Now Thee a Goddess, No Longer a God

There is going to be a new Thor, and he is going to be ... a she. This may have come as a shock to some fans, and many more might be claiming the end before even the beginning or even a worse fate for the character. My opinion on the matter is pretty optimistic though. Despite Wonder Woman being my favourite character, I have never gotten into other mythological characters, and this might be a way to pursue more of that. Equally worth noting is the fact that this kind of answers for me the question which can never be answered - "Who is the female equivalent to Wonder Woman at Marvel?" Usually this question results in an answer of Captain Marvel, Storm or Invisible Woman, but for the first time it would seem as though Marvel wants to put a female character completely to the front and center of its universe.

The above has been discussed though, and I am not really breaking any new ground among the many reacting to this news. What is interesting though is this treatment from a historical perspective, at least in the sense of the history of comics as a medium. On one of the many innovations of Marvel in its early years was to break into the idea of alternate universes and alternate realities long before others did, especially in the pages of the series "What If?" It took them all the way until issue #10 in 1978 to ask the question "What If Jane Foster Had Found the Hammer of Thor?" In the letter column for this issue, editor Roy Thomas mentions how ever since issue #7 (and even earlier) that they had been receiving fan mail for the series which composed primarily of requests or suggestions for the What If? stories. One of the first and the first acted upon was this very idea of a female Thor. Though there was no mention of how many people actually asked for this idea and concept, it was one which was enough to warrant a second version of the story, in this case where Rogue assumes the power of the Norse God.

To put this another way, Marvel is not really trying anything new with the re-imagining of a female Thor, rather it seems as though they are just finally getting around to something which has been rumbling around in the creativity of several creators and fans ever since the character was introduced. This development will affect a lot of long term fans, but then too, it would seem that this idea has been with some of them (a lot of them?) for a while anyway. I am a fan of the character, but not a reader, and as a outsider to the Marvel stories, I find this new development a pretty intriguing one, and a potential place to step onboard to the new (old) character.

@razzatazz: I don't mind, this move reminds me of what they did with captain mar-vell and captain/ms. marvel.

i hope it's not just a temporary thing, like superior spiderman.

Some girl can't just be thor. Its a persons name not a title or mantle. Whoever is worthy possesses the power of Thor, not becomes him. You cannot just become the god Thor. Only Thor is Thor. That is actually one of my only major problems with this move. Let's just hope the writing and story is good at least

@marvel123: there is no way this isn't temporary. In ten years Thor fans will look back and laugh at the time (whoever this girl is) pretended to be Thor.

@jayc1324: i do agree with you there, she can have the hammer but at least let the poor man keep his name

Looks like one of the girls of thunder

honestly it doesn't bother me.

I guess that time will prove the answer, but such changes are maybe necessary for a medium that continues to lose interest.

This is quite possibly the most shocking reaction to this news. YOU'RE not bothered by this? One of the biggest Thor fanboys on the site isn't bothered by the hacked off unoriginality to replace Thor with a woman? What's the world coming to?

While I don't have anything against a woman wielding the hammer, I think the naming is going to be problematic if they insist on calling her Thor.

• First of all, Thor is a specific person, it is only his powers that's tied to the hammer, not his person/spirit or w/e (which is even written on the hammer's head).
• Secondly, Thor happens to be a boys name, especially popular in Norway... named after Thor ofc, so keeping the name is sorta like meeting a girl called David or Adam.

All of this is easy to fix, just let her use her own name, another codename if she wants her ID to remain secret or just keep the title of Goddess of Thunder and you are all set.

@razzatazz: The change is horrific, I hope this series plummets in sales, at least the real, male Thor will appear in Avengers 2, which the masses will view/know

@frozen: Totttaly.

I simply don't understand how can't this bother you people? Especially those of you who have Thor for a favorite chracter.

If something like this would happen to Moon Knight, I'd quit comics.

