#jim meta

We know, at the end of the day, Jim can live with all that.  If there’s one thing we’ve seen for four seasons, it’s that guilt seems to trouble Jim relatively little.  Ogden Barker, Theo Galavan – he might make noises about regret, but he did precious little about it.  He sat puffed up with pride and watched Loeb resign – knowing exactly how that came about. Letting Oswald take the fall for Galavan, and then what he subsequently suffered – we never saw him so much as twitch an eyebrow about that.  His big nihilistic drinking phase came not from the knowledge that he had failed to be there for Lee when she needed him most, but from the fact that she had moved on to someone else.  We saw him take the captaincy, dismiss his best friend from the position, and then – chin high – proclaim that he deserved his position.  So Sofia’s notion that Jim will be tortured with guilt is mistaken.

Shame – now.  Shame is another matter entirely.  Jim can live with the knowledge of what he did, but the idea that other people might find out… that’s what gets him.  It’s exposure that brings him out in a cold sweat – finally being seen for what he is.  Guilt would involve feeling responsible for his actions, feeling empathy and pain for those affected by them.  Jim is slippery on both counts.  Guilt would make him more likeable, because he would want to atone.  But we never see that.  He cares more about how these things erode his sense of identity and, most importantly of all, how other people would see him if they found out.

This is made apparent in his hallucinatory 1950s idyll: he’s all about the façade, clinging to it even though it was flat and false, even as it crumbled around him.  He tells his hallucinatory father that what he admired most about him was not that he was a good and loving man, but instead his knack of keeping his work and home lives separate, his ability to neatly compartmentalise.  Falcone was willing to dress up corruption in words like honour and duty, and Jim stayed attached to him.  You could argue that one reason he was so invested in his relationship with Lee was her willingness to participate in this behaviour: she knows he killed Galavan – but is happy to sweep it under the carpet.  Later, when it threatens to become an issue again, she’s not concerned about what he actually did, but cries and reminds him that he promised he would make it all go away.  

Conversely, you could argue that one reason Oswald and Barbara provoke such an intensely visceral response in him is that they shine a light into every dark little nook and cranny of his soul, leave him nowhere to hide – but still want what they see. They simultaneously buy into the version of him that he projects and longs to be true: the last good man in Gotham, the honest cop, the rescuer, that last little light of hope in their hearts – while also fully recognising and embracing the parts of himself that he longs to hide but can’t resist indulging: ambition, violence, ruthlessness, wilfulness.  There’s also a sexual element to their understanding of him.  When she’s arrested, Barbara teases him, and asks if he’d like to rough her up a little.  Oswald and Jim constantly play games with personal space and eye contact. It’s ironic that when Jim is presented with two people who are clear-eyed in their perception of him and still willing to take him as he is, he runs a mile - the shame they provoke presumably only intermittently tolerable.

We can see this behaviour repeated elsewhere.  He’s never more furious with Loeb than when he uses the bright-eyed young cop to trick Jim by appealing to his ego.  It’s not being outwitted that bothers him, like it would Ed.  It’s the fact that Loeb was able to manipulate him because he looked at Jim and saw his arrogance and self-importance.  He was seen.   Look, too, at how utterly discomfited he was by Jeri telling him everyone in the underworld knew all about Jim Gordon and his penchant for violence.  She may as well have told him there was a peep show operating in his bedroom.

"Loki's the God of Mischief. However, in practice, he tends to be used as something more akin to the God of Evil. But there [are] all sorts of approaches to Loki which don't have to be so openly diabolic. I'm trying to explore Loki as the trickster figure."

Kieron Gillen

Let's just begin with the concept of trickster. Tricksters are beings who pull tricks, as the word says. Is that it, is that so simple? Pfft, no! I think one of the problems we have right now is that we often confuse trolls with tricksters. The line is thin, as tricksters tend to be trolls but being a troll doesn't make you a trickster. So a character that deceived and/or mocked others could easily be still unfit for the trickster title. It's more complicated than that. As tricksters are, too. They're complicated creatures, those bastards.

As a note I must say, it's weird to me to see lists of modern (as in, non-mythological) trickster characters where Bugs Bunny and the Joker co-exist. I wouldn't call the Joker a trickster at all. I shake my head at TVTropes' instances. (Then again, it's TVTropes.)

So in any case, let's begin with some common characteristics:

1. Okay, fiiiine. Trickery and deceit

I don't think I have to elaborate much on that. After all, every Loki in a Marvel universe pulls this shit up no matter his moral affiliation, and Kid Loki complies with his nature. Hell, sometimes he's actively pushed to do so by his older self in the shape of Ikol, which in turn will get Kid Loki into serious trouble. It's not just his nature and his personality, but he's also in a social and physical situation where he's unable to gather strength (either brute force or sorcery) or willing allies on his own. Therefore, his only weapons end up being his tongue and his cunning. As a matter of fact, that's the whole point of the series. That's the handicap in the game the Lokis are playing: none of them both can do anything but deceive in some level or another.

