How high up the marvel heigharchy would you place them? high? low? medium, high-class skyfather...etc...etc
Printable View
How high up the marvel heigharchy would you place them? high? low? medium, high-class skyfather...etc...etc
Do you mean rated as individuals or as a group(the Great Beasts and the Artic Gods)?
Well compared to other Marvel gods, such as the Olympians or the Norse Gods, Titans, etc. How well do they stack up against them? How well does the Great Beasts stack up against other Marvel "gods"? and same for the gods of the artic
A personal thought I always had was "how would Somon fair against Loki" being as they are both tricksters. It would be cool if they had profiles of them like they do in the marvel encyclopedia of every one else, Sorry I can't help as I don't recall anyone making a comparison in the comics
I'd say that the Nordic and Graeco-Roman myths have a firm hold on the top of the Marvel hierarchy. Thor has long had his own series, as well as making regular appearances in titles, while Hercules had had his own mini-series, was a regular in the Avengers, et al.
In Thor 300, when the gods of Earth gathered to discuss the coming judgement of the Celestials, the idea that each cultural pantheon had a "Skyfather" that represented its pantheon on a great council of Skyfather gods was expressed. While Odin was portrayed as embodying the will of the council, ie. top of the hierarchy (at the time), the council appeared more of a gathering of equals.
I would say that, all-in-all the artic deities are on par with any other group of deities, even as the great beasts are a force comparable in might to the "giants" or the titans.
But Marvel has done well with Nordic mythos.
... as long as you ignore the blatant rewritings, such as Loki as Odin's adopted son instead of his brother, Odin's apparent need of his 'Odin-Sleeps' every decade or so (according to myth, Odin can't sleep, 'else the sun wouldn't rise), the fact that Lady Sif was anything BUT virtuous, and the fact that the closest ones to the description of the Warrior's Three weren't Aesir, they were Vanir (peace-gods). Then there's the matter with Odin's eye...Quote:
Originally Posted by Powersurge
But I will agree, as much as they changed the myths, Marvel did a lot of honouring to the old Tuetonic gods.
Which is itself a rewrite, along with the ranking of Loki as a god, when he is an etin, ie "giant". He is an oathbrother with Woden in the Eddaic mythQuote:
Originally Posted by HappyCanuck
In 20 years of devoute study and worship I've never heard that the sun wouldn't rise if Woden slept; the sun being roundly associated with feminine deities and Yngvi-FreyR in the surviving myths. Of course, I've never heard of the Odin-sleep (outside of comics) either!!Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyCanuck
Hmmmm. I thinking .... thinking ... remembering ... not finding anything to suggest that Sif wasn't virtuous by real world standards. The biggest role Sif takes in surviving myth is to have her hair chopped off by Laufey's son. Outside of that, maybe Loki accuses her of something in the Lokesenna, but he's not called the Father of Lies because of his honesty!Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyCanuck
Well, Freyja, called the Vanadis (Guardian Spirit of the Vanir), is remembered to have shared half of the battle-slain with Woden. As far as the male deities go, Odin-Vili-Ve, Odin-Hoenir-Logi, Odin-Thor-FreyR, and Ingui-Irmin-Iscio are the most significant gods that appear in threes. Any of them could be dubbed the "Warriors Three". Three was/is also the number of toasts yielded up at a religious feast ... a custom that continued long after the conversion, like much else Teutonic heathen.Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyCanuck
Not to mention his build ... Woden has always been described as very tall, and very slender. Then there are the clothes that they all wear. Then there is the depiction of Asgard as a city as opposed to a rural setting, the depiction of Tyr as something less then the God of Glory and father of the gods that he originally was considered. The list of what Marvel got "wrong" in regards to the Teutonic gods is enormous, but what does one expect from a comic?Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyCanuck
As far as change in the myths, those myths have been ondergoing subtle alterations and modifications, in keeping with the historical experience of the Teutonic people --- who gave us the Rule of Precedent --- since the Indo-Europeans first settled in southern Scandinavia at the end of the Stone Age. The German pantheon presented by the Roman Historian Cornelius Tacitus, while roundly clealry the same, placed Tiw at the head of the pantheon, has Heimdal as his son, and makes both Woden and Frey brothers and sons of Heimdall.
Chances are, if we had more complete data from nuerous different time periods (Stone Age to Bronze Age, Bronze Age to Celtic Iron Age, Germanic Iron Age/Migration Age to end of the Viking Age) and the numerous different tribes, we would see (MORE of how) certain core elments persist, despite time and space, but also different arrangements within the pantheon that reflect the peculiar experience and identity of each particular tribe.
