way.

Here’s everything we know about Loki’s plan prior to the jaunt through Jotunheim: Loki allowed a hostile foreign power into Asgard, resulting in the deaths of the Einherjar guarding Odin’s Vault. I’ll ignore that this power’s trying to retrieve the object that will allow them to revitalize their dying homeworld–Laufey probably would use it to get revenge, and

Loki didn’t let them in to help them with that. He helped them to ruin Thor’s coronation. Then, he precedes to use Thor’s militant personality against him. Thor’s chewing at the bit to go to war with Jotunheim. Loki merely states that there’s nothing Thor can do without defying their father. Not exactly a master feat of manipulation, guys. We also know Loki tells one of the Einherjar where they’re going, and tells him to go to Odin. That’s it. That’s everything. We don’t even know why Loki ruined Thor’s coronation. He tells Laufey it was for a bit of fun, and I’m actually inclined to believe that’s part of it. Personally, I headcanon he meant to demonstrate his own skills to Odin. Thor starts a war with reckless violence, and Loki ends it with careful diplomacy and manipulation. He might have been overestimating himself, but I believe that was his plan.

Why do I separate Loki’s plan into before and after Jotunheim? I would hope that’s self-explanatory, but I guess not. Loki discovers on Jotunheim that he’s a Jotun. No, it’s not confirmed until later, but this is when he realizes (because he’s not stupid). When Thor and Odin argue at the Bifrost, Thor repeats how much he’d like to wipe out the Jotunar, and Loki takes a deep breathe to calm down. Anyone who believes this realization’s anything but world shattering for Loki can unfollow me right now. Jotunar are talked about like the Asgardian equivalent of the fucking boogeyman. Loki says this. You can’t grow up in a culture so disgustingly racist and not freak out when you discover you’re part of the group their racist against. Especially when, for your entire life, your brother’s been saying how much he’d like to kill your entire race. World shattering. Any plans he had probably went out the fucking window.

I’ve got other reasons to think Loki’s plans couldn’t have been the same throughout the whole movie. First, I go back and forth on whether Loki expected Odin to cast Thor out. Even if I give people that he knew Thor would be banished, I’ve no clue how some people think Loki knew Odin would fall into Odinsleep. Frigga states in the movie that they weren’t prepared for this. Now, perhaps some people believe Loki caused it, but I don’t get that vibe whatsoever. It’s fine if you want to headcanon that, but I don’t think there’s any evidence to state with absolute confidence that’s what happened. It always seemed to me that Odin went to sleep because he’s under a lot of stress and Loki screaming at him’s the final straw. He’s been putting the Odinsleep off. That’s why he meant to make Thor king. Also, Loki seemed pretty surprised and upset Odin fell into Odinsleep, and he didn’t have an audience. He didn’t need to lie in the vault.

So when and why does he contemplate genocide? After discovering he’s a monster (his words), Loki’s initial goal to make Odin proud becomes ten times more important. Now it’s a matter of proving he’s worthy of being called Odinson. He’s also trying to kill the part of himself that he can’t accept. He murders his biological father, and states that Laufey’s death came by the son of Odin. This murder and attempted genocide are external expressions of his self-loathing. This isn’t an excuse for his behavior. He fucking kills people. He’s the villain here, and I only seek to explain his behavior. I don’t know why people hate the thought that Loki might be more complicated than a privileged pissbaby prince. He’s having an identity crisis and a mental breakdown. Also, he’s not trying to prevent Thor’s return because he wants the throne and power. He’s preventing Thor’s return because Loki’s just realized that Thor’s the real son. He already believed he couldn’t hold a candle to Thor, and discovering he’s Jotun cements that. He’ll never be Thor’s equal, in Odin’s eyes, and in his own eyes (the whole internalized racism/self-hatred things a real bitch). That breaks him.

Sidenote: I think there’s evidence to suggest Odin does hold Thor and Loki to different standards, and legitimately favors Thor (my dad had this problem of loving my twin, who’s adopted, but very clearly favoring his biological daughters, and now favoring his son above everyone). Thor and Hela get banished, whilst Loki’s punishment for similar crimes (less than Hela’s and worse than Thor’s) would have been death if not for Frigga.

My analysis is far from unique, but I had to write this because I just rewatched Thor and I’m committed to not erasing elements of Thor and Loki’s characters for the sake of the hero/villain thing. Expect a post about how Thor can be wrong (le gasp!) and is still a good person and the hero within the next few days (I’ve got to find and quote the scripts for Thor, Avengers, and TDW for that one).

Also, I wonder if some of the people who seem to ignore Loki’s internalized racism and mental health problems come from a background of reading comics? In the comics, Loki’s always known he’s a Jotun, so he doesn’t have the same identity issues, and he behaves even worse. Or maybe they just don’t like Loki or villains you can sympathize with. Those are my favorites though… *pats Magneto on the head* Is it also woobifying if I bring up that Magneto’s mutant supremacy has roots in his traumatic experiences during the Holocaust? It seems you’ll get accused of woobifying for even acknowledging canonically sympathetic villains as being anything but living garbage.

@philosopherking1887 Forgive me for @ing you, but this was inspired by the meta last night.

Anyone who seriously thinks Loki was plotting genocide from the beginning of “Thor” needs to get their eyes, ears, and brains checked. Tumblr’s black-and-white morality complex just keeps rearing its ugly head and making me hate this site more and more. (That’s the real abusive relationship here: this hellsite and any of its users who still have half a brain.)

shit, are people actually saying that? oh boy, they should be glad they weren’t here in 2012…

I think they were here in 2012-13 and that’s precisely why they’re saying it. Not because there are any good textual reasons for believing it – there aren’t – but just to set themselves apart from the unconditional Loki justifiers/woobifiers as much as possible.