I thunk the people reacting with outrage have some validity to their reactions, but that there is something bigger here. Obviously the people commenting on Thor have a greater tendency to actually read the character's stories, but what Marvel is going after here are new fans. Just like the changes of the new 52, this is an attempt to gain new readers.

@razzatazz: Attempting to 'gain new readers' by throwing away the old who had actually spent their time on money? That's not the way to go, making a popular male hero into a female does NOT represent Feminism in the slightest, rather Marvel should focus on expanding other female characters

@frozen: There hasn't been any talk of feminism in relation to this character. To drag gender issues into this muddies what is happening, and it is purely about money and finding a wider base. In terms of decisions based on money versus loyalty to characters, the comics industry and specifically the big two have always done it. Any time there is something like "Wonder Woman and Superman are dating" it signifies a break from the past. I am still a Wonder Woman fan though and still read her comics despite my dislike of that aspect of the character.

Comic readers only really tend to care about major changes like this when it is a character that they like. There are not many of those opposed to for instance the aforementioned Wonder Woman-Superman thing that will join in arms on this one, unless they are also Thor fans.

@thorson:

Me neither. I just dislike the aspect of her still using Thor´s name.

I had some minor concerns at first, but after reading Jason Aaron's interview over at CBR I'm fully down for it. It seems like he knows what he's doing and in my opinion he has an interesting angle to explore with this story.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=54083

- Just in case anyone hasn't read it.

When Thor's next movie comes out thor is probably going to pick up the hammer again in comics like they did with spiderman. Makes it seem like more of a money draw than wanting to tell a great story, but then again superior spiderman was decent despite the initially crappy and negatively received idea. But most of the female led series don't even sell huge numbers and spider girl never did. Changing a hero to a girl for more sales is actually a bad idea.

I would be more ok with this if there's a good reason for Thor not being worthy, which I doubt will happen since Aaron spent his entire current Thor run showing how he is worthy and a true hero, and if she wasn't using his darn name. Not sure where it says others can just use the guys name. To me that's the worst part, him losing his name is essentially losing his identity for the time being, its like the totally got rid of Thor for the woman replacing him.

Also, Thor's powers come from himself and his godly heritage, not Mjolnir. If he still appears in a series somewhere they had better not make him seem weak or incapable without his hammer. There's just too much wrong with this, my only hope is the female Thor is a good character, but they said its just a woman who's already in Thor's life. None of them are that interesting right now anyway, and seeing them pretend to be Thor doesn't sound interesting either. I can't wait for this to be over and Thor to be himself again. Mjolnir was created for Thor, others may be worthy like Beta Ray Bill but Odin just created another hammer for him because mjolnir is Thor's hammer and he is the only one who should be using it full time. Odin would be appalled at this idea!

Great blog Razz. I have an optimistic view too, I wonder if its to do with aesthetic distance. I notice a lot of individuals upset or angry with this decision have a tendency to have close aesthetic distance where as individuals like you and me tend to naturally see the bigger picture. So many assumptions have been thrown about, people either forgetting or not realizing that non named Thor characters have adopted the name of Thor many times in Marvel, that Thor has been woman as you have pointed out, that Thor has even been a frog. That Loki has changed gender. That that story was great even though many fans were outraged and irrationally blinded by their own assumptions then too.

Change can be scary for many, then again some people still complain that Marvels Thor is blond and not redheaded so maybe we should all direct our outrage at that change, or boycott that? Then again you know how those feminists are, and atheists, and theists, and Canadians and Americans and British and liberals, and comic fans, and people with hair, are. Always trying to spread their propaganda and Marvel and DC always trying to pander to that and definitely not money they get from creating buzz to casual readers that tune in when mainstream media picks up a big enough story.

Another thing though, I actually do think a lot of readers already invested in Thor and Thor stories will be along for the ride with a smile and I do think that people who don't read that much about the character will be critical as well, because of the way people make assumptions and how they attribute motivations. Oh and nice on knowing those What If stories!