The bigggest change we can speak of came with the beginning of the Celtic Iron Age, when the climate began to cool, causing land resources to shrink in southern Scandinavia, and sending them out of their homeland and into the Celtic held lands that we today would call Germany. This is when the cult of Woden began to take on greater meaning and assert itself in the religion. Its throughout this period that Wodens name *begins* appearing in the geneologies of various NW European royals.
But I will agree, as much as they changed the myths, Marvel did a lot of honouring to the old Tuetonic gods.[/quote]
Talk about changes between myth and Marvel version, and no one questions why Thor is blonde?
Actually, from the versions of the myth I've read about, primarily, Baldur and Thor envision the epitome of Tuetonic (later "Aryan") ideal: blond, blue-eyed (there are myths where he's depicted as red-haired, but most of the ones I've seen, including a translation of The Harbaroslijoo, he is blond). They were said to be opposite ends of the scale of perfection (Thor was a warrior, whereas Baldur was a peace-god), yet they were not only allies and brothers, they were also linked to each other, that the death of Baldur would spurn Ragnorok, and Thor would lead the battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by kozzi24
One REAL question I wanna know is why Marvel kept depicting Thor (and not one of his replacements) as clean shaven. In early Scandinavian culture, beards were signs of manhood. Having the epitome of manhood being cleanshaven is a bit of an oxymoron...
Or why Marvel cast "Red Thor" as a villian at one point, and made an entirely differnt entity than goldilocks.
Apparently, my ancestors did things in Thor's name that blondie didn't agree with. Such as? Would it be demonzing an entire race of people becasue one of them supposedly betrayed one's man-god? Perhaps it was waging war on an entire race of people, firmly convinced that they are the epitome of evil, and all over an eternally war torn and anything but "holy" piece of land? And then turning around and comdeming to Hell te warriors that went and fought for you? Or perhpas it was the merciliess torture and slaughter of millions of Jews, women, scientists, and even even other folks of the same religion because of some subtle difference of opinion on some fine point of doctrine?
Hmmmm. The backs of captial criminals were broken in the name of Thor by the Viking Age Scandinavians. Other than that Thor oversaw oaths, upheld the sanctity of the community, fostered the cultivation of physical and spiritual strength, ie. might and main, and ensured the fertility of land and womb. Thats SOME evil. Bad Red Thor. Baaaaad.
Sorry for the little rant.
Don't remember 'Red Thor' in Marvel (only the various costumes that Thor had, as well as the temporary replacement with Eric Masterson, and all known varieties were blond)
That wouyld be the "Harbarzljodh" or Lay/Ljod of Harbard. And in fact, all of the elder myths, when they bother to describe the appearance of a god at all (not an easy task incidently!!!) Thor is described as having red hair, in keeping with his sky and weather associations and his guardianship of man, ie. red sky in morning ... red sky at night ...Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyCanuck
Not that I'm going to debate the colour of a disembodied spirits hair, hehehehe, but thats the fact.
Regarding the term Aryan, it is actaully highly inappropriate to apply to the Teutonic (Germanic, Gothic, Nordic, all equally catch-alls) peoples. In fact, the term Aryan appears to have a been a tribal name peculiar to the East Indo-Europeans. It is the word that the Hindu noble caste uses to described itself, and is also found in the name of the nation-state Iran. The lny place we find this term in the West is with the Celts, who didn't arrive in NW Europe til around 1800 BCE and came out of the SE following a warming trend. A cooling trend had sent the Aryan I-E tribes on a south easterly migration earlier on. The Celtic language/s bear all of the characteristics of an eastern Indo-European language. The Teutonic folk on the otherhand had been in southern Scandinavia since the late Stone Age, c2,300 BCE onward off the top of my head, following another warming, and our languages are usually grouped with the Baltic and Slavic tongues. All fiormly Western I-E with no natural occurence of the term Aryan.
The word Deutshce on the other hand is far older. Its related to the term Teuton, the Old English theod and the Norse thjod, all of which mean "the tribe, the people, the folk". The term theoden, which some might recognize from Tolkein, means "Master of the Tribe" or "King". Ingaevone probably trumps Deutsche though, as evidence of its application as a catchall for the tribes of southern Scandinavia comes as early as the 1st century BCE. It is also based on the name of the god Ingui-Frea, or Yngvi-Frey as the Swedes called him.
