A hundred times this!  A twelve cent comic (one dollar after normal inflation) had three stories. A twenty four dollar comic series has one. The difference in value is about one hundred times.

Is there more in the longer story? No, because there is no synergy in the new ones, and nothing that matters. For example, I just read two Squirrel Girl trades. Those were pleasant, but the twelve page Loki story in Journey Into Mystery 85 took me longer to read (and re-read and think about). And the Loki story wa far more satisfying, because it connects to so much more: to real mythology, to future comic continuity, etc. I'm still finding new stuff in that story. 

So the old comics were a hundred times better. According to my calculations.

Journey into Mystery 85 (Loki, first silver age appearance)



Plot: Loki escapes and causes mischief. Thor has new powers.



After two issues that I thought were superb, this issue is a real shock. I will try to put a positive spin on it, but my admiration is on life support. Everything will depend on the next issue. Was this "superb story" all in my head?



Everything was perfect until page 3. By ignoring the dialog we can easily read the story so far as chapters in a superbly crafted story. In JiM 83 we learn about cosmic threats and the hidden gods who leave artifacts to help us, Arthur C Clarke style. Great stuff. In JiM 84 we learn that the world's nations have bigger problems than superheroics can solve. (Thor's solution in JiM 84 was obviously just a sticking plaster at best). Blake was slowly discovering what Thor could do. It all developed very smoothly. JiM 85 started beautifully, and I was thrilled to see what happened next. We learn of Asgard, and I think Loki's tree prison is perfectly in keeping with the ancient myths. Then we turn the page, and...



What the heck happened??
?


Loki just does stupid, random, pointless things, with no build up, no cause and effect. Worse, Thor suddenly discovers advanced powers and knowledge. Where did that come from?? This is like a parody of bad comic writing. No motivation, no cause and effect, random absurd powers, nothing flows, nothing makes sense, it's all very embarrassing.



That was my initial reaction.



Like I said, it all hinges on the next issue: is the story really this bad? Or is it worth a second look? For now I will give it a positive spin (rather like Thor and his hammer when faced with the negative people, har har). Here is the charitable view:



Loki's crazy antics:



Well he's Loki. He is chaos. Doing absurd things is the whole point. This is some commentary on entropy and the need for us to be prepared for the unexpected. So he serves a role in the cosmic order. Er, OK, I can buy that...



Thor's sudden expertise at everything:



The previous two issues established that Thor is gradually discovering his power set: hit the hammer once, and "X" happens So try hitting it twice, and "Y" happens. Throw it, and "Z" happens. So throw it and hold on, and... etc. I guess we don't need to waste time with baby steps any more. We just take the next twenty steps as done. Actually, there is a logical progression here:



Power 1: The key is the early scene where Thor uses his hammer and lightning to levitate a child's hospital bed. In a single image we learn that he has jumped forward about ten steps. We knew that the hammer could change direction in flight (to return), that it could pull somebody at ridiculous speed without damaging the person, and that it can create electrical effects. If we take this to its natural conclusion, Thor might have develop the ability to move through electric charge. And do so with extreme control, as demonstrated by doing it in a children's hospital.



Power 2: Spinning the hammer to turn negative into positive. This is another huge leap forward. We know that Thor is from Asgard, and here he seems to have extra understanding of his powers, suggesting that he's gone back home to learn. A prior visit to Asgard is plausible (though not proven) given the very start and very end of this story. I'm saying yes.



So this story works if we take it as skipping a lot of predictable steps. Maybe this is not a crazy story, just super advanced. yeah, that's it. Next issue will decide.

So Fredric Wertham was right.

Thanks for being diplomatic. It's hard to discuss these things without opening old wounds. So I just want to repeat my position that I think Stan was just as creative as Jack, but they had different roles. Here is my list of what I think Stan created:


I think it's unfortunate that more people don't appreciate what Stan achieved. Isn't that list enough? Does Stan have to walk on water as well? I think when we realise the scale of what he achieved then we can allow him some weaknesses (like needing to put his name everywhere), without it feeling like an attack. Kirby had weaknesses too (bad at business, fell out with people, stabbed Joe Simon in the back). We all have weaknesses. But let's not forget the strengths.

Thanks, it is. I think the Uru example is important. In the earlier link, Larry says:

So Larry did not know the mythology, even though the information was there. Yet somebody knew it: the third story (for which Leiber supplied the initial script, according to Roy Thomas) contains obscure information like Heimdall being guardian of Bifrost, and the finished comic is familiar enough with the mythology to know that being trapped in a tree would make a lot of sense. If Larry did not know the mythology then that leaves Jack. 

He seems pretty enthusiastic to me. Regarding similarities, let's look at Kirby's DC Thor, since the Sandman Thor was an imposter:
The costume is very similar, the hammer looks identical, the story is about an ordinary guy finding the hammer and gaining Thor's power ... there are minor differences I agree, but Kirby could not risk being sued by DC.