@sc: the difference with Thor's name being used here is that the actual Thor won't be using that name. His name is actually being taken from him, as well as his hammer. Its as if they are completely getting rid of everything that makes Thor Thor to replace him with whoever the woman is.

@jayc1324 said:

Where has it been said that Thor's name is being removed and whats the story involved with that? Is it a good story? Have you read it or do you know the reasoning both creatively and in story? What will Thor be called now?

The hammer bit makes sense, not the first time thats happened - Beta Ray Bill/Beta Ray Thor. Not the first time Thor has been without hammer, some of his best stories have been sans hammer. If you think that Thor needs his hammer to define him thats fair, thats your right as a fan and individual, but for those who do not, nothing is being taking away. I am a big fan of myth Thor, and Marvel Thor didn't replace him, they coexisted and gave us a great new character. Ditto Beta Ray Bill, Thunderstrike, Throg, Thor Girl, Tarene. Thor will still be around for great stories.

@jayc1324: In the link I posted, Jason Aaron confirms that the current Thor will still be called Thor, it's like it's both his name (Thor Odinson) AND his title.

And I believe he also mentioned that Thor will go back to using his axe he had in the 'past'.

@wardishy: Oh OK I'll read it, I read something different about his name though, I'll try to find it. @sc: I'll try to find the article I read it in but it was something said by marvels chief editor.

And no I don't think Thor neds his hammer to be awesome, Jason Aaron showed that in his current Thor series. What I was basically saying is that I also dislike the idea of more and more people being able to use mjolnir, to me that lowers the significance and how special the hammer is.

@razzatazz: Again, finding ‘new readers’ in this given context is pandering to Feminism, that a male character, a popular one too (because of the MCU) should now be made into a female to show how ‘strong’ female characters can be.

Money wise this idea is attrocius, considering the new found popularity Thor has had with the MCU, and to ‘’find new fans’’ while throwing away the foundation of a good character is not the way to go.

You do know the Superman/Wonder Woman book is NOT prospering well in sales?

@jayc1324: Cheers. Maybe you misread or the EIC made an error? It seems more likely that this will be a Thor/Beta Ray Thor situation (not many people actually realize that Beta Ray Bill is actually known as Beta Ray Thor meaning that two Thors were running around and albeit more confusingly in times when Thor was attached to a mortal like Jake Olson they were Thor… but also Thor was Thor. Could just be that new female gets to be Thor via the hammer and Thor is still around as himself rather than a spirit figure) but lets say hypothetically Thor decided to rename himself as whatever the Norwegian word for forsaken or nomad and his stories were as good as the best of Jason Aaron or JMS or Simonson, what would be the problem exactly?

Oh and see thats fine, thats a preference you can admit to, and its actually a preference I share as well, I dislike the idea of more characters being able to pick up Mjölnir, but for me its not a game breaker in that I won't dismiss a concept just based on that. I have to see the execution and the reasoning behind the creative decision. Such decisions are usually done to ultimately build up characters/Thor. Character has to be deconstructed a bit to be built back up stronger. Similarly to Thor V2 end story arc Ragnorak when Mjölnir broke and story was around Thor coping with that and building up to understanding Rune magicks.

@frozen said:

Its pandering to controversy/curiosity not feminism. Jason Aaron writing a new Thor ongoing with a beard and without his hammer isn't going to be picked up by IGN, The Guardian, Variety, New York Daily News, The Young Turks, Time magazine, several newspapers and news sites. Thor the comic character from Marvel who has some familiarity with casual audiences because of the MCU, having the comics version be represented by a woman, will get attention from those websites the same way a Muslim teenage girl superhero also got attention and discussion.

