Looking at Loki

Part Thirty-Three: Thor: The Dark World Prelude #2

By Wolfen Moondaughter
December 2, 2013

This edition of the column is basically me waxing philosophical about a single sequence in Thor: The Dark World Prelude #2. Stories should make us contemplate things, after all. When horrible things happen in real life, of course we get often emotional, and, enraged, want to visit vengeance upon the perpetrator (I'm no different -- I'm just not happy with myself later when I find myself doing that). Stories, though, can allow us the luxury of stepping back from the rage-cloud and really look at the situation from more sides, as well as examine our reasons for our own reactions.

Now, this issue was supposed to be a fill-in comic covering the span between The Avengers, but they ended up covering this territory in the film Thor: The Dark World after all, so I'll actually be talking a little about the film as well. This will allow me to dwell on this particular scene without derailing my review of the film, which you can find in our Culture Vultures section.

They filmed more Loki scenes for the movie -- after this comic was released, if I'm not mistaken. So that makes me wonder if it had originally been in the script, got cut out, got put into the comic, and then they decided they should have kept it after all. The sentiments expressed in it are pretty vital to the characterisation of Odin and Loki both in the film, being referenced later, so I can't imagine how it might have otherwise worked.

There be spoilers ahead, for the comic and film in question, as well as for the first film and The Avengers!

The scene in question is where Odin passes sentence on Loki. The version in the comic is quite truncated compared to the film, but it does have two key things the film does not: it shows Loki being brought home by Thor, and it shows Frigga greeting Loki. Immediately after this, Odin has a very brief talk with Loki, who isn't really given a trial.

Loki says that he doesn't see what the fuss is about, that he was going to rule humanity as Odin rules, using the same mercy his father showed his opponents. He then flippantly adds that he might even steal a baby and raise it as his own. Odin replies that Frigga clings to Loki, but is too late to save him. The Loki he knew is dead, and Loki Laufeyson will spend the rest of his days in the dungeon, never to see Frigga again.

I do believe that it's entirely appropriate that Loki be incarcerated -- at least for a time. The "for the rest of your days" thing, though, I have a problem with, as well as the "you're never going to see your mother again" thing. If any effort is made to determine Loki's health, to see if there's an underlying reason the boy Odin knew is "dead" and this Loki is so different, like maybe a brain tumour, we don't hear about it.

To me, there are two reasons for imprisonment: rehabilitation and, failing that, simply keeping the prisoner from threatening others. Now, if Odin refused to let Loki see Frigga because he felt Loki would be a threat to her, even just emotionally, okay, that would be grounds for the separation. But it didn't feel like that was the reason, in either the comic or the film; it felt like Odin was trying to make Loki suffer for the sake of suffering -- a natural reaction, but petty and not a matter of justice. Would making Loki suffer reverse any of the harm he did? No. But if Loki escaped, tormenting him might make him even angrier and more dangerous, rather than teach him the error of his ways!

I'm also of the opinion that if it's impossible to rehabilitate the person, if they are damaged beyond all hope of repair and will always be a danger, there's not much point in keeping them alive, wasting resources on them -- especially if your reason for doing so is just so you can make them miserable for all eternity. I wouldn't want to feed that kind of darkness in myself. When an animal is rabid, you put them down rather than just waiting for them to die, both so they don't suffer and so they don't harm others. If the Asgardians are going to keep Loki alive but imprisoned, they should find some way to make that life worthwhile -- it's a waste and arguably an act of maliciousness to do otherwise. If he's not insane already, surely incarceration for endless centuries with no hope of parole or seeing anyone who cares about him wouldn't help him stay sane!

But I doubt Loki is entirely sane. It seems to me that he's at least suffering from clinical narcissism, and may be some level of sociopath. I don't think it's impossible for him to feel remorse, but I do think he has trouble grasping morality and empathy -- and if he is a sociopath, it's because that section of the brain that deals with empathy is underdeveloped.

I will concede that Loki might have been putting on an act when he compared his actions to Odin's, trying to convince Odin that he was being a hypocrite, but it seemed to me that Loki well and truly didn't see a difference between his own recent actions and Odin's over the centuries. Now, that doesn't mean he couldn't have some deep-down reservations and insecurities about his actions -- I think he probably feels that all the time, and at times deludes himself about the rightness of his actions.

