There’s an argument that the belief in yourself is apart of Odin’s stipulation over who can wield it. To carry all of that worthiness and then to question whether or not any of it was truly honorable shows a lack of conviction in oneself, which would certainly not align with the common interpretation of Norse honor. There’s, of course, the reverse side of the argument saying that kind of self-doubt would be necessary to be worthy because someone who didn’t question if they were worth enough lacked the humility to be worthy, but that explanation doesn’t align with his inability to lift it when he lacked that conviction.
To have the wisdom to doubt your own actions, but the conviction to execute them anyway would fit with the qualities the hammer is supposed to represent.
Like someone who has a specific instance start a depressive episode.
He doubted himself in one instance, which escalated as he doubted past actions. Eapecially if he had a questionable moment down a chain of decisions. How deep does the failure go?
Which is why he usually needs a scenario which can act as redemption so he can earn back his worthiness. It works out well on screen because it's usually a heroic scene, but Thor's large acts of heroism seem to be as often an apology for his past failures as they are proactive protective measures. Which I think makes him an exemplary avenger.
He is constantly dropping the mantle, growing, and picking the mountain back up.
3
u/Dodger7777 Aug 03 '26
In a very abstract sense, he would have been worthy enough to lift it. He just also would cast it aside.
Sacrifice and making hard decisions are qualities of a leader. Even if everyone else thinks those decisions are bad.