When I saw this movie with a pal of mine, she turned to me during the credits and grinned, âFinally, he used his helmet to fight with! Iâve been waiting for that! Youâve got two knives on your head, dude â use them!â
Thereâs a logic to what sheâs saying, but itâs more than that for me. Lokiâs helmet has generally been a symbol of his ego â specifically, the ego thatâs feeding his rage, his insecurity, his hate, his fear, his hurt, his loneliness. Itâs telling, through the earlier movies, when he wears it: when heâs sending the Destroyer to kill Thor, when heâs sitting on the throne making cruel decisions, when heâs fighting his brother on the Bifrost. (There is the scene in the beginning where he wears the helmet to Thorâs coronation â thatâs the only time we get a more innocuous connotation for it, although even then, it is happening around the time that Loki invites the Frost Giants to sneak in and âruin his brotherâs big day.â Which did result in a few murdered guards, and leads to more dire unfoldings, as you may recall.)
In âAvengers,â it gets even darker: his helmet appears when heâs delivering fascist speeches and leading an army of murder-aliens. Heâs wearing it, again, when he fights Thor. I think itâs telling that the helmet never appears in âThe Dark World,â because thatâs the movie where Loki starts to think about maybe trying to pull himself back out of the pit of hate and hurt he had half-fallen, half-jumped into. Itâs the movie where his redemption arc starts.
In âRagnaorkâ â continuing the redemption-arc trend â the helmet doesnât appear on Loki himself until this moment:
This is the first time we see a helmeted Loki in a moment where heâs not only not doing something sinister â heâs actively helping. Heâs actively being kind. Heâs wearing that helmet to diva his way into his moment as his peopleâs savior â but he also is, yâknow, saving his people. His egoâs still on deck, but for the first time, his ego is merely coming along for the ride as he does something selfless, rather than being in charge to lead him in the opposite direction.
Thatâs why itâs so fitting that this is the first time we see him use his helmet â his newly-designed, looser, freer helmet â as a weapon. Thereâs enough of a Hero in him now that, having had his grand entrance, he takes that symbol of his ego and uses it as a weapon, as a tool, to protect his people instead:
#remember back in like 2011 when Tom Hiddleston was like âthe opposite of love isnât hate itâs indifference and Loki HATES his brother!!â#WELL#I HAD A LOT OF FEELINGS ABOUT THAT DURING THIS SCENE#not to Tag Feel like itâs 20 fucking 12 but⌠heâs so used to Thor chasing after him and Thor fighting him and Thor crying over him#to have Thor be like âyeah cool just stay here. our paths diverged itâs whatever. have fun ruling Crap Planet.â#Lokiâs like hmmmmmm⌠this feels bad. I donâtâŚ. like thisâŚâŚâŚ.#AND THEN HE BETRAYS THOR LIKE HA HA! and Thorâs like âlol saw it coming you never change. peace out have a nice life lol!â#so then Loki has to be a goody. SIGH.#like âhe doesnât CARE if we never see each other again? WELL NOW HEâS GONNA SEE ME EVERY FUCKIN DAY!!!â#my⌠lads
sljdksjd that taika waititi quote about how lokiâs last outfit in ragnarok is blue and purple because with hela and the hulk thereâs already a lot of green is great and makes a lot of sense but contextually itâs like loki finds out heâs the cheap knockoff handbag to his big sisterâs name brand designer handbag and is like FINE IâLL WEAR BLUE AND FUCK JEFF GOLDBLUM I BET HELA NEVER DID THAT HUH
Loki is called upon to be a lot of different people. Heâs been raised on Asgard, and thatâs formed some of the more basic aspects of his personality and values, but at the same time he has attributes that have been consistently discouraged and pushed down by that culture, and we can see them step forward as he moves into situations where they are encouraged.