If he really doesn't see the difference between himself and Odin, but does feel bad about what he's done (as it seemed he might be for a moment in The Avengers), then he is deluding himself about the rightness of his father's actions. Either way, deluding the self is not the same as purposefully lying, which requires one to not actually believe what one is saying. I don't get the sense that he was lying -- not in that conversation nor in a similar one he has later with Frigga. (And frankly, given some things Odin says later, I'm not sure that there is a big difference, but I expand on that in my review of the film.)

Obviously Loki can't be told that what he's done was negligible, much less okay, but treating him as an evil, irredeemable monster isn't likely to do any good either. As it is, he's not learning why what he did was wrong or how it was different from what others have done. Therefore, the situation likely reads to him as him being persecuted because he's Jotun, that being the only difference he sees between himself and Odin or Thor.

Okay, I need to set up some ideas here, so bear with me as I get off the subject of Loki for a few moments.

A person can become mentally ill through trauma, social conditioning, and / or a biological impairment of some kind, such as a chemical imbalance (that could be genetic or food-based). We don't expect a blind person to see or the deaf to hear, or even expect an otherwise healthy person to do tasks that require a tool (like open a can without a can opener) without said tool, so why would we expect a person with a brain that, whether born that way or molded by life, isn't functioning "normally" to be able to parse and act on information the same way as someone whose brain does operate within normal parameters? Why would we vilify them for something that's not entirely within their control? Even if Loki isn't truly a sociopath (i.e., doesn't have the impairment of an underdeveloped section if the brain), narcissism is generally considered a matter of nurturing rather than nature -- meaning it isn't likely to happen spontaneously, by choice, in a vacuum. There are conditions such a person grows up in that shape their personality into it. If Odin's rages were commonplace, and if Loki was often maligned by Thor and Thor's friends for being a sneaky magic-user instead of fighting more directly, that could have contributed to the development of such a condition. So could Odin's always telling him he could be a king, or Frigga overly doting on him (if she did).

Seriously, read this wiki page on narcissism. I realise that Wikipedia's not the be-all, end-all of accurate info, but the page might as well be an entry on Loki, his personality and history! I feel like the writers and Tom Hiddleston (Loki's portrayer, if you didn't already know) could have used it to make a checklist for Loki's actions in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, especially in the scene where Odin confronts Loki about the deaths he caused.

Further (and again getting off the subject of Loki specifically for a moment), a person with mental illness isn't likely to be aware at first that they're ill -- and when they are made aware of it, they might then be in denial of it. For example, when I'm on a depressive downswing, most of the time I don't realise I'm having an episode until it's over, and I then reaslise that the paranoia, self-doubt, and despair I was feeling either was blown out of proportion or even had nothing to do with my actual circumstances at the time. When I can recognise that what I'm feeling isn't "real" as it's happening, sometimes it's then easier to ride it out, but not always -- and either way, I still feel the fake feelings regardless of there being no reason for it but body-chemistry issues.

When I worked in retail, there was a homeless woman who would come in every now and then and start screaming at and threatening people, sometimes even throwing things. And then one day she came in and she was all cleaned up and polite and calm. She apologized for her previous behavior, explaining that she was schizophrenic, and that someone had seen to it that she was back on her meds, which she'd stopped taking when she could no longer afford it. Not having the meds had prevented her from having a stable and secure life. Having them allowed her to function by societal norms again -- but they also made her feel like a zombie. She didn't stay on the meds all the time, and so we saw her fluctuate between wild instability and eerie calm.

Someone doesn’t even need to be mentally ill to have a moment of extreme, biologically-based irrationality; I've known some people who have gotten pretty violent when suffering from blood sugar lows, and who were horrified by their actions once their blood sugar was stabilised. Like me when I'm on a severe downswing, they didn't recognise that they were having a problem while it was happening.

And yet, just because a person's rationality may be inhibited or skewed in some way doesn't mean it's impossible to do right, either, even when they are very badly off -- it's just harder for them to tell what is right.

