Approaches to Heroism in the MCU
May. 4th, 2021 02:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kerravonsenWe've got a bunch of heroes here, the Avengers, but they don't all see heroism in the same way.
Steve Rogers:
Why: To die for a righteous cause.
"You're not the guy to make the sacrifice play, to lay down on a wire and let the other guy crawl over you."
I was originally going to say "self-sacrifice" but that is too broad a phrase for what Steve considers heroism. Steve's idea of heroism emphasises physical courage, fighting the Bad Guys. It doesn't include self-sacrificing actions which are humble or supporting or behind-the-lines. Why do I say that? Because Steve lied multiple times to try to enlist as a soldier. Nothing else would do!
He'd probably agree with this: "I regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."
Selling war bonds would have been very frustrating for him, I think.
Guilt: paralyses, therefore it is a hindrance and should be ignored.
"This job... we try to save as many people as we can. Sometimes that doesn't mean everybody. But if we can't find a way to live with that, next time... maybe nobody gets saved."
This is Steve's coping mechanism, to ignore any guilt he may feel, because he has to keep going, to slog on, to complete the mission, to fight the war. Which is fair enough in the middle of a war, when he has a chain of command and orders to follow. But retaining this habit when he no longer has a chain of command (or no longer trusts it), that turns a coping mechanism into something dysfunctional. Why? Because ignoring all guilt means ignoring the true guilt along with the false guilt. And he doesn't have anybody around him that he is required to listen to, someone willing and able to give him a reality check. Which means that Steve is in the habit of ignoring when something is actually his fault; of not remembering when something is his fault. Which means that Steve has the mindset that he is never at fault, it is always somebody else's fault. This is a subconscious reaction that Steve isn't aware of. If he was aware of it, he would probably be appalled.
Related to this, though I'm not sure if it is a cause or an effect, is that if Steve is avoiding being reflective about what he has done, then he's not likely to learn from his mistakes, either.
Methods: When working with a team, you need to make plans. In the thick of battle, improvise.
Steve: Stark, we need a plan of attack.
Tony: I have a plan: attack!
This is another reason why Tony and Steve don't get along. Tony really does not play well with others; not because of his ego, but simply because he is so used to working alone, that he doesn't even think about what the others may do.
Right and Wrong: is absolute. There is no room for compromise.
"There's only one God, ma'am. And I'm pretty sure he doesn't dress like that."
"When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree besides the river of truth, and tell the whole world-- --No, you move."
"We may not be perfect, but the safest hands are still our own."
During WWII, Steve trusted the chain of command. After the fall of SHIELD, Steve no longer trusted authority.
Tony Stark:
Why: Making amends for his negligence. Fixing his mistakes.
"I saw young Americans killed by the very weapons I created to defend them and protect them, and I saw that I had become part of a system that is comfortable with zero accountability."
Guilt: Is a spur, a motivation to improve things, to do better next time. It should never be ignored.
"There is nothing else. There's no art opening. There's no benefit. There's nothing to sign. There's no decisions to be made. There's the next mission and nothing else. There's nothing except this."
"I shouldn't be alive, unless it was for a reason. I'm not crazy, Pepper. I just finally know what I have to do; and I know in my heart, that it's right."
Tony has this cycle: make mistakes, fix mistakes, learn from his mistakes. There is always room for improvement; he is never content with the status-quo.
Tony tends to feel guilt not only for things he has done, but for things he's omitted doing. This is understandable, considering that he hadn't cared what his weapons were doing, and seeing his own weapons being used to kill the people he thought he was protecting, that's a devastating wake-up call, what he sees as unforgivable negligence. This gets problematic when Tony's sins-of-omission list gets longer and more unrealistic. Tony tends to blame himself for things that he had no control over and could not have anticipated. Yet he isn't paralysed by this; it spurs him to work longer and harder. Because he has internalised the criticism of his father, that Tony is "never good enough".
Combining Steve's tendency to blame other people with Tony's tendency to blame himself, and you can see why Tony is sucked into the role of the scapegoat so often.