Thanks! Shows how much I know.  In my defense, the Essentials didn't show any names. Maybe I should rename this "Thor without Lieber"

Do you know where I can find more details about Larry's full script? According to Stan's 1947 book (Secrets Behind the Comics) if an artist could write he generally did. Stan said that the person named as "writer" might not have touched the book, it was a formal title for legal purposes. Based on that, and Kirby's track record, and Kirby's two previous two versions of Thor, it seemed that Stan's 1947 policy would apply here, just as it did in the mid 1960s. Is there compelling evidence to the contrary?

Journey into Mystery 84 (the Executioner)

If anything, this was a bigger surprise than the previous issue. Because I came with such low expectations.

From what I vaguely recall from reading this years ago, this story had "low grade filler" written all over it. Classic embarrassing anti-communist propaganda with cardboard zero-threat villain, where Thor flies around flipping tanks over in a banana republic. And it all ends up with the corniest "will they won't they, I can never tell her" cringe making subplot stolen from Superman. When I started it I figured that obviously Kirby would have tried hard for an origin, and then can be forgiven for taking a while to find his feet. I could not be more wrong.

Now all of the bad stuff is true with the dialog. Different time, different market, different dialog. But remove the dialog and the story becomes so much better.

First, it's realistic. This is the kind of thing that was actually happening in 1962. And this is Thor's first adventure of choice: he is experimenting, seeing what he can do, which explains his choice to try different things like a thunder storm, hitting a tank to make it vibrate, pulling up a tree to flip a tank over, etc. (he saw a Stone Man pull up a tree in the previous issue so would want to try it himself) and so on.

Second, I love the visual story telling: so physical, such perfect camera angles: the ship, the mud slide, etc. And how many other writers would even think of a mud slide? Yet it's exactly what happens in flash floods. Even that one pose where Thor looks odd: that is exactly how athletes look when throwing something. Modern comic writers have standard heroic poses, but Kirby goes for real. It reminds me of the scene in Deadpool where Deadpool mocks the standard hero landing pose: looks cool but totally fake. Kirby's stuff is raw.

I know this sounds like a "Kirby can do no wrong" fanboy piece (but surely you're getting used to that), but I recently read a lot of mystery comics from around 1960, and the difference is stark. And it goes without saying that Kirby's story was head and shoulders above any modern comic I've read recently. As far as I can see, modern comics are mostly stiff talking heads and stale tropes. I base that judgment on, for example, the latest Marvel previews at CBR. They're all stiff talking heads. You could literally replace the characters with stiff plastic toys and the poses would all work. It was like the artists didn't know how to do anything except people standing around plus the very occasional splash page of a generic movie scene / porn star pose. Oh I hate writing this, I feel like a parody of myself, and yet it's measurably true.

Third, the art is gorgeous. I mean beyond the camera work just mentioned: the acting and costumes. When the Executioner sits over his desk and his victim leans over, or when Dr Blake and Jane are in the same room, the body language and detailing is superb.

Fourth, the Executioner. People talk about "villain of the month" style plots, but this is different. This is a story that moved forward. Last issue, mankind's foray into space triggers contact with aliens, which triggers a meeting with the gods, just as with Arthur C Clarke: except these gods are not all friendly. That leads to this story where Blake tries out his powers. We are then shown that our whole planet has serious problems (war and suffering on foreign lands). This sets the scene for why we need a god from another world to help us. 

Kirby is ramping up the scale, preparing is (or contrasting) with the cosmic events to come. The appearance of The Executioner foreshadows the godlike character of the same name. "As On Earth, So In Heaven." Problems here are a microcosm of universal problems. 

Finally, the Jane Foster sub plot. That is the part I remember hating most as a child: Stan's dalog made it so forced, so unrealistic. But Kirby's art tells a different story. This is not about Blake hiding his feelings for her. This is about a man discovering there is something much, much bigger in his life, and trying to make sense of it. She stays in the story only to show the choice he must make between his everyday relationships and the eternities.

Granted, kidnapping and romance are there as backgrounds: Kirby knew he had to sell comics, and give the stories variety, but they are only there to serve the bigger, serious point; the choices we must make. This question of choices was reflected in the main story: a central American nation having to decide its future. Note how America sending its people to this small nation is like Asgard sending Thor to Earth.

The bigger story is moving forwards quickly. Glancing ahead at next month, we are already going to meet the other gods (Specifically, Loki). Kirby is wasting no time in building this epic of mankind meeting the gods.

I hadn't planned to write so much. It was only, what, a ten pager? And those are just my initial impressions. As the quote goes, "if I had more time it would have been shorter".

I'm loving Thor for the first time. I wonder what the Loki story will bring?