Now, if we were assured that Loki wasn't ill in any way, was fully rational, then okay, the deaths he caused would make him an out-and-out villain. But frankly, I have a hard time believing that anyone who could end lives without reservation could still be sane -- at least, not when their society frowns upon it.

On that note, though, Loki was alive in a time period where humans commonly murdered and pillaged, and it was considered normal to do so. Yes, Loki's an alien, not human, but conversations amongst Thor and his friends (such as Thor, in the new film, teasing that Sif had almost re-started a war once because she'd enjoyed it so much) suggest that theirs is an aggressive society similar to ours, historically-speaking -- one where battle prowess and victories seems highly valued. Alexander the Great, King Richard, and other rulers who invaded other territories are viewed as heroes by some. Heck, there were people who applauded Hitler's and Stalin's actions, too -- and some who still do. Even Thor was eager to kill frost giants in the first film, like he was just waiting for them to give him a reason to smite them all. (Of course, he paid a price for thinking that way, too, being exiled -- and proved himself able to learn compassion in a way that Loki has yet to do.)

My point is that Loki's behavior is deplorable and out of the norm by our modern and human standards, but doesn't seem to be quite so abnormal or atrocious by the terms of our history, and might very well not be so bad by the terms of the culture of Asgard (especially after things we see in this new film). It may be less a matter of killing all the Jotuns and more a matter of how he killed them: in a way that left them unable to fight back, which would make his method dishonourable.

From Loki's point view, he wiped out an imminent threat with no losses to the people of Asgard, winning the war more effectively than the way Thor had attempted (which, to Thor's credit, was meant to only teach the Jotuns a lesson) -- or rather, Loki would have seen Asgard spared. As we learn in the new movie, Asgardian lives were apparently threatened in battles in the other realms, which had fallen into disarray between the point when Thor destroyed the Bifrost (granted, for a good reason) and it was repaired. While Loki bears responsibility in that he created the situation requiring the Bifrost's destruction, he'd never intended for anything but Jotunheim to be destroyed -- and that's likely all that would have happened if he'd been allowed to follow through without interruption.

I suspect that, for Loki, destroying Jotunheim was at least partially a symbolic attempt to destroy that part of himself. Considering how he'd been left by his father Laufey to die as an infant, and none of his people apparently intervened on his behalf, while I don't approve of Loki's actions, I can see how he would feel justified in wiping them out -- just as anyone who was injured or lost a loved one to Loki would understandably feel justified in wanting to kill him. But even when we agree, justification is still in the eye of the beholder.

As Hiddleston himself has pointed out, villains typically see themselves as the hero of their own story. Loki even states in The Avengers that he is burdened with a glorious purpose. From a villain's perspective, their actions are justified and their enemies are in the wrong, like terrorists killing innocents because they feel those people live immorally. One of the problems with Loki was that he was forcing his will upon others, felt it was his divine right to rule them -- like many, many rulers in our history have claimed (pharaohs believed they were gods; kings believed in divine right; popes believe they are appointed by their god).

From humanity's perspective, Loki started a war against humans without provocation, and innocent people died. He may not have specifically intended for anyone to die, but he knew it was a possibility, and it's still his fault. Therefore humanity had every right and reason to defend itself against him, and would have just cause to kill him in order to protect themselves from potential future attacks. And for the record, I agree with that perspective. But from his impaired perspective, he wasn't attacking for no reason (nor, I think, for pleasure, though he may have felt satisfaction in his successes -- same as Thor fighting Jotuns). Seeing as those who died at the Shield complex were keeping him from what he perceived as being rightfully his (the Tesseract belonging to his father), putting them in the wrong and making them his enemies, he would see himself as being within rights to attack them. Also, as they were military, he would figure that they had to expect they might die doing their job -- and that if they died, it meant they didn't do their job well enough. As for the invasion, he probably figured he wouldn't have had to bring the Chitauri in if the humans had just obeyed.

