So Jim Starlin came up with Thanos in a psychology lecture whilst the Vietnam War was happening, right?
Serious question:
is that why his villain stories are based around subconscious sabotage? i.e. The unbeatable force with the unparalleled resources that still loses because it kinda wants to?
This is relevant, or adds context at least. Penultimate paragraph.
I mean yeah.
'Aight. Good thread.
Next order of business; whether Carol dabbing all over him is substantially representative of 70s newwave feminism cucking 60s toxic masculinity.
>So Jim Starlin came up with Thanos in a psychology lecture whilst the Vietnam War was happening, right?
Yes
>is that why his villain stories are based around subconscious sabotage?
Yes
>i.e. The unbeatable force with the unparalleled resources that still loses because it kinda wants to?
Well "wants" isn't quite the term I'd use, it's more that some with personality issues can come to subconsciously believe that their face is in the mud somehow, which serves as fuel to rise higher (not always better) than their current position and peers through sheer spite or fury or fear, whether or not any wrong is upon them to require righteous indignation.
Thing is, believing in such a negative foundation to build off creates a shadow ivory tower equal in scale, accepting or projecting onto the psyche that one's face is or was somehow mud worthy. Ironically then deeply wounding their self image and love in such a core way that nothing and no one can right.
Let me just say the Death Drive concept isn't real science or psychology, but nevertheless that doesn't discredit it in its entirety. There are elements of a self-destructive personality and tendency, unwitting or otherwise, that can be observed in real people even if not all.
And I don't mean to get too real but it's sort of like the case with Elliot Rodger. I'm not saying he never faced any possible catalyst for his frustrations, I'm not saying people didn't actually assume some of the things he construed as the reason for his frustrations, but there's also a lot of evidence from his own telling of things that he began to neglect the good, look for and obsess over the bad and become warped from the inside out.
It's not likely Thanos will be swiftly defeated, Thor's Stormbreaker assault severely wounded him but he was still unrelenting, even stating Thor should have done worse. And like with Strange and Wanda any resistance will likely just encourage him to keep pushing forward.
The name Thanos comes from Thanatos, the death drive. His "self-sabotage" problem is a manifestation of the life drive, Eros. Eros is his brother's name, and that's no coincidence. It's a simple exploration of this concepts.
>Ironically then deeply wounding their self image and love in such a core way that nothing and no one can right.
So that's why Thanos feels he still needs to lose? Because he's not satisfied with what he's achieved/how he achieved it?
Sorry to be so serpentine with my responses, but it's less just that the means are unsatisfying and more how the ends never can fix the beginning of his ambitions.
Starlin even hints at a degree of self-awareness from Thanos on this, take the Death of Captain Marvel where Thanos willingly plays the part of a comical villain to rise Mar Vell's spirit, figuratively and literally, from his low state at death's door back to a heroic figure willing to accept losing his life since it has been well lived.
He had no need to do this, he could have just cackled over his corpse, but Thanos knowing how he's imagined and made himself, embraces it from a different angle for a moment not to help himself but to help someone who has been his antithesis in many ways.
I feel Starlin also was doing a comment on the dangers of unstoppable will with the recent Thanos saga, where a manifestation of Thanos' ego aims for not just power but a complete domination over all things to accept him. Not just the Abstracts, but even Thanos himself who is made pointedly helpless in stark horror to the unyielding machinations of his own will.
The story opens with him content for once, with Death, his lifelong object of desire, by his side, and suddenly he's stirred by the curious need to leave her and all he has for petty conflict, the story ends with him realizing even with power and prestige guaranteed by his higher self he's to be an empty pawn who will lose all he has for all it wants, as Death leaves him in disgust after finding him figuratively playing with himself.
>an actual good thread on Yea Forums
I'm proud
>no hatred of blacks/Jews/women/trannies/Latinos
No reason for shitposting means it'll be in the archive in 10 minutes.
Nothing comes of nothing.
apologize for nuttin', these're top posts m8.
Keeping up with floppies wore me out so I only really drop by when an OP like this worms into me 'ead.
Also from the thumbnail I confused that for the Cosmic Powers issue where Thanos revives Marv just so they can wax philosophical for a bit.
Was gonna say "it's neat go checkit out" but the 4 bits I saved basically sum it up so...
Thank you for this, his hang ups as plainly stated as can be.
I shouldn't sully things by bringing up worse threads, but I'm just glad I was here when you posted these since there have been so many threads since IW was announced asking why comic Thanos didn't just us the gauntlet to make his desires a reality or misunderstanding the page with Warlock.
Thanos is like that mary sue of Doom. Fuck them
But does his higher self allow him victory over Darkseid?
TBPH I'm surprised nobody's taken offense to the insinuation that 'Nam was a bad thing and 'Murica should've lost. "Fucking bleeding heart hiopie writers politicizing muh CAWWWWMIX etc etc."
npm9
It's almost like featshit is worthless & characterization's all that actually matters or something.