Throughout the canons, there are a lot of Lokis. Siege Loki, Lady Loki, Kid Loki and his murderer, Ikol, King Loki, and the God/Goddess of Stories. The earlier aspects I know only by secondhand information, but Iâm very familiar with Loki from Young Avengers and Agent of Asgard, some of my favorite comics of all time. But I know some basic facts - the way the earliest Loki was a quintessential comic book villain full of pure simple theatrical mischief and ridiculous schemes, the fact that Lady Loki was a somewhat more sinister appropriator of bodies for her own use.
In my view, MCU!Loki has, at the very least, the same capacity to shift personalities depending on the circumstances, and I havenât yet seen anything in the Loki show thatâs thrown my suspension of disbelief with regards to his characterization.
Iâve seen some people rebel at the idea of Loki gleeful over the destruction of Pompeii and the causing of chaos it allowed, but it reminds me of some meta I wrote very early on in my years of meta-writing in the MCU. The values Loki was raised with, Asgardian values, sometimes treat death very lightly, especially death in battle, especially human or otherwise non-Aesir death. In the Aesir context, at least to a certain extent and certainly in terms of what weâve seen Odin teach his sons onscreen, violence is honorable, fighting is an adventure, lives are cheap and Valhalla is the ultimate goal.
I think a lot of the central conflict of Lokiâs character is that he follows some of these principles to their logical conclusions in situations that Aesir values never meant them to cover. If life is unimportant, then it wonât be so bad if I tell Thor that Odin is dead. If the throne of Asgard has dominion over all the Nine Realms, then why shouldnât I rule Midgard?
But he also shifts the way he acts to suit the situation. He is a shifter, itâs what he does. On Asgard, he is expected to be a warrior, a dignified prince, a companion and support for his brother. The values are bravery and dignity, and so a lot of what he projects there is bravado and elegance, which are close enough for him to get by.
When he is taken by Thanos, the only things Thanos wants and values are power and death. So Loki becomes an avatar of power and death. He carries that with him to Earth, because he is still very much under the jurisdiction of Thanos. But he very quickly learns how to use and manipulate Earth values, like wit and pathos. They seem to fit him better than the others, and he carries them through the other movies and the different frameworks he finds himself in.
He also tends to carry Asgard with him, the knowledge that heâs a prince, destined to be a king, that he needs to carry himself a certain way, with that elegance, dignity and bravado.
When I see Loki in the first episode of the show, I recognize him as some of the deepest, most quintessential parts of Loki that have only been allowed to peek out on occasion before. And that is due to manipulation on Mobiusâs part - Mobius makes it very clear what he expects of Loki. To get down to the very basic levels of him and find out his motivations, what makes him fundamentally himself - âWhat makes Loki tick?â Thereâs a quiet void there, and the only thing thatâs being asked of Loki, for once, is that he sit down and fill that void with words - the truest and most sincere words possible.
Thereâs a clear and interesting divide between that phase for Loki, and the phase we see in episode two - Mobius has stopped providing that space, and in the interim, heâs made it very clear what he expects Loki to be like, what mold heâd prefer the trickster to fit into.
The hard-working, lovable scamp.
Loki is hiding his deepest self again, which we all do most of the time. Loki canât feel that deeply and express that freely all the time. Because of the environment heâs in - which may not be any more or less free than any of the other environments heâs experienced - he expresses himself in a particular way. He is the hard-working, mischievous scamp Mobius has been pushing him to be.
I donât think heâs any more or less himself than heâs ever been - heâs simply responding to different pressures. And the pressures of this episode press him very hard into the Neal Caffrey mold. Which is an interesting mold in itself - when I was writing White Collar fic, I made a point to distinguish who Neal was when he was with Peter and who he was under different circumstances - prison, witness protection, with Mozzie, with Kate. (I wrote an autistic Kate, and had him most freely himself when he was with her.)
Like Neal Caffrey, the Episode 2 Loki is treading a line between behaviors that will get him things because heâs useful and compliant, behaviors that will demonstrate that heâs into minor trickery for fun now and might not be getting up to anything bigger, and those bigger tricks that are definitely still running in the background. Itâs the obvious balance for a trickster on a leash with an indulgent bureaucrat.