Right or wrong, beliefs and perceptions motivate any action. It's hard to not act differently if other beliefs or perceptions don't occur to you, if they're outside of your realm of experience, if they contradict your own to the point where you'd have to reinvent yourself to change your mind, or if you simply can't grasp them. We wouldn't expect a computer to act differently than it's programmed to, right? And the brain is a supercomputer programmed by a mix of chemicals and outside influences. We may still be responsible for our choices, but overcoming programing's not an easy thing -- especially if it doesn't even occur to one to question it (and even more especially if the computer is faulty).

Loki was raised to believe he was a king, and raised on stories of how his father conquered the Jotuns. These were key points that immensely informed who he was. What kind of number must it have done on his self-esteem, then, to see his reckless brother about to be named king when Loki perceived himself as more capable of the job? Then he discovered he wasn't even a member of the family, and so by simple virtue of his birth was never going to be "good enough."

Permit me a moment to make an aside, but it astonishes me that, smart as Loki is, it never occurred to him that Odin intended for him to rule Jotunheim, that this was what Odin had meant when he said Loki and Thor both were both to be kings. Or did it? Maybe Loki just thought the throne of Jotunheim was a crappy consolation prize for not getting the throne of Asgard.

When Loki tried to prove that he was worthy of kingship anyway, by vanquishing their enemies without Asgardian bloodshed, his act was rejected by his father (though not at all in the harsh way Loki seemed to have perceived it). And then Loki went through the tumble-dryer of space, where he may have suffered brain damage (his face after was pretty bruised). Every time he tried to be what he believed he was supposed to be, he failed. He went about it all in the wrong way, but did he have the capability to go about it in a better way, either considering his probably questionable mental health or the not-exactly-full-of-good-examples period of history he lived through, much less a combination of the two?

Yes, Loki shirks responsibility for his actions and tries to blame others for his failings -- yes, these are wrongful choices and actions. Even if he isn't mentally ill, though, they're also pretty common human flaws -- and arguably a means of survival. From that wiki page I linked to earlier: "Narcissistic individuals use various strategies to protect the self at the expense of others. They tend to devalue, derogate and blame others, and they respond to threatening feedback with anger and hostility. [17] People who are overly narcissistic commonly feel rejected, humiliated and threatened when criticised. To protect themselves from these dangers, they often react with disdain, rage, and/or defiance to any slight criticism, real or imagined. [18] " No one wants to think they are a bad person, and letting one's self do so can lead to some pretty dark and deep mental holes that are very hard to get out of.

Those who read this column with any regularity, I'm sorry for retreading this territory, but I must say again: Tricksters lie to themselves. After his fall from the rainbow bridge, Loki retconned his own story to himself, painting himself a victim, possibly because if he hadn't, it would have destroyed him to face his own flaws and mistakes, given their magnitude. Some people will do that anyway, destroy themselves with the truth -- they're great people, not just good, to put compassion and responsibility before their personal well-being.

Self-interest and defense, though, seems to me to be more common in nature, and Loki has been a survivalist pretty much since birth, when instinct made him take on an Asgardian appearance when Odin found him. Animals don't have to worry about rationalising their actions -- they will commit cruelties because they are driven to survive and there are no laws or morals to inhibit them. When we sentient beings, though, with our complex thoughts, can't overcome our own survival instinct, it's not unusual for us to make excuses or change the details to keep guilt and feelings of worthlessness at bay so we can continue to function within society, which greatly faults those who follow their natural tendencies instead of the survival-defying, nobility-driven morals it's created.

Having morals is great, don't get me wrong. Being of strong moral fiber, i.e. a good person, is often equated with being kindly and self-sacrificing. But I think acting in self-interest, particularly when it's a matter of survival, is often more of a neutral behavior than an out-and-out evil one. Few acts are entirely altruistic. You save someone's life in part because you want to feel good about yourself, or don't want to feel guilty for not doing so, or can't imagine your life without that person. Yes, being unnecessarily cruel when surviving (like prolonging and enjoying the death of something you're going to eat) leans towards Evil (although one could argue that even enjoying the kill is a matter of survival, as it encourages one to keep doing what's needed to live), but really, it's being cruel for no reason at all, not as a matter of protection or a reaction to pain (including mental anguish), that is the truest Evil.