Well, the name Baldur means "warrior" and in Saxo Grammaticus' depiction of him (Gesta Danorum) he is portrayerd, one, as a mortal, and two as a warrior-king ... all of whom were considered descended from Odin, ie. Odin's sons, by the time end of the Migration Age. Even in Snorri's Eddas, Balder's role, other than as a literary device to signal the onset of man's period of cultural and spiritual amnesia, is a big fat unknown. He has no known cult sites. He received no worship. He was rewritten to be a Jesuslike figure, etc., etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyCanuck
Anyway, it is also Odin who leads the battle at Ragnarok. Even within the context of the Eddas -- and I'm more like a Teutonic rabbi, than a Teutonic bishop, so I read more than just the Eddas, and thus don't place too much on the Eddas --- but even in that context Thor's role in Ragny-shmagny-rok is unclear. The Harbazljodh indicates that he might have killed the Wolrd Serpent, who, thus, cannot engage Redbeard let alone kill him, at Ragnarok. Not that a disembodied spirit could die. Or that a mere mortal could possibly percceive the event, but men can and will feel free to flatter themselves.
Well, its a fact, so search and you shall find. Don't bother searching through anything within the past 15 years though. You gotta go further back.Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyCanuck
that's how it's spelled on my copy. Don't ask me, I didn't print the book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Powersurge
If you read what I said, I said in most of the versions I've read - I never said in all of them, and as such, you obviously can't claim the same fact, since, obviously, not all of them say that. Believe me, I am well versed in my mythology, but can only quote or paraphrase from the sourses given to me. I do not claim to have ALL the sourses.Quote:
And in fact, all of the elder myths, when they bother to describe the appearance of a god at all (not an easy task incidently!!!) Thor is described as having red hair...
Again, you need to start reading WHOLE sentences, since I said 'later', as in, it was adopted in the Aryan principle oft-quoted by the Third Reich, among others, pre- and post-war. I am well aware that what we refer to as 'Aryan' today has little or no bearing on the original meaning and usage (even though you did teach me a couple new things, so tahnk you for the history lesson).Quote:
Regarding the term Aryan...
andQuote:
Well, the name Baldur...
See above about not having all sourse of mythology. As I said, I can only go by what I've read and studied, and though most of what you said is said in some version, in others it isn't said. Same I find can be said for you, since you have obviously not read the same passages I have (if I can find the books I found them in, I'll give you a book list so you can cross-compare).Quote:
Anyway, it is also Odin who leads the battle at Ragnarok..
I am not Teutonic clergy, but I've been studying comparative theology and mythology for 12 years, with heavy accent on Judeo-Christo-Islam, Greco-Roman, Egyptian, Meso-American and Teutonic mythology and symbology (I'm more secular-clergy), so please believe me when I say I'm no slouch in this department, either.
(note to self, FINISH a sentese before hitting 'submit'!)
Well, exaclty how many sources on Norse myth do you think there are Happy?!?! There is the Poetic Edda, Snorri' Sturluson's Prose Edda and Heimskringla, Saxo Grammaticus' Gesta Danorum, and a scattering of scant references spread throughout the Icelandic sagas. These are our ONLY sources for Viking Age myth and NONE of them say Thor has blonde hair. They all say, and comparative Indo-European mythology reinforces it, that the Thunderer's hair is RED. And as someone who has been specifically studying Teutonic myth, language, history and culture for about 15 years -- not including the 6 years prior that I simply enjoyed it --I can claim, in all humble honesty, to have read ALL of the primary sources on the subject. ALL of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyCanuck
So, I have no idea what you mean by "version" (translation? retelling by contemporay author?), or why you think that many, many, many "versions" exist. The available data, on myth, not the values and practices of the religion, is scant ... almost nonexistent, so its just not all that terribly difficult to find and absorb it all.
Sorry.
First off, call me Allan - its only fitting to call a 'contender' in a disagreement by his true name.Quote:
Originally Posted by Powersurge
Second, having read all those sourses you quote (well, most of Snorri' Sturluson - damned former roommate stoll the book when she buggered me over), I know of three more, at least. Unfortunately, as I said, I'm in the middle of rebuilding my resourse library thanks to said former roommate, and will be MORE than happy to supply titles, authors, ISBN numbers, etc to you when I get them so you can compare facts. Also, you are only listing so-called 'pure' sourses, not the essayist and comparable-mythologists, among others, who, too, have researched this topic to death. You can't study a religion without studying those who have studied it before, not and keep an academic head on your shoulders.
Thirdly...