You can see that itâs a facade in the way that he is near tears when he sees the Ragnarok paperwork, but when he brings it to Mobiusâs attention and Mobius expresses his sympathies, Loki says âYes, very sad,â and then dismisses it in favor of moving on to his mischievous enthusiasm over the resulting theory heâs had.
Like all good lies, itâs built out of truth, so when I see this Loki, I see pieces of the Loki I know, just put together a little differently, which is how Loki seems to do it.
Although heâs not free as he might hope to be, and in fact threading a narrow path between a very constricting set of pressures, I do still think heâs enjoying the dropped expectations of dignity and elegance. I think heâs enjoying being in a culture that encourages him to be a geek. To go on about the things heâs passionate about and his areas of expertise. And I think thatâs a lot of what unsettles people about this Loki, because that elegance and dignity have carried everywhere else with him. And Iâm not going to argue that the TVA are doing anything nice for him - quite the contrary - but I still do enjoy seeing him able to be the geek heâs always had the inclination to be, in the right circumstances.
It makes me wonder, a little, how much his mother is on his mind right now, after the first episode, because if I had a guess, the last time heâs felt free to be this enthusiastic and expressive about his interests is in magic lessons with her as a child.
So. The other variant.
We know from the Lady Loki comics arc that Loki can possess other peopleâs bodies over the long term, and we know from kid!Loki and his murderer interacting in YA that the original occupant of a body can sometimes hang around and talk back, if only as a figment of his imagination. We know from most incarnations that Loki can go to a lot of dark places if the circumstances push him to it.
As Iâve said before, Iâm intrigued by the question the difference between the two variants poses - how much different can two Lokis be before they are no longer meaningfully the same person?
Weâve got clues on both sides, of course - our scamp on a leash saying âI wouldnât do this to myselfâ on the side of them being not the same person, and the vengeful goddess heâs chasing saying âI was afraid theyâd found a better version of meâ on the side of them being the same person.
The more I think about it, the more Iâm willing to predict that this vengeful goddess is, in some way, an incarnation of Loki. But (be warned, Iâm going to reference Stephenie Meyer now) it could be in as small a way as something out of The Host - a stolen bodyâs original personality fighting dirty against the invading spirit.
If this is something based on the character of Sylvie from the comics, it could still be anything from a person - human or Asgardian - chosen and manipulated by Loki to do his bidding, to a full-on possession, or even a body constructed for a specific purpose but developing its own personality traits.
We know this variant is a body hopper, and Mobiusâs briefing mentioned that itâs an inherent ability of most Lokis to shapeshift, so there are a lot of potential explanations for this unfamiliar shape.
But the differences between the variants could also stem mostly from different experiences.
The only thing Iâm at all sure of is that this variant has also been tortured by Thanos. Itâs possible that she branched earlier - that the wild desperation of having freshly escaped Thanos translated into being dragged into the TVA like a cornered wildcat, on the raggedy edge and desperate enough to go all-out to get out of the collar while still in the custody of the minute men. Then, as she became familiar with the TVA in concept and execution, developed opinions and built a personality around taking them down, taking them apart the way she wished she could do to Thanos, the way Thanos did to her.
But she could also have branched later - after the destruction of Asgard, or when Thanos appeared on the refugee ship. After the worst has happened to her people. With some preexisting notion that time could have gone differently, that some things that had happened should not be allowed to happen.
I have a weak spot for interactions between incarnations of Loki in the comics, so I am incredibly eager to see the MCUâs take on this.
This gets sadder when one recalls that in 616 having that one friend was literally what saved Loki from either eternal oblivion or becoming a mindless destructive being.