Methods: Do what works. Be pragmatic. Improvise. Do it yourself, because nobody else will do it as well as you can.
"I think I would just cut the wire."
Tony is brilliant and impatient, he doesn't want to wait for people to catch up to his thought processes. This is another aspect of why he doesn't play well with others; not because he's a narcissist, but because he's a racehorse in the midst of pack mules.
Right and Wrong: Some things are absolute, others are not. Everyone has an agenda; negotiate the best deal you can.
I think this is one reason he signed the Accords; not just that he agreed with them in principle, but so that he could be in a position to negotiate a "better deal"; that is, to remove the obnoxious and human-rights-destroying provisions which Ross had put in. Just a theory, but it makes sense to me.
Bruce Banner:
Why: He isn't a hero, he's a monster.
Guilt: is a crushing burden which can never be escaped.
Methods: HULK SMASH!
Right and Wrong: First, do no harm.
Thor:
Why: For glory, and to protect the weak.
Guilt: is for evildoers. Heroes are always righteous.
At least, I haven't really noticed Thor feeling much guilt about his actions; regret, yes, but not guilt. (Not until much later on, at least.)
But it's clear enough that Thor has a tendency to blame others, and make scapegoats. Which is not good for Loki, nor for Tony (see above).
Methods: Only honourable brute force and frontal assaults. Stealth is for cowards.
Right and Wrong: ?
I'm not sure exactly what Thor's moral framework is.
Natasha Romanov:
Why: To balance the red in her ledger.
Guilt: must be compartmentalised, for the sake of the mission.
Methods: Any means necessary. Nothing is unthinkable.
Natasha is the only person I've ever seen who has the ability to weaponize vulnerability.
Right and Wrong: Work for someone who has a better grasp of right and wrong than you do, and hope for the best.
Clint Barton:
I don't actually know enough about what motivates him, really.
And a couple more, because they are interesting.
Peter Parker:
Why: With great power comes great responsibility.
"When you can do the things that I can, but you don't, and then the bad things happen, they happen because of you."
Guilt: is a great motivator. (see quote above)
No wonder Peter and Tony get on so well -- not only are they Science Bros, they both have the same attitude towards guilt and heroism; that they have great power, and thus are responsible for any failures or inaction on their part. The complete opposite to Steve Rogers, really.
Methods: Protect the innocent, capture the bad guys. Don't kill anybody. Don't let anyone die.
Right and Wrong: are obvious, aren't they?
Loki:
Why: To protect the handful of people he loves.
Guilt: is for other people. (Except when you let your mother die, in which case, it is an eternal burden which will burn forever.)
Methods: Never be straightforward when you can have a cunning plan instead.
Right and Wrong: are illusions, fostered by those who have the most power.
This analysis of the characters has a lot of interesting implications. But the thing I'm most pleased about is that I think I've finally got a handle on Steve Rogers. At least to a degree. But hey, what do you all think? Am I mistaken about all this? Can anyone fill in the gaps in what I know? PLEASE chime in! (Don't let me think I am all alone in Space with a Chitauri army in front of me...)
no subject
Date: 2021-05-04 08:42 pm (UTC)Re: Thor: he does come across as feeling guilt in the first movie of his own trilogy to me. In the last two Avenger movies, it’s his main motivator, along with the desire for vengeance, of course. As for scapegoating, surely that’s Loki’s speciality? Loki’s utter refusal to accept responsibility for just about anything he ever does strikes me as a key character trait which doesn’t change -with the arguable exception of the later part of Dark World as well as the end of Ragnarök. It’s always someone else’s fault. (A minor but typical example is their dialogue in Avengers when Loki rewrites the ending of Thor - where he let go - into Thor throwing him from the bridge.)
Only honourable brute force and frontal assaults. Stealth is for cowards
? The entire plan against EcclestonElf in Dark World is based on Loki pretending to change sides (which Thor did know about). For that matter, the entire escape from Asgard with Jane and Loki involved deception (since Odin at this point wouldn’t listen to anyone). And both Dark World and Ragnarök showcase that Thor by now can anticipate when Loki will try to backstab or deceive him and when not (with two obvious exceptions, not realising Loki faked his death in “Dark World” and assuming Loki wasn’t really there at the end of “Ragnarök”.). Outguessing Loki on a regular basis doesn’t happen without wrapping your mind around stealth, either.
