Ok but the way ghosts writes multilayered/conflicting romantic relationships,,,,,,
Fanny hates George. He never gave her what she needed in life. Every time she brings him up, it’s to vent about him. He killed her and had no issue covering it up and living without her. She has to relive this brutal betrayal every day. But she stops Alison from throwing his portrait away. She doesn’t like to look at it but can’t bear the thought of not having it. She uses it to remember him and their life together. She still thinks she needs him even though he never needed her.
Pat adores Carol. Or he did until he found out she had been cheating on him with his best friend for most of their marriage. He was furious. Memories of his family were all he had left and she took that from him too. He screams at Alison to send her away, that he never wants to see her ever again, to kill her. But every time he recounts a memory of her he can’t help but smile. He gets a far-off dreamy look like he’s falling in love for the first time all over again. If you asked, he would probably say that despite everything, she’s one of the best things that ever happened to him.
Humphrey wanted to love Sophie, he really did. She spent over twenty years hating him and he tried to content himself with that. They didn’t share a bedroom, couldn’t have a conversation, and weren’t even able to make it through a single meal without someone storming out. But she cared enough to put an immediate and decisive end to any unkind whispers behind his back. He cared enough to sacrifice his own life so she could live. And even though any nice comment they made to each other was laced with passive aggression, several hundred years later he still thinks of her fondly and mourns what could’ve been.
26 notes
·
View notes
guys, i think the hermits are going to accidentally start a prank war again. because just like last time, a game of telephone has begun.
first, false made iskall's build into ''false beans,'' her shop from the previous season. however, to give herself plausible deniability, she signs it with "love, Joel. x" due to his username, smallishbeans.
next, iskall sees this, and completely believes it. he thinks it was joel who pranked him, and as he says to pearl while showing off the sign, which he kept even after tearing the prank down, "joel gave me a kiss." in his most recent video, he pranks joel by sending him loads of anonymous messages in order to completely spam and fill his inbox, preventing him from getting any more mail, with notes such as "thinking about you. x"
of course, joel is going to have absolutely no context for this, because he didn't make the initial prank. so who is joel going to assume sent him all those messages while he was away on holiday? well, i have a guess.
etho.
1K notes
·
View notes
I'm seeing some confusion out and about over the title A Companion to Owls (generally along the lines of 'what have owls got to do with it???'), so I'd like to offer my interpretation (with a general disclaimer that the Bible and particularly the Old Testament are damn complicated and I'm not able to address every nuance in a fandom tumblr post, okay? Okay):
It's a phrase taken from the Book of Job. Here's the quote in full (King James version):
When I looked for good, then evil came unto me: and when I waited for light, there came darkness. My bowels boiled, and rested not: the days of affliction prevented me. I went mourning without the sun: I stood up, and I cried in the congregation. I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.
--(Job 30:29)
Job is describing the depths of his grief, but also, with that last line, his position in the web of providence.
Throughout the Old Testament, owls are a recurring symbol of spiritual devastation. Deuteronomy 4:17 - Isaiah 34:11 - Psalm 102: 3 - Jeremiah 50: 39...just to name a few (there's more). The general shape of the metaphor is this: owls are solitary, night-stalking creatures, that let out either mournful cries or terrible shrieks, that inhabit the desolate places of the world...and (this is important) they are unclean.
They represent a despair that is to be shunned, not pitied, because their condition is self-inflicted. You defied God (so the owl signifies), and your punishment is...separation. From God, from others, from the world itself. To call and call and never, ever receive an answer.
Your punishment is terrible, tormenting loneliness.
(and that exact phrase, "tormenting loneliness," doesn't come from me...I'm pulling it from actual debate/academia on this exact topic. The owls, and what they are an omen for. Oof.)
To call yourself a 'companion to owls,' then, is to count yourself alongside perhaps the most tragic of the damned --not the ones who defy God out of wickedness or ignorance, and in exile take up diabolical ends readily enough...but the ones who know enough to mourn what they have lost.
So, that's how the title relates to Job: directly. Of course, all that is just context. The titular "companion to owls," in this case, isn't Job at all.
Because this story is about Aziraphale.
The thing is that Job never actually defied God at all, but Aziraphale does, and he does so fully believing that he will fall.
He does so fully believing that he's giving in to a temptation.
He's wrong about that, but still...he's realized something terrifying. Which is that doing God's will and doing what's right are sometimes mutually exclusive. Even more terrifying: it turns out that, given the choice between the two...he chooses what's right.
And he's seemingly the only angel who does. He's seemingly the only angel who can even see what's wrong.
Fallen or not, that's the kind of knowledge that...separates you.
(Whoooo-eeeeee, tormenting loneliness!!!)
Aziraphale is the companion.
...I don't think I need to wax poetic about Aziraphale's loneliness and grappling with devotion --I think we all, like, get it, and other people have likely said it better anyway. So, one last thing before I stop rambling:
Check out Crowley's glasses.
(screenshots from @seedsofwinter)
Crowley is the owl.
Crowley is the goddamn owl.
3K notes
·
View notes
Just wanna take a moment to talk about how much I adore Vaggie's verse in "Whatever It Takes", especially this line.
Because it makes so much sense after finding out Vaggie's backstory. Unlike the other residents in the Hotel, Vaggie wasn't someone that needed Charlie to be redeemed. Vaggie had always been a good person. She was a real angel who put down her weapon and refused to kill a child, even if it were a demon.
Lute saw Vaggie's mercy as a weakness and flaw that made her undeserving of her halo. Vaggie didn't need someone who saw and believed in the good in her. The problem is that she was seen as sinful just because she extended her kindness towards someone supposedly damned for eternal punishment.
Meeting Charlie made her realize that she wasn't alone. Vaggie is an outcasted angel for showing mercy to a demon, while Charlie is a ridiculed demon for believing in redemption for damned sinners. Charlie understood how it felt to be punished for her kindness, but still persevered with who she is, and so Vaggie does too.
One of the things I love about their relationship is that Charlie didn't "fix" Vaggie. She saved her, yes, but Vaggie had always had that good in her that she acted upon despite the consequences even before meeting Charlie. Such a pure soul like Charlie deserves someone whose kindness isn't dependent on their romantic relationship. It's why Vaggie saying that she believes in Charlie's dream aren't just empty words for the sake for supporting a loved one. Vaggie may be more realistic about it, but she definitely means what she says. She has saved a demon before, heaven's orders be damned. So she'll help Charlie save many more.
Vaggie isn't just helping Charlie with hotel just because she's being a good girlfriend. Well, she is duh but also they both just genuinely care about people even Heaven abandoned. That's why she and Charlie are partners.
942 notes
·
View notes