By version, yes I mean - generally - 'translation'. Because dead languages are so much more an artform than a science, what one person reads and what another person reads are TWO different things, thus I tend to look at VARIOUS versions of the story to piece together what I'm reading. Take a look at the Bible - translated and translated, and translations of the translations, and each version (read: translation) reads differently from the other. Why? because translator A read it as one thing, and translator B read it another. You MAY have read one VERSION of the book, but it doesn't mean you've read the same book as me. And that's not to meantion, most of these myths started off as oral tradition (about as reputable as gospel as any rumour), not having been transcribed until several centuries or millennia later... More than likely even the gods have forgotten what the first version was, let alone those who had to later transcribe it, and those later still who translated it.Quote:
I have no idea what you mean by "version" (translation? retelling by contemporay author?), or why you think that many, many, many "versions" exist.
If you are sticking strictly to the so-called 'pure' sourses (a notion I scoff, since no one reads ancient Saxon as it was actually written), then, to a degree you are right. However, I would contend, there are more than one form of sourse than just the 'pure' sourses. On the side, note I never brought up the values and practices of the religion, since that has no bearing on this discussion... For that matter, why are we getting so hot under the collar because we disagree about Thor's haircolour....? :?Quote:
The available data, on myth, not the values and practices of the religion, is scant ... almost nonexistent, so its just not all that terribly difficult to find and absorb it all.
Don't be sorry on my count. As you can tell, it's been quite a GOOD long while since I had a decent theological/mythological debate. I was in SERIOUS need of one, and you helped me. Okay, so it started with something VERY trivial as Thor's hair, but nonetheless...Quote:
Sorry.
No doubt about it Allen. However, we are not talking a foreign tongue, we are talking the ancestor (or immedaite relation anyway) of the very tongue we are currently speaking right this instance. And, we are not talking an abstract, culturally specific concept, we are talking a simple colour. Just like in the modern tongue, blonde is blonde and red is red, even as one is one and two is two, plainly and simply. There is zero obscurity or debate surrounding this.Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyCanuck
Also, while I mistakenly thought it would go without saying, I have read the academic opinions of Stephen Grundy, HRE Davidson, Wilhelm Gronbech, Jacob Grimm, and a wide and varied host of others ... all of whom hold PhDs in the subject. None of them ever thought that t Nordic word for blonde or red could be mistaken for one another. All credible scholars and academics seem to be of the unanimous opinion that word used to describe the colour of Thor's hair was red. And this word was used with fair consistency in describing things ew know to be coloured red.
We could get into an obscurity debate surrounding the specific *meaning* of the colour .... for instance, the vikings meant very different things when they called, say, Heimdall "White" (ie. pure, exceedingly holy)
as opposed to when they called Christ "White" (ie. lacking spirit, vigor, lily-livered), but that is not the issue here.
Of course, when it comes down to it, folks are free to perceive the Almighty's hair colour in whatever way they deem appropriate for them. What some modern person believes or imagines is more relateable or whatever however, was never the issue. What the ancients believed was.
:)
Heh, colour me paranoid, but I think you did that on purpose, but in case not, my name isn't Allen, it's Allan. I get irked when ppl spell my name wrong. Since this is the first time you've used it, I'll let it slide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Powersurge
Which I would argue would still be a foreign tongue, just as, although routed in Latin, French is not Latin. There are significant differences between modern English and ancient Saxon going back four thousand years. Enough of a difference that the integration of new 'slang' into canon-language changes everything as you go. Not to meantion, despite the root of words, meaning change through time, so what I read as 'red' is not necessarily the same thing as 'red' in the original context.Quote:
However, we are not talking a foreign tongue, we are talking the ancestor (or immedaite relation anyway) of the very tongue we are currently speaking right this instance.
as nice as that is to believe, that is completely wrong. There is no such thing as 'zero obscurity' in something as ever-malleable as language, because, as stated prior, meanings to words DO change over millennia. Not to meantion, how many different words do we have that mean 'red'? How many of them mean the same NOW as they did even a thousand years ago? When I say 'sanguine', you automatically think of the Latin 'Sanguin' - for blood - (or even 'Sangre' in Spanish and 'Sang' in French), and automatically think 'red'. Little do people realise is that 'Sanguin' actually got its name from somewhere else entirely, a guy who was one of the pioneers in gemology in Persia nearly 4,500 years ago. (okay, I'll admit, obscure point, but still, see my point?)Quote:
And, we are not talking an abstract, culturally specific concept, we are talking a simple colour. Just like in the modern tongue, blonde is blonde and red is red, even as one is one and two is two, plainly and simply. There is zero obscurity or debate surrounding this.