As for brute force and frontal assault being the only honorable thing, that’s not even true for the first movie, the big action climax of which involved Thor - aware that he’s not superpowered at this point whereas his friends are - first taking the unglorious but direly needed role of trying to get the towns people out of harm’s way while Sif & Co. take on the Destroyer, and then, once he figured out what the robot is about, offering his own life so no one else is harmed. Which brings me to:
Right and wrong: prioritizing saving people over victory, pride or glory is a red thread through all three movies. In the first, it’s part of the ethical lesson he learns. In the second, he applies it. God knows these movies aren’t masterpieces of writing, but the “saving your people takes priority over heroic last stands” message is pretty solid in all three. Along with “take responsibility for your actions” (not just re: Thor himself - Hela revealing Asgard’s backstory by destroying the paint over is less than subtle in this regard) and “change if you ever want to get out of vicious circles”. (Which Loki finally manages in “Ragnarök”; Thor got there a few movies earlier.)
Combining Steve's tendency to blame other people with Tony's tendency to blame himself, and you can see why Tony is sucked into the role of the scapegoat so often.
I think that’s fanon, honestly. Tony is my favourite among the original MCU line up, and Steve I can take or leave, but one reason why I’ve stopped reading MCU fiction is that I find the constantly self flagelating version of Tony nearly unrecognizable. It reminds me of the general tendency to woobify morally ambigous characters and take all the ambiguity out of them which I first saw when I was in Highlander fandom, and it’s never stopped bewildering me since, because part of what makes the characters so interesting to me is that yes, they do screw up, they are at fault (not for everything, but definitely for some things), they have something to make up for.
As for “Steve’s tendency to blame other people” - whom, specifically, does he blame for something he himself is responsible for? BTW: I was on Tony’s side in “Civil War”, not least because being your own sole oversight is really a terrible idea for people in their position. But I don’t recall Steve blaming “other people” for his own deeds. The quote you give is I think something he says to Wanda. Now one of my pet peeves with the MCU writing is that Wanda keeps getting blamed for something that hadn’t been her intention - Lagos - instead for something that absolutely was her intention and fault - Johannesburg, one movie earlier. (In my ideal MCU world, Wanda would have gotten a scene with Bruce dealing with this.) Steve giving her that speech being a case in point. This said, Steve’s attitude towards both Maximoff twins in “Ultron” (from his comments to Maria Hill after she described them onwards to trying to win them over, eventually successfully) and his friendship with Natasha (whose past he’s aware of) throughout rather belies the idea of him seeing good and evil as absolutes with no room for compromise. A man with the black and white world view that fanon Steve has would have seen both the Maximoffs and Natasha as monsters from the get go.
Methods: HULK SMASH
Yes, but far from exclusively. During his time on the run pre “Avengers”, Bruce evidently keeps trying to do altruistic jobs, to help people small-scale scientically. (I.e. medically, because in movie and tv world, all science is the same science, sigh.) Then after befriending Tony he goes back into large scale scientific research, up to and including Tony’s “let’s be mad scientists” Ultron idea, which he signs on to, twice. (Proving the Bruce Banner who experimented on gamma radiation to begin with isn’t dead.). And after the two years of being solely the Hulk and being legitimately terrified about this once he’s back to being Bruce, he eventually ends up finding a way to do both, be a scientist and the Hulk. Where I’m going with this: he clearly is a bundle of motivations and impulses as well as methods.
no subject
Date: 2021-05-05 01:07 am (UTC)Welcomed!
Re: Thor: he does come across as feeling guilt in the first movie of his own trilogy to me.
I felt it was regret rather than guilt, because Thor has no idea why Loki is so angry with him. Thor can't repent of things he doesn't realise were wrong. He just regrets that somehow, stuff went wrong.