Yes, plural. Because at the same time, the Old Loki has his own con going on. By being an imaginary-ish bird, he bids his time and lets Kid Loki believe he has the control over the magpie familiar; yet, his poisonous words and previous planning prove to be something larger that runs parallel to the Kid's little trickster adventures. And we might as well remember the fact that a LOT of traditional tricksters (including the real myths' Loki) are either animal spirits or can shape-shift into one.

2. Gray area of morality

And this is something where few times the classic Marvel Loki sub-archetype fits, as he tends to be god of Evil Pants -there are stories though where Old Loki sides with the good guys, normally when they share interests or something in common to protect (which, being Old Loki, tends to be himself or Asgard). But usually, tricksters are neither good or bad. Myth Loki spiraled into an evil role starting with Balder's murder -and Christian writers had a hand on making him Norse Satan-, but before that he was (usually) Odin and Thor's weird buddy and the one bringing shiny stuff to Asgard. Coyote is considered a total douchebag in some tribes and stories, but he's a really cool dude in others.

Some tricksters are actually admired as culture heroes and world creators. But I think the last part belongs to another point.

You usually can't classify a trickster's morality. They follow their own code, embrace their selfishness, and sometimes might be nice and sometimes mean. This is why I don't buy people like the Joker as a trickster. A trickery villain, to me, doesn't feel like a trickster if he's always malevolent.

Kid Loki wants to become a good boy. He wants to be a hero. And yet, he doesn't do things like his brother Thor who's his very model of goodness and heroism. He follows his own code and helps out (and "helps out") with the kind of actions he believes are the most optimal in those situations to save the most people. But despite of the intentions, despite of the immediate result... they're gray. His innocence is a strange one, tinted by guilt and regret for dubious actions. This is why, when he confesses to Thor, his actions all sound so awful to his ears without the context. And to someone who sees the world in black and white like Thor, it's hard to comprehend how his little brother acts.

And then there's also the conflict in the Manchester Gods arc. Who are the good guys here? Wilson in his own way is a micro trickster figure as well (with even a gray palette!), so no wonder Kid Loki turns around to favor his point of view. And then he acts as not a double but a triple agent and backstabs Otherworld with his own previous plan. This shit is deep, I swear.

3. Breaking the law, breaking the law

This one is similar to the ones above, but an important detail. Go wiki go:

The trickster deity breaks the rules of the gods or nature, sometimes maliciously (for example, Loki) but usually with ultimately positive effects (though the trickster's initial intentions may have been either positive or negative). Often, the bending/breaking of rules takes the form of tricks (e.g. Eris) or thievery.

And not only written rules and laws. They also piss on the acceptable behavior and etiquette that society expects. They're rogues in all senses. They can do the ridicule, they can be weirdos, they can be perverts or have a fluid gender and sexuality. They do anything the other gods/spirits won't because they don't give a fuck. And this is the charm of the archetype. This is why many trickster stories are comedy or they act like clowns. They don't have to be serious or honorable, it's pretty much the opposite. They embrace what you can't/won't.

Kid Loki doesn't act like a regular Asgardian, and I actually think the other kids would bully him even if he wasn't a Loki. He lives in a society where physical strength and battle skills are revered. They love a good fight. Their All-Father is the god of fucking war. But Kid Loki sucks at weapons and combat, he'd rather have peace, and he has academic and geeky interests. He thinks in a world where people punches. His methods and hobbies and the intersection of both don't fit the normal. He has no place with his folks in that area either. He's probably the only Norse god on the Internet, too. And that difference has a big influence on how charming we readers see him.

Not to mention it's not common that a comic that's a superhero spinoff in origin won't have its lead physically hurting anyone. He never punches anyone. His arrows don't hit a target. He uses his dagger to peel apples. His strongest weapon was a pen. Kid Loki breaks also the rules of comic books. But most importantly, he momentarily manages to break the Big One Rule.

You guys, he BREAKS. STATUS. QUO.

This was it. The whole premise of the thing. The "Will He, Won't He". It's a comic where the big question was whether the character could break his own status quo and rigid personality in pop culture. The rules say that Loki is a bwahaha villain who (mostly) hates Thor because he's always written as such. Kid Loki fucks with it and wins. He breaks the rules on how to be Loki. Even the meta breaks rules.