^^^ casual reminder that not only was loki so self-destructive that he tried to literally destroy another version of himself, but that he destroyed the plan to do that and then had a breakdown when it turned out he ended up saving himself from future psychotic tendencies by accidentally giving himself one friend
the fact that Lokiâs death scene in Thor 2 was originally intended to be real & retconned later and the end where heâs alive was filmed during pickups has me SO fucked up because now I canât choose between which headcanon I prefer re: his behavior in Ragnarok. like listen, okay, either:
1. loki was planning on playing dead the whole time and so his very sad death scene & everything he said therein was a calculated move and he was practically writing the theatrical version of it (starring matt damon as himself) as he went alongÂ
OR
2. loki really thought he was dying and every melodramatic word of his death scene was 100% heartfelt and then after he realized he wasnât dead he fucking⌠woke up peaced out to go take over asgard (lol?) and several months later he was sitting on the throne and could remember every word of what he said to thor on that day and was like âwow im so fucking poetic. that should be a play. starring matt damon as Me perhapsâÂ
and I honestly could not tell you which is betterÂ
Gotta be that Loki really got stabbed and thought he was dying. It wasnât 100% clear before Ragnarok, but Ragnarok firmly establishes that Lokiâs illusuary clones arenât solid. Loki got stabbed as fuck, and even he canât just shrug off a giant blade through the chest and immediately fold that into a clever death-faking plan.
re: ragnarok - can we talk about how Thor seems chill wearing casual clothes when he visits Earth but Loki always seems to dress in a suit? What do you make of that? Something about him needing to look authoritative and in control?
yes! we can talk about this!!!
I think itâs two things - first of all, I do think Loki just genuinely likes dressing up and looking nice. I mean, in Thor we see him change clothes a few times where others (if I recall) donât, and in this movie he had at least two thematic costume changes (not including the black suit). itâs part of his Aesthetic, and Loki is very much about the Aesthetic.Â
(more seriously: heâs very appearance-conscious in basically every way and that includes, of course, clothing.)
so then on Earth - Thor can dress down, I think because Thor is more comfortable on Earth generally (where for Loki itâs not a place he particularly wants to be) and also because Thor doesnât feel the same need Loki does to project a specific image - an image, like you say, of authority, control, and status. three things Loki is never going to want to relinquish.
and it does fit in with what weâve seen Loki wear when he comes to Earth before, which. it definitely is a lot of style choice. (and itâs such a good style.)
1. lack of female characters in spn means that there are no meaningful het romantic relationship prospects for dean
2. the only strong relationship in the show is between dean and sam
3. wincest pairing becomes most popular ship in the show
4. many fans are frustrated that the juggernaut ship in spn is an incest ship
5. castiel appears in show
6. destiel goes wildly popular as a result of fans being relieved to have a mlm ship that isnt wincest
7. resulting destiel flurry shoots the show back to prominence, ushering in a new audience of fans, including stacey abrams in 2017
8. supernatural becomes stacey abrams's new go-to relaxation show
9. stacey abrams's frustration with sam's decisions in season 10??? apparently??? helped form some of her opinions about coalition building in her campaign???? theres a 2018 interview with abrams on blackgirlnerds.com that posits this jkdfhgkjhdfghdfjkg
10. stacey abrams runs for georgia governor in 2018
11. stacey abrams narrowly loses the race in large part due to suppression of black votes
12. stacey abrams spends the next two years advocating for expanding voting access, an effort that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of first time registered voters
13. in the 2020 election, georgia goes blue by a margin of a thousand votes or so
14. stacey abrams's efforts are given credit for this shift
15. stacey abrams celebrates by unwinding with a nice relaxing episode of destiel is canon
hey do you think you could expand a bit on separating the art from the artist? clearly youâve done it with jk rowling but what are your thoughts on it as a general idea?
okay, but youâre not going to like the answer.
hereâs the truth: you canât separate the art from the artist. not entirely. HP Lovecraft was an incredibly talented, but much more incredibly racist man. It would nice to say you donât agree with his views but you can enjoy his works without that leaking in butâŚ. well, Iâm afraid that would be misunderstanding his books entirely.
Consider, for a second, that Lovecraftâs works were horror stories about extradimensional alien monsters having mutant children with humans, they were about invasions from distant monsters, they were about the purity of quaint European towns being tainted. Consider how this may have all been inflicted by the fact that he just simply despised anybody who wasnât white. Consider how is opinions on âmixing the racesâ might fight into this; consider why being unable to maintain the âpurityâ of white Europe was the scariest thing of all to him.
