SHE is Thor, hear her roar!

Cafe Society
41

The thing is, there’s some interested sagas written about Thor, Loki and Odin where they dress as women. Thrymskvitha, for example, Thor pretends to be a bride and Loki his bridesmaid.

Odin on the other hand dressed as a woman at one point in his pursuit (and subsequent rape) of Rindr. Odin is famously associated with the practice of seithr, a type of Norse shamanistic witchcraft. Seithr was considered woman’s magic. Men practiced it, but they were considered to be “argr” - unmanly.

Calling a man “argr” or refering to him as an “ergi” was just about the worst thing you could do to him. A man who was named thus was entitled to instantly challenge his defamer to a duel to the death - the Viking holmganga. If the namecaller won, the charge was considered to be proven. If he lost, the slandered one could just kill him outright (if had survived the duel, that is). If the person described as “eigr” didn’t challenge his accuser, he was automatically considered an honorless man, what was called a nithingr. Nith (spelled with the thorn, of course,) is the source of modern English “neath”, as in “beneath”. It has strong negative sexual connotations [see here]as well, and the idea of one “beneath” being what we could a “bottom”. He could even be outlawed.

I mention this because in the Lokasenna saga )which means, “Loki’s Quarrel”, Loki calls out the gods for being immoral (I know, right?) In particular, Loki points out that Odin has done unmanly things. Odin replies, “Yeah, maybe. But, well, you’ve done unmanly things - with horses. So there.” (Loki is said to be Sleipnir’s mother, in fact). No duels ensue and both of them pretty much change the subject. Odin eventually gets his own back by getting Loki chained to a rock with a serpent dripping poison on his head. Loki gets his by causing Ragnarok.

Odin was said to have learned Seithr from Freya, a Vanir and a powerful volva. It gets mentioned in the Yngling Saga among other places. The thing is, it’s not a big deal for him. He never bothers to deny it, what in any other man would be the ultimate in fighting words.

A silver statue was recently dug up in Lejre, Denmark, which shows a figure on a throne. The figure has two birds, like Odin’s ravens, and two beasts, like Odin’s wolves, and appears to be missing his left eye. It dates from approximately 900 CE. The intriguing part is that the figure is wearing women’s clothing. Some people have suggested that the figure is Freya, or possibly a mortal volva who has channeled Odin. I think the eye thing though means, it’s really meant to be him, and the womens’ clothes are referring to the common association of Odin with seithr. But we’ll probably never know for sure. There’s a photo of it on the Wiki page.

My point here is that a) Odin is a strange dude and b) any of this would be more interesting than the proposed story about some rando holding a hammer.

(Apologies if my alternate spellings for Norse words are sub-optimal. It’s complicated.)

42

While an interesting set of stories, I’m not sure that the transexual/transvestite community is a large enough demographic that Marvel would want to make sure that one of their key titles is devoted to them.

With Thor being a manly-man, men want to be him and women want him. With Thor being a womanly-woman, women to be her and men want her. With Thor as a cross-dresser or gender-switched, he’s not very appealing to either of the two big demographics.

43

For Wonder Woman, you are correct.

For Vampirella, it’s awesome.

44

Agreed, especially the crotchal area.

On the change to a female Thor, and other stuff like the Latino Spider-Man, etc., here’s what puzzles me (I’m not complaining, just a bit mystified). All these new wrinkles would totally make sense to me in the '90s, when these characters had been around for decades but hadn’t become the stars of blockbuster movie franchises. The old storylines had become stagnant, and the writers had an itch to do something different, while the publishers felt pressure to experiment to keep readers from getting bored. I get all that.

But now those movie franchises *have *come out, and a whole new generation has become familiar with these characters primarily through them. And in those movies, the superheroes tend (with a tweak/update or two here or there) to be portrayed as roughly what they were in the '60s (not necessarily from the early '60s but from later, after they had settled into more of a groove). So wouldn’t the people on the comics side of things, assuming they want to pull in younger readers (and why wouldn’t they?), want to appeal to kids who have seen the movies? Doing things like changing Thor’s gender seems entirely at cross-purposes with that aim.

45

In related news, Captain America is also going to be black.

46

That is not in itself as objectionable. “Captain America” is clearly a position, while “Thor” is a name. If Sam Wilson’s name was being changed to Steve Rodgers, that’s the kind of idiocy we’re dealing with here.

47

Considering the comic doesn’t actually exist yet, I feel compelled to point out that we don’t know what “kind of idiocy” we’re dealing with here, or if it’s idiotic at all.

48

The only thing that makes me cross my arms in suspicion here is that I wonder exactly for whom these changes are being made. I’ve noticed that comic companies tend only to have some grand public announcement of their new storylines when it’s being done solely to basically look good in public.

Sam Wilson is a great character, but he already has his own identity. If the storyline is good, then just, y’know, have the story. Thor is a great character, and if you want to have a female character, then… just have the female character.

49

If you mean the public beyond their comic-buying clientele, then it’s even more puzzling. For them to want the more general public to hear that “Thor is now a woman”, while Thor continues to be a man in the movies that are the way in which the vast majority of people experience the character, that doesn’t make a lick of sense to me.

