#the legend of the longwinded anon✨

[thesherrinfordfacility]

Longwinded anon again. It's very easy to see where Aziraphale needs to get his act together/get therapy in regards to his belief in Heaven's essential goodness (and it was always very odd to see fans believing that four years would have been sufficient, narrative-wise, for that to happen--four years is nothing to characters who are immortal). Crowley, though, is still doing one of the most toxic things on his side of the relationship: he's being over-protective. In S1, the "damsel in distress" bits, which I know some fans like to romanticize, are harmful to both characters, because they make Crowley feel like he's doing something heroic when he isn't (every rescue in S1 is unnecessary) and encourage Aziraphale to abandon his agency. In the narrative arc, Aziraphale's discorporation, which Crowley fails to stop, is liberating. He does his conscientious objector bit, chucks himself out of Heaven, kicks Crowley out of his depression in the bar, vanishes the soldier, and then has to forcibly remind Crowley at the airfield that /now/, in fact, Crowley needs to do something or there will be irreversible consequences. And then they rescue each other through the body swap.

S2 doesn't have the big swoopy rescue scenes, aside from the 1941 replay, but what it does have is Crowley withholding key information that might well have altered Aziraphale's behavior. He clearly hasn't been forthright about what Gabriel really said at the execution, and he never gets around to mentioning that Aziraphale has put himself in danger of being zapped out of existence by Heaven. (This is very PRIDE & PREJUDICE: Lydia elopes with Wickham in part because her older sisters don't publicize his bad behavior.) Again, he thinks of himself as Aziraphale's protector, and while Aziraphale knows that Crowley likes to protect him--he even says so--in S2 he doesn't fully understand what Crowley is protecting him from. Nina asks Aziraphale why he doesn't stick up for himself, and he shows once again that he can, but in S2 Crowley thinks it's his job to keep Aziraphale safe from any real Heaven-sent nastiness that might puncture his innocence. Which prevents Aziraphale from evaluating his choices once the Metatron shows up.

(As for S3: Gaiman does appear committed to getting them together in their cottage, so I don't think a permanent breakup is on the horizons. I do think something drastic has to happen, whether becoming mortal, becoming a "new" sort of immortal being tied to Earth rather than Heaven and Hell, Aziraphale delivering a full-bore public rejection of Heaven with attendant consequences, etc.)

Longwinded Anon✨, light of my life, you are officially driving me insane with these asks (screenshots of others under the cut); there is so much fascinating insight to talk about. first of all, though, welcome back and i hope you are also Surviving following s2!✨

these two characters are two of the most fun to dissect and examine. they are hugely multifaceted, and every time i watch s2 and ruminate on them, there is more and more to find. the below is the result of those ruminations, and i feel the obligation to warn anyone reading that it is going to be a very, very long one, so ✨buckle tf up✨

further messages from Longwinded Anon✨, my beloved:

aziraphale: insecurity

to me, one of the key tenets of aziraphale's character is a deep-seated and complete sense of insecurity and lack of self-esteem. and it's not unfathomable to think that he's had a lack of self-worth for some time, carrying all the way through to the Feral Domestic™ (FD). bear in mind that all of the below is without reference to the pre-fall scene, which ill cover separately later on.

there is however the fairly obvious element that heaven and the archangels completely disregard aziraphale, and are condescending and reductive in how they perceive and interact with him. aziraphale, i think, adopted this mindset pretty heavily in s1 - one such example being the "I'm soft" line - and it is further explored in s2, but specifically at the later end.

aziraphale in s2 seems much more self-possessed and 'together', and a key element of that shift is not only his liberation from heaven, but also that he somewhat starts to see himself through crowley's eyes as possibly being worthy of being loved. i think that he starts to think of himself as, in fact, having intrinsic value.

this is shown, in particular, in s2 by the contrast between ep2's rock scene (where he starts to question the depth of his angelic allegiance, and that he might have actually done the right thing by following his own personal conviction and helping save job's children), and the majority of ep5 (ie. his absolutely astounding - by aziraphale standards - amount of confidence in himself to get him and the ball attendees out of demonic danger).

this is brought to a head though by shax's comments in ep5, where she really drives a stake into the core of aziraphale's insecurity. she remarks on his propensity for indulgence (sushi/meals), his tendency to be overtrusting and naive ("softest touch"), his lack of traditional angelic quality ("went native"), and the question of what exactly crowley feels for him ("emotional support angel").

setting aside Michael's acting - which was truly mesmerising in this one little scene, probably one of his set-pieces in the show, honestly - that tells us that this really got to him, we know from everything we have seen of aziraphale in GO that these are likely thoughts that he has repressed, or pretends are not conceivable when they absolutely are.

my final interpretation of aziraphale's insecurity, however, is not necessarily that he thinks he is without value or merit whatsoever, but that he is not enough.