This extends to Rowling too.
I would love to say we can just acknowledge that she is an awful, racist, antisemitic, transphobic person and then say âbut at least her books are good,â because, well, they are, arenât they? I would say so, for sure. But to suggest that one can separate her from them isâŚ. ridiculous.
Consider why an antisemitic woman wrote about a species of goblins who live among us, but who for the most part keep to themselvesand are maybe a little bit oppressed by the institution, but also hold all the cards, all the money, run the banks.
Consider why a racist woman would write about a species of slaves who loved being enslaved, who enjoyed working for no pay, and cleaning up after humans, with the only small caveat of that they didnât want to be beaten. Imagine that only the most radical of their species wanted to be free, and he still spent the rest of his life working for no pay and helping out a little white boy and his friends wherever he could. Consider why the only person in the story who thought they should be free, that they should have rights, was treated as an overzealous joke, who was acting against the wishes of those slaves who really LOVE being enslaved. Consider that Rowling went on to say that she kind of considers that girl to be black, now.
Consider why JK Rowling, an open and proud transphobe, wrote Rita Skeeter as having a large square jaw, thick âmanlyâ hands, and dressing incredibly gaudily with the most obvious fake nails and fake teeth and fake hair and fake everything. Consider why a woman who tweets about how trans women are âfoxes pretending to be hens to get in the hen houseâ might write this Rita Skeeter to then illegally transform her body in order to spy on children.
Harry Potter is full of Rowlingâs bigotry, start to finish. Not even tangentially, like, âoh the goblins are bad, Rita Skeeter is bad, the house elves are bad, but most of itâs good!â because the deeper you dig and the longer you think the more you realise the entire story is based on her prejudices.
Harry Potter pretends to be an aracial story about found family, but if that were true, why are Harryâs distant ancestors important to who he is today even in the seventh book? Why does Harry have to live with his cousin and aunt and uncle? Because magic inherently prefers blood ties. Whilst Rowling was writing a story that seemed to say, âyour heritage is not that important and doesnât make you better than othersâ she was still writing a story about a boy who got all of his money through his bloodline, who was protected by living with his bloodline, no matter how evil, who was uniquely able to stop Voldemort because his bloodline passed down the invisibility cloak for generations and generations. Any step Harry takes he is compared to his perfect parents who were exactly like him â he looks just like his father, but he has his motherâs eyes, you know! â consider WHY a woman who is racist mightâve written a story like this. A story that on its surface, condemns a blood caste, but still in every step it takes, validates the idea that blood is thicker than water, and your geneological origin is what makes you special.
You can enjoy Harry Pottwr, of course you can. There are fantastic parts. I love a small group of teenagers deciding to become anarchies rebels and train to fight against fascism in secret. I love the murder mystery plots, I love how the series tells kids that itâs a good thing to be brave, and a good thing to fight injustice, and a good thing to challenge the government. But I cannot separate it from its author because it is such a product of its author. All of the structures of the world, the way things work in the universe, and drenched in Rowlingâs beliefs, her bigotries. Of course they are: she made them.
Again. This doesnât mean you cannot enjoy it. But I think we are past the day where we can pretend that disavowing a bigoted author is enough, and that that somehow separates the text from its bigotry. I think we are past the day where we can pretend that Harry Potter isnât a deeply, inherently bigoted piece of media. Even the bits we love. I think we are beyond the day where we can truthfully pretend to separate it from her, because she is present through all of it. We MUST recognise its flaws. We MUST admit that she is in every part of it.
#this is a brilliant post that sets up an answer the anonâs question#which is that separating art from the artist isnât about ignoring who the author was#but rather ignoring what the author tells you their work means#rowling will never say her work contains the things rightful pointed out here#but she doesnât get to make that call#we all have eyes and can look for ourselves#and who she is is part of what we must look at (via @ratherembarrassing)
pixelskylines
gummygunk
amandla
turnnoffyourmind
blakekathryn
vaporwave
jacobvanloon