Loki’s utter refusal to accept responsibility for just about anything he ever does strikes me as a key character trait which doesn’t change -with the arguable exception of the later part of Dark World as well as the end of Ragnarök. It’s always someone else’s fault.
Yes, I did point out -- though perhaps not clearly enough -- that Loki thinks that "guilt is for other people". In other words, yes, Loki blames everyone else, too.
In regard to Loki being a scapegoat... thing is, as far as Thor and Sif and the Warriors Three are concerned, if anything goes wrong, it's Loki's fault. It doesn't help that half the time, yes, it is Loki's fault; but the other half of the time, it isn't. And maybe I'm just over-emphasising stuff from the first Thor movie, but (a) Loki did not usurp the throne, yet Sif et al act as if he did; (b) he was the lawful king, therefore their disobedience was treason.
Though I'm going to have to re-watch Thor-1 to double check whether Loki ordered the Destroyer to kill them or just stop them...
(A minor but typical example is their dialogue in Avengers when Loki rewrites the ending of Thor - where he let go - into Thor throwing him from the bridge.)
I actually took that as evidence that Thanos messed with his head...
As for brute force and frontal assault being the only honorable thing, that’s not even true for the first movie, the big action climax of which involved Thor - aware that he’s not superpowered at this point whereas his friends are - first taking the unglorious but direly needed role of trying to get the towns people out of harm’s way while Sif & Co. take on the Destroyer, and then, once he figured out what the robot is about, offering his own life so no one else is harmed.
You're right, I'm basing that on Thor's attitude at the start of Thor-1, oops.
Right and wrong: prioritizing saving people over victory, pride or glory is a red thread through all three movies. In the first, it’s part of the ethical lesson he learns. In the second, he applies it. God knows these movies aren’t masterpieces of writing, but the “saving your people takes priority over heroic last stands” message is pretty solid in all three.
Very clearly spelled out in The Dark World, where Malekith and Odin fail that test and Thor does not.
I think that’s fanon, honestly. Tony is my favourite among the original MCU line up, and Steve I can take or leave, but one reason why I’ve stopped reading MCU fiction is that I find the constantly self flagelating version of Tony nearly unrecognizable.
(nods)
I agree and disagree with this point; constantly self-flagelating Tony is unrecognisable, I agree, but I still think Tony has a tendency to self-blame more than he needs to.
Everyone blames Tony for Ultron, but it was not entirely his fault, it was only partially his fault.
But you see, that's where blame gets tricky, because people want to simplify it so that only one person is to blame, not multiple people.
It reminds me of the general tendency to woobify morally ambigous characters and take all the ambiguity out of them which I first saw when I was in Highlander fandom, and it’s never stopped bewildering me since, because part of what makes the characters so interesting to me is that yes, they do screw up, they are at fault (not for everything, but definitely for some things), they have something to make up for.
Whitewashing is annoying, yes. Especially when the author has to "blackwash" someone else in order to make their favourite look better.
I didn't notice that so much in Highlander fandom, but I did notice it in Harry Potter fandom.
As for “Steve’s tendency to blame other people” - whom, specifically, does he blame for something he himself is responsible for?
He blames Tony for destroying the unity of the Avengers?
BTW: I was on Tony’s side in “Civil War”, not least because being your own sole oversight is really a terrible idea for people in their position.
Absolutely.
Now one of my pet peeves with the MCU writing is that Wanda keeps getting blamed for something that hadn’t been her intention - Lagos - instead for something that absolutely was her intention and fault - Johannesburg, one movie earlier. (In my ideal MCU world, Wanda would have gotten a scene with Bruce dealing with this.)
(nods) She gets a free pass for deliberate malice, and is denounced for an accident. (scratches head)
I haven't seen enough movies to know this -- does Wanda ever stop blaming Tony for her parents' deaths?
This said, Steve’s attitude towards both Maximoff twins in “Ultron” (from his comments to Maria Hill after she described them onwards to trying to win them over, eventually successfully) and his friendship with Natasha (whose past he’s aware of) throughout rather belies the idea of him seeing good and evil as absolutes with no room for compromise. A man with the black and white world view that fanon Steve has would have seen both the Maximoffs and Natasha as monsters from the get go.