MCU awareness/sales don't translate to comic sales, and I agree its risky in the sense that MCU Thor gained a lot of fans that could find the comic version more accessible now, and specifically as the character generally is, so gender switching the character… oh wait, character isn't being gender switched, okay so the Thor character dying… oh wait the character isn't dying. Those that like the MCU version of Thor will still find that Thor around but there will just be a female version running around as well. Eh the first Thor movie actually had Thor without his hammer for most of it so in that sense its actually not that different from a hammerless Thor in comics running around. So the foundation of Thor isn't going away, its being built on by the idea the character can actually support such a character. That its "throwing away" anything is really just a knee-jerk reaction to this news and thats okay too, at this stage a lot of whats said whether pro or anti this creative decision is just speculation. Its about individuals personal attitudes to concepts and actual quality of products.

Perhaps you should better acquaint yourself with feminism before you start calling creative changes in comic books as being driven by feminist thought processes. The biggest misunderstanding of feminism is that it wants to take things away from men, which is not the case. Feminism is much more geared towards equality, not the subjugation of masculinity. So to say that this is a feminist decision is ridiculous, especially when one considers the near lack of female creators between Marvel and DC, combined with the bizarre comments that many of the male creators have made towards femininity, female characters and feminism.

Also Superman-Wonder Woman may not be doing well, but it has made it farther into its run than a lot of other new 52 books.

Why does everyone make it sound like they're getting rid of Thor...

It's thors sister.

Or am I wrong? Why would they just ditch him.

I've acquitted myself, and studied Feminism, among Marxism, etc. This is driven by Feminism thought-proccesses, to pander to the interests of Feminists, or to show that Marvel can be Feminist too - look at the statements they've made in regards to Female Thor and the comparison Marvel made with other female characters. Feminism, from a liberal Feminist perspective is geared towards 'equality' - whereas the vocal Feminists are often not, the change here is to promote female characters but that can be done WITHOUT getting rid of a male character. They've made the change to pander to Feminist readers, or to at-least widen their range to female readers, which is why I said --- destroying a great character in the process is NOT the way to go.

So? It's done terrible in comparison to other Superman books, the sales plummeted because the idea is a cliche.

But that's NOT the way to go - anything can be made 'curious' - if Superman was made gay, would that pander to 'curiosity'? Or if Batman was made black? Creating controversy will only last so long, it'll create an initial ''buzz'' or attract attention but eventually that buzz Marvel are aiming for will fade. That does not give Marvel the right to throw away a great run, and a great character and replace it with an unnecessary change. The operative word here: unnecessary. Marvel instead could focus on other female characters, or attempt to make them more known, but instead they've opted for a cheap cop out - fans don't deserve to have that happen to them. Marvel are simply trying to be diverse for the sake of being diverse.

A Muslim teenage girl superhero can only be handled so carefully - if that is to truly appeal to Muslim teenagers, then they should capture the culture/society they live in, of a post-9/11 world, there are other Muslim superheroes in DC who have nothing notable about them and no attempt at capturing the culture whatsoever.

It does, in a way - since the MCU's popularity, more posters here have been predominantly Marvel fans, the MCU brought more awareness to the character, and Marvel, up until this fiasco, were doing a good job at maintaining good stories, and making him more accessible with Marvel NOW!

But if we take too much of an OPTIMISTIC view, then we simply become suckers to both DC and Marvel.

@frozen: Clearly you are quite opinionated when it comes to the concepts of equality. You are misappropriating feminism in this instance as it has nothing to do with it.

It's clearly related to Feminism. It's like saying making Wally West black has nothing to do with race, it DOES, just as replacing Thor with a female, IS related to Feminism, which falls under ''diversity''

I think what you are missing as well is the potential for comics to act as a medium of pure creativity. With the creativity of a writer and artist nearly anything is possible, from the early years of adventure comics which mirrored reality to wild and impossible stories of science fiction and fantasy. It would seem though that you are saying that creators should not be allowed to create whatever they want. I believe it is the exact opposite. In the end market forces will prevail and dictate what will be successful, but because something has never happened before doesn't mean that it will never happen, otherwise no innovation in human history would have ever happened. As with any other comic development, if you don't like it then simply don't read it.

I think anyone that equates feminism on equal theoretical footing as Marxism is probably somewhat biased when it comes to their understanding of either. I think you are not differentiating between abstract concepts and concrete concepts.