There is never any point where Loki's actions are not driven by either survival (I would consider following one's perceived destiny, attaining one's place in the universe, to be matter of survival -- many animals vie for supremacy as part of the natural order) or vengeance or retaliation (even if sometimes he perceives a slight that isn't there). His actions are never a matter of pure, completely groundless malice for the sake of being malicious alone -- all he does has a purpose.

Also, it's possible the Chitauri helped convince Loki of the lie about Thor dropping him because it furthered their purposes to reinforce his persecution complex. Then there's the rumour that there were scenes cut that had shown the Chitauri torturing Loki. Torture can break the mental stability of a sane person, so what might it do to someone who wasn't totally sane in the first place? In The Avengers, Loki doesn't seem to be in too great of shape when he arrives on Earth: he has a wildness about him, he looks haggard (well, in a hot way), and he stumbles as he walks out of the room that the Tesseract was kept in. This all suggests to me that he was indeed tortured. When he's in astral-contact with the Chitauri, he seems a bit frightened of them by the end of the conversation -- despite his attempt at bravado, at deluding himself that he has power in this scenario. He's threatened with unimaginable pain for failure, and when the contact is ended, he looks despairing. Not everyone is brave enough to face death to save others -- that's why those who do so are considered heroes instead of ordinary.

In any case, his reaction when Thor found him after the fall read as someone who believed his own story and therefore thought others knew it too, rather than simply someone lying to make themselves look better. It would only make sense as an intentional lie, rather than a delusion, if there was a third party there that needed to be convinced that Loki was innocent and Thor was guilty.

Then there are the differences between the species to take into consideration, culturally and biologically. Standards of what is considered normal and insane for an Asgardian or a Jotun may not be the same as they are for humans, biologically (maybe mental illness for an Asgardian is as magnified compared to human standards as their strength and healing ability) or socially. The same goes for moral values.

In The Avengers, Loki called humans ants under his boot -- therefore, why should our lives mean as much as to him as his own? Consider him a shepherd who alternately protects, fleeces, and eats his flock, because they are lesser and, to his mind, are there to be used by him as he sees fit. From our perspective, as Loki's potential slaves, this is a wrongful comparison because we can think and speak and communicate with this "shepherd," whereas sheep and other animals can't talk to us or think like we do. But then again consider that while dogs may not speak English, any dog lover will agree that they have feelings and communicate. So where is the line between acceptable and not-acceptable enslavement between species? The fact that Asgardians can speak our language better than we can speak dog or sheep may not mean that much from the perspective of a being who lives thousands of years and is nigh invulnerable compared to us. To Loki, we may still be just as distant from him to him as the sheep seem to be from us to us.

Further (and again as Hiddleston himself has remarked), to Loki, relieving us of the responsibility of thought is a matter of him doing us a favour, one he could easily perceive as us wanting, seeing as it's a common sentiment in many religions to put one's life in the hands of a higher power. (Of course, there's a question of whether Loki would actually fulfill the role of caretaker -- probably not, alas.) He was once worshipped; from his view, humans have screwed themselves over pretty well, so from his perspective, why shouldn't he become a god to us again and save us from ourselves?

That's a big part of his problem -- a point which, in the film, Odin yells at him for thinking: that they're gods. Surely Loki knew of human stories about him, how they perceived him and the rest of the Asgardians; did Odin ever even explain to his sons that they were not gods? If he did, how much effort did he expend to see how well his sons understood him? Thor's own arrogance before his experience on Earth suggests that Loki wasn't alone in his sense of entitlement (although Thor's seemed to be based on thinking "I'm going to be King" rather than "I'm a god," and he did a better job of overcoming his own narcissism).