As much as that may be true, you can't claim only the 'pure' sourses as the 'soul' sourses of the notion as you had in your previous post, since, you know as well as I, that they are only one drop in the ocean of potential soursesQuote:
Also, while I mistakenly thought it would go without saying, I have read the academic opinions of Stephen Grundy, HRE Davidson, Wilhelm Gronbech, Jacob Grimm, and a wide and varied host of others ... all of whom hold PhDs in the subject.
It's about time, you hit the nail on the head! And YES, that IS the issue! You just answered your own arguement, and emphasised one of my points: multiple meanings for the same word. Synonyms. Top it off, you have the ideas of metaphor. I have seen it said that Thor had 'fiery' hair - which, to a 21st-century brain would come to mean 'red' - the same was said of Aphrodite (whom mythological scholars primarily agree that her hair was blonde as well). It doesn't necessarily mean that his hair was red, just that it was vibrant. Thus, one could possibly read it as either blond (yellow) or red, both colours prominent in fire.Quote:
None of them ever thought that t Nordic word for blonde or red could be mistaken for one another. All credible scholars and academics seem to be of the unanimous opinion that word used to describe the colour of Thor's hair was red. And this word was used with fair consistency in describing things ew know to be coloured red.
We could get into an obscurity debate surrounding the specific *meaning* of the colour .... for instance, the vikings meant very different things when they called, say, Heimdall "White" (ie. pure, exceedingly holy)
as opposed to when they called Christ "White" (ie. lacking spirit, vigor, lily-livered), but that is not the issue here.
Now THAT is beside the point. This discussion has little or no bearing on what the original Ancients saw and wrote, but how we, the students of a long-dead language, are inclined to translate what they said to be as fact. The contention was not that the Ancients thought Thor's hair was this colour or that, it's that, according to the various translations of the myths we're lead to believe his hair was this or that, and how that applies to modern envisioning of said personage. Stick with the program, man!Quote:
Of course, when it comes down to it, folks are free to perceive the Almighty's hair colour in whatever way they deem appropriate for them. What some modern person believes or imagines is more relateable or whatever however, was never the issue. What the ancients believed was.
Edit: Following posts have been split and a new topic started in 'The Cupboard' - Phil
So Thor's hair color is red, like in the older texts I read, some as a child, some in college, and some both.
AllAn, may be next time you should check your sources before just jumping in to arbitrarily contradict someone else.
And considering that the spelling of your name is off the norm, some patience would not be justified.Quote:
Heh, colour me paranoid, but I think you did that on purpose, but in case not, my name isn't Allen, it's Allan. I get irked when ppl spell my name wrong. Since this is the first time you've used it, I'll let it slide.
Jeff, I HAVE checked my sourses - REPEATEDLY. Some say red while others don't. Obviously, his sourses differ from mine -WHICH IS WHAT I WAS GETTING AT. The colour of his hair was NOT the point, regardless what he'd like to think, just that he obviously DOESN'T have ALL the sourses as he'd like to claim. Second, I don't do anything arbitrarily. Gimme a few weeks for my books to get back to me, I'll give you titles, ISBN's, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by kozzi24
Hence why I said I'd let is slide. I know the spelling of my name is one of the lesser-common spellings, so I corrected him instead of jumping down his throat about it. Nonetheless, I DO get irked by my name being spelled incorrectly - quite irked I might add - so I figured I DID show patience, considering how I generally react to those who should know better (which is a group I've already stated 'Surge isn't associated with) when they spell it wrong. Btw, I don't particularly being mocked out of spite, either...Quote:
And considering that the spelling of your name is off the norm, some patience would not be justified.Quote:
Heh, colour me paranoid, but I think you did that on purpose, but in case not, my name isn't Allen, it's Allan. I get irked when ppl spell my name wrong. Since this is the first time you've used it, I'll let it slide.
... And I'm not going to finish the rest of that thought, since that'd be puerile and serve no purpose than to get OTHERS jumping down my throat for expressing my understanding of facts as I've been taught them...
annnnnnnnnnnnnd we're just a step away from a locked thread....
Hooray for off-topic debates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil
Hooray for the power to ban.
Whoa..whoa, no way was their debate a banable offence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil
Not yet, hence not having done so.
also hence why I stopped at that last sentence... didn't wanna get MYSELF banned over something so stupid...Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil
I have decided to lock this thread, should anyone want to open a new thread on the ORIGINAL topic, please do so.
Ben