That Wally West is black does have something to do with race in the sense that he is now black and that as a black person he has a higher level of melanin in his skin tone. It is equally the same with the new Thor, as she is definitely a female, as that is her biological definition. Where you are going wrong is reading the abstract concepts into these developments. Wally being black is not affirmative action it is just about a new direction for the character. Thor being a woman is not about her being a feminist, rather just feminine. There is a difference.

@razzatazz: Do you not think it would have been better to use unique characters like Sif, Valkyrie or Angela as the new Goddess of Thunder instead of having a new female that just looks like Thor with boobs and is even called Thor?

@jonny_anonymous: I am someone that is trying to become a writer, and as such, I am prone towards anyone that has any creative concept, however strange or unorthodox that it might be. As an example I am sure that when Tolkien told his friends that he was going to write a book about trolls and dragons and a magical ring that they probably tried to persuade him to stick with something more common, but he ended up creating a genre of fiction. Because of that I tend to err on the side of creativity rather than resting on old ideas. Sif, Valkyrie or Angela? Sure, that would be fine too, but it is not the writer's concept, and so I give him benefit of the doubt for the story that he wants to tell.

@frozen said:

Specifically not everything can be made curiosity inducing, your example is a significant change in sexual orientation by one of the if not the biggest superheroes of all time and really now its Superman so he is the biggest and sexual orientation is a big huge topic, and if DC decided to make Superman gay it would garner a lot of curiosity from people who don't read Superman comics. Thats a different issue as far as the issue of deciding whether its worth it or not. So risk reward. The reward with changing Superman that way wouldn't be worth the risk for DC. The rewards for Marvel in introducing a new female Thor are to them, worth the risk,

Indeed, using controversy to sell is a risky tactic and can be a way to undermine a products long term sustainability and harm a solid and loyal fan base to a product but its common in comics which already has a cycle of reader drop off and readership gain. Regardless of whatever happens readers tend to drop off books only to be replaced and most comics sales trend towards declining save for when events boost them or number ones roll around or occasionally creative changes granting the fame/status of the creative team. That and each controversy has its own risk and reward ratio. Marvel already knows that after the initial buzz sales and attention will fade but thats still a potential extra 5 to 20 thousand dollar boost per issue sale that starts to fade from that point on, just as the book is already fading and has been fading even though you and me think that its a great run with a great character.

That they are throwing something away I can only take as your opinion, unless you want to assert the objective reasoning behind the claim. As an opinion its fair but not one I share, as I haven't read the stories yet. Similar the application of what is necessary and unnecessary? On what foundation do you assert this is unnecessary and as importantly what in comics do you view as necessary so we can make a comparison? Marvel does focus on many other female characters. Elektra, She Hulk, Ms Marvel, Captain Marvel, Scarlet Witch, Storm, they focus on them as they see fit as a business dealing with the creation of stories involving fictional characters but its priority is not randomly making some female characters more known to be rah rah girl power. Rather its looking at a characters potential and how their gender, background, supporting characters can be assets combined with a creative teams assets to make money and produce great stories and generate sales. The idea of a new female as Thor with the publicity it will generate and how that will affect sales for that title is a different approach than say giving Sif a new solo book. Personally I'd prefer a Sif solo but a Sif solo wouldn't generate the publicity that this new Thor book would, which goes back to my point about what is the motivation behind this new book and who its supposedly pandering towards. Unfortunately for me, a Sif solo book doesn't seem worth the risk or investment on Marvels part.

Fans don't all have the same opinion, preference or idea about what they deserve or don't deserve. Your argument lacks any exclusivity. Its like if I said this is the book every single human who has ever lived has been waiting for and deserves. I mean its a bit empty, I get that you feel that way, but you and I can't speak for every fan.