Point.
Though not necessarily Natasha, because she was already "reformed" by the time he met her.
Yes, but far from exclusively. During his time on the run pre “Avengers”, Bruce evidently keeps trying to do altruistic jobs, to help people small-scale scientically.
True, true, I was not taking things properly into account. Perhaps I should have had one section for Hulk and one for Bruce. Hmmmm.
(I.e. medically, because in movie and tv world, all science is the same science, sigh.)
I join your sigh.
no subject
Date: 2021-05-05 08:06 am (UTC)Ah, I see, we're talking about different things for Thor to feel guilty about. (Or not.) I was referring to Thor realising that his behavior re: Frost Giants was indeed wrong (after his initial defiance) and feeling guilty for that. I do agree he does not feel guilty re: his relationship with Loki though regrets it going sour and tries to repair it. I also agree this is tricky to do if you don't realise how it went wrong in the first place. (Well, I think Thor does understand the part of Loki's behavior towards him that's about impressing Odin. Less so the degree to which Loki resented Thor's own behavior.) However, I would add that after three murder attempts (one in "Thor" - where, yes, Loki gives the Destroyer a kill order, two in "Avengers"), concluding that Loki is the one who has to try try reconciliation next is somewhat understandable.
And maybe I'm just over-emphasising stuff from the first Thor movie, but (a) Loki did not usurp the throne, yet Sif et al act as if he did; (b) he was the lawful king, therefore their disobedience was treason.
Now it's been years since I watched the film, but as I recall it it, the following happens: Odin, mid conversation with Loki after Loki has discovered he's a Jotun, goes into the Odinsleep. He does not appoint anyone to rule in his stead. Asgard being a monarchy, clearly someone has to, but Loki appointing himself does not make him the rightful ruler, and him lying to everyone by claiming Odin did appoint him doesn't make it so, either. Why shouldn't Frigga be regent till Odin wakes up again, for example? Also, everyone seems to be aware that this sleep state isn't forever, i.e. it's not the first time this happened with Odin, so whoever rules in his place being regarded as regent, not king would also make a difference in terms of authority. (Err, assuming Asgardian monarchy is supposed to work similar to the various historical monarchies we've had, which are all differnet from each other.) And that's leaving aside the first thing Loki does as regent - before Sif & Co. start to disobey him - is organize a Jotun invasion of Asgard. Yes, he does so with the ultimate purpose of destroying Jotunheim, but it's still the kind of behavior that breaks the implicit fealty/loyalty relationship of subjects and ruler.
Mind you, coming from a country where "absolute obedience is not a virtue, your own conscience should come first" is seen as one of of the primary lessons learned from terrible history, I'm hard pressed as seeing Sif and the Warriors Three starting to get suspicious and acting against Loki's orders as bad anyway. Especially since the movies don't position that if someone other than Loki rules, absolute obedience is good. I mean, clearly Thor coming to the conclusion that Odin's orders are wrong in "The Dark World" and acting against them is presented as the right thing. And not just because he's the main character. When Odin gives sensible orders at the start of the first movie and Thor disobeys, it's Thor who is presented as wrong. Leaving aside that Asgardians deciding to end the monarchy altogether and start to vote for their leaders would have been a better ending to wrap up the Asgardian MCU storylines for me, even in the romantisized version of monarchy loyalty to your ruler isn't a one road street. A ruler - King/Queen or regent - as the responsibility to put the welfare of the people first. Thor disqualifies himself for the position at the start of the first movie, and he comes to realize this. Loki disqualifies himself in the first movie as well, in the same movie; engineering a war and an invasion for the express purpose to impress Dad and make yourself his favourite may be psychologically understandable given Loki's issues, but it's still criminally irresponsible behavior. Thor and Loki both regard themselves as entitled to kingship at the start of the first movie; Thor comes to realize he's not, and furthermore, he wouldn't be good at it, which is a realisation that sticks beyond the first movie. He still feels responsible for Asgard and its people in a "protect them" as opposed to "rule them" fashion. With Loki, I didn't get the impression he ever sees ruling as something that entails responsibility, or considers it might not suit him (at least not till presented with Hela); it's the shiny price that proves he's best after all, and he wants it. The one time he has it without a challenge (when he's posing as Odin between Dark World and Ragnarök), he uses it for an ego fest. (A far less harmful one than engineering an invasion, it has to be said, but still, he seems to be completely disinterested in the work part of rulership and consider it all about the glory and universal approval part.)