Even if he'd never been a god to us, Loki would likely still feel that he knows better than us humans, by virtue of being longer-lived and stronger. Yes, it's wrong of him; it's still a matter our perception versus his. He seems to think he's doing what he's supposed to -- which just happens to also be what he wants to do, and who doesn't want to do what they feel they were meant to do? Even if he and / or his society doesn't believe humans are lesser beings meant to be used by them (I talk more about this point in the film review), he might tell himself that we are lesser and meant to be used in order to justify what he feels he needs to do in order to become who he's meant to be. I don't see it as far removed from soldiers telling themselves they are killing for the greater good -- they may even be right, but they still have to convince themselves it's okay to go against what they were probably taught all their lives, thou shall not kill. And for some, it's easier to convince themselves as a matter of convenience than it is for others. If your life depended on someone convincing themselves it was okay to kill someone threatening you, wouldn't you want them to be able to do that? It's not necessarily a bad skill, being able to talk oneself into things -- but the one the soldier kills would disagree with you, especially if they have convinced themselves they were justified in killing you. Perspective is key, and it's why little in life is as simple as "right" and "wrong." To Loki, perhaps terrifying the populace into behaving seems preferable to allowing us to kill each other in wars, the lesser of two evils, and being knelt at is a legitimate and reasonable reward for "helping" us.

Loki's working with all he has to work with: a possibly twisted mind. Isn't that all any of us can do: work with what we have? Try to combine what we were born with, what we've learned, and what we feel, as best we can? And sometimes we're imperfect and screw up. And when some of us screw up, the consequences are more far-reaching, the mistakes more severe, than the norm, because of our position in life. The higher up you are in the chain of command, the more people you might take down with you in the process. Even if there are no biological issues, and he comes to recognise that he's narcissistic and decides to change, it's not likely to happen overnight or without outside help to overcome his mental programming -- especially if no one's willing to believe he can change and keep reinforcing the idea that he's evil.

Also consider that Loki is a Jotun. We have never seen a Jotun in a positive context; Odin's own words in the first Thor film painted them as violent and merciless. Were others who weren't with Laufey who were kind? I'd guess no, that he would have killed them all. But even if there are good Jotuns, then if Laufey is insane or his violence is still a genetic trait, as his son, Loki might have inherited the despotic tendencies. Perhaps all those years Loki was holding that malicious side at bay, in order to survive in Asgardian society and / or because he'd been taught it was wrong. Nurture versus nature. Perhaps learning that he was of a race of monsters, and feeling betrayed by Odin, made him feel free to be the monster and give in to urges that could have plagued him all his life. Perhaps something was awakened when he was inadvertently transformed back into a Jotun. Even if that cruel, malicious side isn't genetic, after being told for so many years that Jotuns are monsters, hated and feared, learning that one is of that group can't be too good for one's psyche. Compared to Laufey, Loki might actually be benevolent, by Jotun standards!

For that matter, I don't see Loki as having been entirely without compassion or without reservation about his actions. He saved Fandral's life. (Okay, he might have done it because he figured Fandral could come in handy someday, but even if he did, that doesn't preclude him saving the guy because he liked him and / or because it seemed the right thing to do). He seemed genuinely distressed (initially) in the first Thor film when Odin banished Thor, trying to speak up on Thor's behalf, only for Odin to roar at him. (Sure, he could have wanted to put on a show for Thor, but why -- especially when it could get him on Odin's bad side, and Odin was the one he'd be more likely to be living with from then on?) Despite being furious with Odin, he seemed very worried for his father when Odin collapsed, regretful that he might have caused the collapse, and afraid for his father as he called for help. He had tears in his eyes as he fought Thor at the Bifrost, and seemed to be having a mental breakdown.

In The Avengers, when Thor told him to look at what he was doing, Loki did look remorseful to me -- and Hiddleston has essentially said in various interviews that he felt there were moments in that film where small bits of Loki's humanity, the possibility of his redemption, shone through. I think Loki hardened his heart in that moment and (non-fatally, mind!) stabbed Thor because he'd done those horrible things in his less rational moments, and he has to either tell himself that he was justified in order to not have a breakdown, or else he believes he's already past saving and half hoped Thor might kill him. But he doesn't even have to believe he did wrong after all to be remorseful -- one can regret killing a perceived enemy without vilifying the self.

In the end, I cling to the notion of redemption because if we can make ourselves believe that "bad" people can change, we stand a better chance of making that happen for real, makes it easier for us to get over our own hurdles and become the better people we might want to be.

For the Love of Loki — My review of the first Thor live-action film (at Pink Raygun), with heavy Loki-centric commentary.
Thor: Tales of Asgard — My review of the animated film, with some commentary on Loki.
The Avengers — My review of the film, with some commentary on Loki.
Marvel.com