Your basis for such claims? Every study and business related article, professional consensus on how comic book movies affects comic book sales points to CBM have little to no effect on comic sales. You are right that it does make more people aware of such characters and that in itself can be very valuable and that there is benefit and smoothing the lines between the comic reality and comic book reality but most of that is for fans of both mediums stories rather than a serious hook for fishing in new readers. Which doesn't matter too much as I explained Thor is still around and going to be around and if anything closer to his MCU incarnation with his grizzled look and probably rougher moral edges.

Who needs a optimistic view when you can have a realists view and understanding of the comic book industry and why and how it aces creative decisions? =p Do the things I assert above sound like sucker to Marvel or DC?

I also understand if you have a critical and skeptical view of all this, I would even encourage it, but there is a difference between a skeptical and critical view on something and a unfavorable gut reaction to something and anticipation of a let down or disappointment because of a unnecessary change to what would be considered a good thing. There are lots of creative decisions I don't like and can view as being reasonable from Marvels or a creators POV, alternatively can be times I think they are making a poor business decision or excessively risky decision but am glad for it because of my own preferences.

Yeah but it's not like they are tired old characters. Val is relatively new and popular character and Angela has literally just appeared in the Marvel Universe. You could tell any story you want with these characters and they are in dire need of a push. But if they absolutely must create a new character they could of at least made her unique with her own style and name because right now she just looks like someone cosplaying, there is nothing that makes her stand out and nothing that she can even call her own, she's just a genderswap carbon copy even worse than characters like She Hulk and Supergirl. When this is all over with and male Thor becomes... well Thor again female Thor will either disappear in to Limbo for years on end or she will get a revamp to make her her own character instead of Fem-Thor. And if that happens then what was the point in not giving her her own identity in the first place?

@jonny_anonymous: Well the story dictates in such a case I guess. The reason it is not a separate character is because the writer feels that is the best way to present a story. Also most writers don't approach a story expecting it to fail, nor do I think is Marvel approaching this expecting it to fail. As far as they are concerned they are probably hoping that this will be a runaway success.

@razzatazz: Even if it is a success, man-Thor will eventually be Thor again and something will have to be done with fem-Thor be it revamp or limbo.

@jonny_anonymous: Sure well this is comics, and characters have a tendency to come back from everything. Even in the case of Barry Allen where the character was left dead for about twenty years, he eventually came back. In the meantime though Wally West became a fan favourite of many. It has happened before as well, and some very popular characters come from this background.

@razzatazz: Yeah but none of these characters are actually using the characters they replaced name, this isn't like Wally becoming The Flash, this is like Wally becoming Barry.

Why would this bother me? I wasn't bothered by any of the 5 other people who temporarily replaces Thor, or that time he was a frog. Is it because its a girl? Don't be scared fan boys, they're only boobs. They won't hurt you.

You're missing the point entirely.

@lvenger: Not really, Red Norval was called Thor when he took his place, Beta Ray Bill has been called Thor at times. So people have actually taken the name along with the mantle before, so why is it more of a big deal now than all the other times its happened. Every other time its happened they never out right said it was temporary but we all know it is.

@joshmightbe: Ah right, of course we are all fan boys....

@joshmightbe: Oh I know it's temporary. That's what makes it worse, that it's going to be another Superior Spider-Man change for about a year that will go back to normal a la Eric Masterson. Didn't he make a major impact on Thor's history...

A lot of casual talk with mods here. That's nice to see.

@lvenger: The only temporary Thor replacement that has ever had any real impact on Thor's history is Beta Ray Bill, just like only maybe like 3 or 4 of the 8 Caps that have replaced Steve in the 616 have had any real impact on his history.

@jonny_anonymous: Just saying its not worth the freak out, its not the first time Thor has been replaced, and not even close to the weirdest thing they've ever done to the character and it'll probably be mostly forgotten about within 3 years from now.

@joshmightbe: The problem isn't that they replaced Thor, the problem is the replaced Thor with a waste of a character that will forever ride his coattails as fem-Thor instead of boosting unique characters like Sif, Angela or Val. They could of at least created a new character with her own look, style and name.