Everyone blames Tony for Ultron, but it was not entirely his fault, it was only partially his fault.
Everyone? In post Ultron movies and tv shows, the Avengers as a team get blamed for Ultron, not Tony as an individual. Tony does bear main responsibility, I'd say, with Bruce and Wanda (for pushing Tony's paranoia telepathically) sharing responsibility. (Separately, Wanda also is responsible for helping Ultron afterwards and for letting the Hulk loose on Johannesburg.) But when Ultron and Sekovia are brought up by people , the blame goes to "the Avengers" in general.
Now, in the movie itself, in the scene where after Ultron had his debut appearance Tony has to tell everyone just how Ultron came to be, he does get blamed, but frankly, given circumstances, I don't see how else that conversation could have gone than essentially "I created the robot" - "You what?" The only other time in the movie we see the others getting incensed at him for this is after Vision's creation, and again - who wouldn't be? I don't recall Steve (or anyone else from the Avengers) bringing up Ultron to Tony in a "you are to blame for this" manner in subsequent movies. (Not even in the big Civil War argument about the Accords, where a "so you want oversight because of your deeds, why should the rest of us pay for something you did?" would have been a vicious but effective verbal sledgehammer, but neither Steve nor Sam as the two main voices against the Accords ever use it.) On the contrary. The one point where Tony's creation of Ultron and the reason for it is brought up again that I recall is by Tony, early in "Endgame", and there he is the one to blame Steve (I think the sentence includes the phrase "I told you so"). Which brings me to:
He blames Tony for destroying the unity of the Avengers?
Does he? When? Where? The only times Tony comes up when Steve is talking to other people in "Civil War" that I recall is when he and Sam are discussing their belief that Zemo will create more super soldiers and the need to stop him, and Steve says it would be pointless to tell Tony since he wouldn't believe them. Which as it turns out he's wrong about - in both senses, i.e. Tony when coming across the same evidence they did comes to the same - mistaken - conclusion re: Zemo and supersoldiers, and does act on it. But blaming Tony their current division does not come up or is even a topic. And the movie ends with Steve explicitly reaching out to Tony. Since memories can get blurry, I just googled the exact text, and it is:
Tony, I'm glad you're back at the compound. I don't like the idea of you rattling around a mansion by yourself. We all need family. The Avengers are yours. Maybe more so than mine. I've been on my own since I was 18. I never really fit in anywhere, even in the army. My faith's in people, I guess. Individuals. And I'm happy to say that, for the most part, they haven't let me down. Which is why I can't let them down either. Locks can be replaced, but maybe they shouldn't. I know I hurt you, Tony. I guess I thought by not telling you about your parents I was sparing you, but I can see now that I was really sparing myself, and I'm sorry. Hopefully one day you can understand. I wish we agreed on the Accords, I really do. I know you're doing what you believe in, and that's all any of us can do. That's all any of us should. So no matter what, I promise you, if you need us, if you need me, I'll be there.
There is no blame for Tony here, neither for the Avengers splitting up nor for following the Accords in the first place, and acceptance that he himself was in the wrong re: keeping the truth about Tony's parents from him. (BTW, this goes directly against your earlier proposition that Steve never sees when he's at fault for something.) In "Infinity War", Tony and Steve have no chance to talk, and when Steve mentions Tony to other people, he only does so in a positive manner ("Earth's best defender"); there is no line of blame for the Avengers' split there, either. When Steve and Tony do see each other again the first time, at the start of End Game, Tony is the one who blames Steve (see above) for something, not the other way around. (During their next encounters, there are other topics to talk about, and also there are the five years in between.) Now I might be forgetting something, absolutely - again, it's been years. But I can't recall any scene in which Steve blames Tony for the Avengers split. "Both of us acted to according what we believe to be right" seems to have been his final conclusion on that subject.