4. Agent of change

The actions of a trickster are a catalyst. Even something that started like a prank or an act of charity can be the pebble that rolls downhill and provoke profound changes in the universe. It doesn't matter if the change is done by the trickster him/herself or if it was someone else. It doesn't matter if it was an accident, a situation where he/she was forced to act, or something done on purpose. The change occurred because the trickster exists. Tricksters live for things in motion, which is why they tend to be chaotic. The Greeks owe humanity's prosperity to a trickster giving it fire -Prometheus-, but they also owe the Trojan war to another -Eris-, and then they pray to yet another for a struck of luck -Hermes. The greatest treasures of the Aesir come from Myth Loki's actions, yet that started as a little prank on Sif. Ragnarok happens because of many "little" things he did.

Tricksters are change.

This story's main theme is change. In emphasized bold face. You could make a drinking game and sip every time the word "change" shows up, and you'd totally get drunk.

There are two kinds of changes in this comic: the personal changes the Lokis want to accomplish in themselves, and the changes in the playground around them. Everything Kid Loki does is something that alters the Nine Worlds and beyond them. He starts and stops many global catastrophes. He sets in motion both chess pieces and chess moves. He inspires changes in other characters' lives and stories again and again. "Change is good," even when it's bad. Change is his method. Change is his motivation. Change is his cause of birth and cause of death. "Change or die"? No, change *and* die.

Loki, and by that I mean the sub-archetype of Marvel Loki, desires change outside and inside. This has been a constant in his characterization since at least JMS' Lady Loki; Gillen embraced it, and Fraction left this opening. There's a frustration in Loki: the static of Asgard and its habitants. No matter how much change (and havoc) he causes, everyone reverts to their old selves. Even himself. Marvel characters can have character development that sticks if it's popular enough (also assuming that any writer ignoring it will be retconned afterwards), but Asgardians aren't an easy crowd for that. As stories inside and outside, they depend on the writers. But writers depend on the executive powers too. Therefore, Marvel Loki is a lousy agent of change because of the system.

This is a metastory about changes in the status quo, but a fatalistic one that assumes it can't be done. This is a kind of trickster story that is deeply linked to the media that's telling it. Apocalyptic stories come and go, Asgardia will be rebuilt anyway. So in the end, it all comes down to whether THE TRICKSTER can change himself and remain changed. This theme still haunts Loki in that other series he's in right now.

5. Creation and destruction

Some scholars compare tricksters in general to artists and artisans. It seems hard to believe, especially with the horrible stuff Old Loki has done, but tricksters are both destroyers and creators. I think this is a big difference between tricksters and regular trolls who pull tricks. They're creative force, inventive, those who don't just repeat what was done first by others. Tricksters dare to create something completely new or considered impossible. Sometimes this daring ends up in punishment as it backfires (more on that later), or even the creation is the punishment itself. Myth Loki created the fishing net, and with it he was trapped. And even when they don't create something themselves, they can create opportunities, and the means for others to create something.

Journey into Mystery is impressive in this aspect. Actually, creation is also a recurrent thing even in an indirect way. Kid Loki lets Nightmare create a sinister object that later will be the reason of his last sacrifice. By letting Surtur out, not only he leaves an opening to DOOM later, but also Master Wilson (who's another sort of trickster) can create his gods for an industrial revolution. Again, creation and destruction.

And then there's the writing. Loki writes. This is a rare case of artistic creation. The pen IS mightier than the sword.

Kid Loki is an amateur faulty creator, but still a creator. In Fear Itself, he badly writes the self insert of his own friend as a character in the backstory of the event's villain. This character then will come back to bite him in the ass during Everything Burns. Punishment, like the net. Weirdly enough, she ends up being the origin story of a classic Thor character, Hela, which means Kid Loki accomplishes to create someone larger than him without even knowing so.

We could even go further. The reason why Hela lost her hand was because the Dísir cut it during Gillen's Thor run. And the Dísir were with Mephisto and right next to Hel because Old Loki planned that shit during Siege: Loki. So basically, Hela exists because of Kid Loki, but also because Leah existed, and Leah existed because of Old Loki. And we can also say Kid Loki was somewhat created because of Old Loki's shenanigans.

...I'm dizzy right now.

6. Shooting your own foot

Aha, this is an important one too. There's this unwritten rule about tricksters stories: shit backfires all the time. Of course there are exceptions, like most Greeks and some of the Africans. But when it comes to Loki and Native American tricksters (which are the most studied source of the archetype), they rarely win 100%.

This one is obvious and there's not much new to comment. Kid Loki fits this in the most painful fashion. Mind you, he's almost the poster child of Myths Retold's Norse crisis flowchart (and he'd wear that T-shirt too, over his tunic.)  It's pretty much obvious that the comic's structure is overall a escalating version of the classic trickster narrative structure: trickster does something, bad shit happens, trickster has to fix it or give in, problem solved, trickster must face consequences. But in JiM, step 1 is the last step of the previous arc until there's no way out. It's a constant build-up of clusterfuck. Trickster Katamari of Doom.

Oh, also! Even in his relative victory for being the last one standing, Young Avengers' Loki is trapped and bound by several things. His plan also backfired on him.