50

I wonder if it’s some kind of attempt to avoid criticism from long-time fans that Marvel would start catering to the movie-going crowd and avoid trying new things. Long-time fans are likely to stick around for a relatively long time if they like the product; someone just checking out the comics because of the movies are likely to be disappointed that they aren’t filled with Whedonesque humor and continuity with the movies, and I’m guessing few of these people would stick with the comics in the long run, anyway. So maybe Marvel is trying to prove that they’re not at the mercy of the movies.

51

That kind of makes sense and I hadn’t thought of that possibility. But then I’d still think they’d want to keep it on the down-low rather than doing big press releases and getting magazines to write articles–because that publicizes it beyond the comic reader community and risks confusing/contaminating their big movie brand.

The other question that arises is that it would be a strange industry that does not try to enlist new customers. The current ones are after all going to die someday.

52

Well, comic publishers are bad at math…

53

Wow, that’s pretty egregious if accurate. Are there panels somewhere online to back up this accusation?

54

This webcomic makes a similar point.

55

Yeah, it’s pretty accurate. Do an image search on “Starfire New 52” to get an idea of how she’s portrayed. Um, maybe not while you’re at work, though.

However, it should be noted that that’s DC, not Marvel. This is the direction Marvel is going with their female superheroes. This is the way a lot of women are responding to it.

Marvel is making a big push right now to bring in readers outside their traditional demographic, and it’s not hard to see how this new Thor figures into that. Is it going to alienate people who are fans of the movie version of Thor? I don’t think it’s going to be too much of a problem (although, to quote a tweet from one of the editors at Marvel, “Was just called a gay slur and told to get cancer because of the Thor news. Go Internet!”) For one thing, the Marvel movies have been around for a few years, now. A lot of the people who were potential crossover fans have already crossed over. Also, Dude Thor is still going to be in the comics: part of the concept art released for the new comic includes Thor toting a wicked Boris Vallejo ax and a cybernetic arm. People who want something like movie Thor can still see him in the comics, just at a particularly low point in his life, as he struggles to regain his former station. That’s a compelling enough story on its own, and more or less what was going on in the plot of the first Thor movie anyway, so it should be comfortable enough for the new reader.

But I think, most importantly, is that there’s a fundamental difference in the way Marvel and DC are exploiting this new surge in comic book popularity. DC is doing its damnedest to out grim dark the Nolan Batmans, leading to nonsense like the Joker cutting off his face and reattaching it with a belt. Marvel is taking a different tack. Rather than branding itself as “We’re the guys who make Thor!” and just churning out as much derivative crap as possible, they’re branding themselves as “We’re the guys who make really good comics,” and counting on the people who come to Thor expecting Chris Hemsworth to stick around because the comic is just that good.

56

I looked at a bunch of Starfire panels and although she certainly wears skimpy outfits, that is pretty standard in the comics world (lamentably, for sure). I was unable to find evidence of the characterisation described in that webcomic: seemed more like standard superhero talk.

That first panel you linked to from Marvel is cool. What is her name? The second one doesn’t really strike me as a good example of the same thing, though. She may technically be covered up, but the contours of every bit of her body are shown–she may as well be covered only in body paint and a sash.

This kind of assumption is IMO a trap that is easy to fall into if you don’t have kids, or if they are grown. I have four kids ranging from two to fourteen, and they provide me constant reminders that pop culture elements that I think of as recent are ancient history to them.*

From a business perspective, I would think they would want to continuously acquire crossover customers, and never assume anything from five years ago is even on the radar screen of those potential customers. From an artistic perspective, OTOH, I don’t have a problem with it. I just find it curious and not smart corporate “synergy”.

*Which is why, as an aside, the Spider-Man reboot really wasn’t necessarily as insanely close on the heels of its predecessor as it seemed. To all my kids, Peter Parker has Andrew Garfield’s face, web-shooters are mechanical rather than biological, and they wouldn’t know Tobey Maguire or James Franco from any random schmoes on the street. (Yes, it makes me feel old too.)

57

To quote The Joker…Ta-Daaa.

Which, as it happens, was from a comic book written by…Scott Lobdell.

58

Yeah, that’ll do it. Gross.

Thanks for the links.

59

The first character is Ms. Marvel, a legacy hero, meaning she’s not the first person to use the name. She’s only been recently introduced - the sixth issue of her comic came out this week. It’s a really great book. He second character is Captain Marvel (formerly Ms.). While her costume is still form fitting, that’s pretty standard for most superheroes. The issue with female superheroes is that their costumes are ridiculously skimpy compared to their male counterparts. If every male superhero ran around dressed like Namor, Starfire’s outfit wouldn’t be an issue.

Children haven’t been the primary target audience for superhero comics for a good twenty years now. They want the 18-35 demographic.

60

Well, okay…but the same principle applies. You said “a lot of the crossover fans have already crossed over”. What about the ones who aren’t 18 yet? Ten years from now the 18-35 cohort will be nearly half composed of kids who are now 8-17.