If you haven’t seen Avengers: Age of Ultron don’t read this.
Initial assumptions: that you know who Thor, Ultron and the Vision are. If you don’t, this post won’t interest you anyway. Move along.
Now, the inscription on Thor’s hammer Mjolnir goes thus:
“Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor.”
We’ll come back to that in a minute.
In the movie Age of Ultron, in a party scene, most of the Avengers in turn try to lift Mjolnir. Captain America shifts it slightly, everybody else fails.
(You’ll note that in the previous Avengers film, the Hulk tried and failed. Also, if you saw the first Thor movie, Thor himself loses his powers when he becomes unworthy)
Later in the movie Quicksilver tries to snatch the hammer. Bad idea, as you can imagine.
Towards the third act of the film the Vision casually lifts the hammer and hands it to Thor. Note: the Vision does not receive the power of Thor.
This led to all kinds of arguments in the geekosphere about whether Vision was worthy or not.
The power of Thor is the key issue.
Here’s my take:
It had nothing to do with Vision’s worthiness. People often forget the actual enchantment. If you are worthy you won’t just lift the hammer, but you’ll have the power of Thor. See Beta Ray Bill, a worthy guy who lifted the hammer after fighting Thor for it.
Vision is not truly alive and that is why he could carry the hammer, like an elevator (as they mentioned at the end of the film). You put the hammer on the floor of an elevator and push the button, the elevator lifts it to the next floor. The “aliveness” of Vision has always been a lively and contradictory discussion.
Key point: Vision does not get the power of Thor even though he lifts the hammer. Neither does the elevator.
“An empty book is like an infant’s soul, in which anything may be written. It is capable of all things, but containeth nothing.”
Centuries of Meditations
Since I have a memoir short published this summer in Bahamut Journal I figured it’d be good to share this link I came across about the thorny issue of facts in non-fiction:
I agree with the general premise. I don’t much care for or about the fact police. It’s a memoir, and that means it’s how the writer chooses to remember. Or, perhaps how the writer chooses to write it, deliberately leaving out or altering some parts.
Mine, for example, is called Knock Knock Jokes. The short is basically the modified first chapter of a book that is 50,000 words long. I changed all the names. All of them. I also changed some of the “facts” because they are so unique as to identify those involved. As it is, some people will probably be tainted just by association.
The etymology of the word ‘memoir’ is old French memorie from old Latin memoria, meaning ‘memory’.
Each of us knows how unreliable memory is. No two people remember the same event the same way.
Thus, when you read a memoir, sit back, relax, and tell yourself this is a point of view, not a chapter in a history book.
Besides, we all need a little subjectivity in our lives sometimes.
“And when he speaks of Irene Adler, or when he refers to her photograph, it is always under the honourable title of the woman.”
A Scandal in Bohemia
Arthur Conan Doyle