I haven't seen enough movies to know this -- does Wanda ever stop blaming Tony for her parents' deaths?
Tony isn't mentioned in her conversations with anyone in either "Infinity War" or "End Game". "WandaVision" has one flashback to child!Wanda and Pietro being trapped with their dead parents and a STARK lettered bomb (as recounted in "Ultron") as part of a series of flashbacks (presumably so that potential new viewers are filled in on this part of Wanda's backstory), but it's not brought up in dialogue in the present day, nor is Tony in general. So she may or she may not; we don't have canon on this either way. (Of course, in the post "Endgame" era "WandaVision" is set in, Tony is dead, and she has a great many other things to deal with; the show isn't perfect, but it does a great job of fleshing Wanda out, and it's in many ways about grief and guilt. (BTW, her and Pietro handing themselves over to Hydra for experimentation is shown in flashback as well.)
no subject
Date: 2021-05-05 08:44 am (UTC)It was Frigga who appointed him regent. He didn't take it for himself.
it's the shiny price that proves he's best after all, and he wants it.
I wouldn't put it quite like that; Loki did say to Thor "I only ever wanted to be your equal."
Yes, Loki is going about all this the wrong way, but it's as if he doesn't have a clue about what the "right way" would be.
(I have finally gotten around to getting some MCU icons, yay)
no subject
Date: 2021-06-21 07:57 am (UTC)This has been niggling at me A LOT. Because, yes, I was aware of the contents of this letter. And my interpretation of it is not stable: half the time I take it as it superficially appears on the surface, and the other half of the time it feels like a complete non-apology "apology". Steve spends half the letter explaining his actions - or is that justifying his actions? Making excuses for himself?
Arrrgh!
My interpretation is not stable.
no subject
Date: 2021-06-23 01:36 pm (UTC)Now, what he doesn't apologize for is the stand he took re: the Accords - but nor does he see it as something Tony should apologize for. He says he believes that they both acted according to their conviction about what the right thing to do was, and that this is all anyone should do. (As opposed to act against their conscience.) This is neither an apology nor is it blame throwing; one reason why I brought up the letter in the first place was because you thought Steve was blaming Tony for destroying the unity of the Avengers and I said in canon, he never does (as opposed to some fanfiction).
Again: it's important to separate the two issues addressed in the letter here - one was the "truth about Bucky" issue, which Steve apologizes for, and another the "splitting because of the Accords", which he doesn't. I happen to think he was wrong about the Accords, but I also don't think he should apologize for it considering this is not what he believes. Not because he never admits fault - he does - but because he truly believes he was doing the right thing here. Which doesn't exclude him accepting that Tony believes this with the same conviction. And as I said in an earlier comment - he does not blame Tony in conversation with other characters, either. I've yet to see the "Steve trashes Tony behind his back and blames him for "Civil War" scene outside of fanfiction.
One reason why I rarely read MCU fanfiction is because it tends to demonize either Steve or Tony - either Tony is the true villain of the MCU who is at fault for near everything that happened (I've seen this argued a lot), or Steve is. Mr. Monstrous Ego and sender of child soldiers vs Mr. Monstrous Self Righteousness, if you will, and I think both are grotesque caricatures. The MCU writing varies wildly in quality, but still the characters are presented on screen are more interesting and layered than that.
What I do think is the case is that people tend to pick their characterisation from the parts of canon they like best and ignore the rest, which is only human - I'm certainly not immune to the temptation - but that this does mean, for example, that the go-to Steve characterisation for the Steve-centric part of fandom is the one from Captain America 1 and "Winter Soldier" and the go-to Tony characterisation is a mixture of "Iron Man 1" and "Avengers" (I'm exaggarating in both cases, but you know what I mean), and never the two shall meet.
A