anthony j. crowley really is the character ever. he's the snake of eden. he's millions of years old. he can stop time. he likes to feed ducks. his vintage car is cursed to forever play queen. he invented the selfie. he drinks six shots of espresso straight. he lied about starting the spanish inquisition and they believed him. he lost the fucking antichrist. she's genderfluid.
8K notes
·
View notes
Them: It's been months... Are you finally going to stop obsessing over Good Omens and be a normal person now?
Me:
6K notes
·
View notes
they're being ominous again
3K notes
·
View notes
He's been in love for somewhere between 82-13 billion years.
More Aziraphale: Babygirl / Smitten / Help him
7K notes
·
View notes
The Nation's Saddest Love Poems, Sam J. Grudgings
3K notes
·
View notes
I’m hardly the first person to compare them but Terry Pratchett and J K Rowling really are polar opposites in terms of the way their writing treats weird characters. In Rowling’s writing, any weirdness is there to be laughed at (for example: Professor Trelawney, the fake seer who doesn’t know she’s an actual seer). In Pratchett’s writing, though, the characters’ weirdness is taken 100% seriously and the humor arises organically from the situation itself and is never at the characters’ expense (for example: in Making Money, the man who was born a clown and was never told so until he was 13 years old). In Rowling’s writing, the main characters poke constant fun at Professor Trelawney, making joke predictions and fudging homework and talking about how divination isn’t a legitimate field of study. Even after she gets fired and more or less drops the act, the joke changes to “look at this sad drunk lady” and the main characters express little sympathy. The narrative is saying she’s there to make one real prediction and otherwise she’s only there for comic relief. This sort of thing happens over and over in Rowling’s writing, where any quirkiness is there to be laughed at and the misfortunes of characters we’re not supposed to like are supposed to be funny, and it sends a message of conformity under threat of ridicule. In Pratchett’s writing, the clown man’s story is treated as a great tragedy: imagine growing up not knowing why you are the way you are, and then finding out the truth as a teenager! And knowing that your own mother kept the truth from you! This man was so deeply traumatized by this he denied himself any humor or fun for decades, and when he has a crisis and runs off to become a clown again, he is given support and medical treatment and is welcomed back to his job at the bank and accepted for who he is. The fact that this whole situation is hilarious is secondary. And again, this sort of thing happens over and over again in Pratchett’s writing, where characters’ quirkiness is embraced and often seen as irreplaceable by the end of the book, and it sends a message that our quirks are valuable and weirdness should be acceptable. It just strikes me as a much… kinder approach to people, you know?
13K notes
·
View notes
The cat stared / «You are the wolf, indeed. But is he the snake?»
«Am I wrong, then?» howled the wolf / «Am I wrong?»
The snake did not reply / The snake wasn't there
«Am I wrong?» howled the wolf / «Wrong, again?»
1K notes
·
View notes