he's good enough to guard the eastern gate, but not good enough to keep adam and eve from temptation. he's good enough to guard and monitor the antichrist, but not enough to be truly accepted as part of the heaven hive (his physical sentry post on earth notwithstanding). he's good enough for crowley to run away with to alpha centauri, but not enough to convince crowley to choose to stay and fight with him to prevent the apocalypse.

this starts to wane in s2, and he's noticeably more happy and confident... right up until ep6 when he's good enough to be loved by crowley enough to spend eternity with, but not enough for crowley to sacrifice his hang-ups with heaven and help him rebuild it as a team so noone else ever has to suffer what they both did.

the lines however in ep6 that particularly broke my heart, because aziraphale literally conveys this whole painful, bleeding part of his psyche to crowley, are the following:

a: "if im in charge, i can make a difference."

a: "i don't think you understand what im offering you."

whatever the motive behind metatron's offer to aziraphale (and therefore calling into question the sincerity of his compliments to aziraphale), aziraphale has literally just been told that not only does someone who - whichever way you slice it - is the highest being in heaven that he has the ability to run it, but he has the ability to completely gut and rebuild it for the better.

harking back to ep1 with crowley's statement that aziraphale only calls him for three reasons, one of which is telling crowley something clever ie. his own achievements, it does make me wonder how often this scenario truly happens. maybe it does happen often, but what does aziraphale actually consider to be an achievement? something to be proud of himself for, that is purely reflective of his ability and - by extension - worth?

when aziraphale tells crowley that he might be misunderstanding what aziraphale is offering him, i don't interpret it as anything to do with restoring crowley; instead, i just see aziraphale telling crowley that he is offering up absolutely everything that he is, every single atom and aspect of him, and all crowley has to do is trust him enough to take it. he is saying that he will love crowley, and crowley can be free to love him, but only, in aziraphale's eyes, if crowley can accept aziraphale as he is; that he is enough.

during this whole part of the scene, crowley won't even look at him. won't even face him, sunglasses or not, and acknowledge what aziraphale is saying, right up until this line. you can visibly see that aziraphale starts to get angry that the one person who made him feel any self-worth might in fact have never seen him as good enough in the first place, that crowley didn't in fact love every part of him, and was choosing to cherrypick the aspects of aziraphale that suited crowley, rather than the whole.

this snippet of the scene is compounded by being sandwiched by these two crowley lines which, in my eyes, really highlighted that crowley is in fact only choosing to accept aziraphale in small measures, and that other elements of him are not enough:

c: "...you're better than that, angel!"

c: "you idiot, we could have been us."

aziraphale is enough exactly as he is; he's not perfect and certainly not wholly complete, but for crowley to dig at aziraphale by intimating that he is not reaching the bar that crowley has set for him - potentially subconsciously - is likely be the true end for how much stock aziraphale put in crowley's perception of him, and by extension the worth that he thought he had in crowley's mind. instead, aziraphale is now left to find a way of building his sense of self-worth all by himself - and does so by stepping into that lift.

crowley: salvation

im not going to necessarily talk about all the times that crowley demonstrates an almost pathological need to be aziraphale's saviour, because frankly Longwinded Anon✨ has that covered. but as with all things GO-related, i think it's important to try to understand why.

i truly think that a cornerstone of crowley's romanticism is deeply rooted in the concept of salvation. now, we know that he doesn't appear to give a flying fuck about salvation from heaven, but he certainly seems to put a great deal of import on being aziraphale's hero, and later he seems to question a great deal when aziraphale essentially finds a hero elsewhere.

as LW Anon✨ said, aziraphale is very cognizant that crowley likes to play hero where he's concerned, and seems simultaneously resigned and excited by the matter; resigned because actually, sometimes, aziraphale is smart or powerful enough to keep himself safe, but excited because this is possibly the epitome of how crowley expresses his love for him.

aziraphale shows that he is fully aware of this characteristic of crowley's, and whilst he does play into it (which we saw throughout all of s1e3) to 'make crowley happy' (and, dare i say, also because at this point it is the supernatural, sex-less interpretation of centuries-long foreplay) in s2 it almost starts to become neglectful, overbearing, and dismissive of - as LWA✨ says - any true agency that aziraphale has built since breaking from heaven. this, incidentally, is highlighted in the following exchange:

c: "im gonna get the humans out of here and then im coming back, i won't leave you on your own."

a: "i know, but i have a suggestion-"

c: [interrupts] "ive got this."

whether crowley feels like he is missing any genuine overture from heaven to apologise for making him fall for a minor infraction, or he feels guilty about something that he did (ie possibly what made him fall) and is making his own reparations in the outlet of constantly being aziraphale's saviour, the one that is certain is that crowley has to feel needed, and by extension - loved.

he does have a nasty habit of putting aziraphale down (which ill talk about next), however much in jest, and placing aziraphale constantly under his metaphorical wing. aziraphale going so far in s1 to actually work out the apocalypse and proceed to take what he believes is the right action to prevent it on his own must have, by extension, sent crowley reeling - if aziraphale can in fact look after himself, where does that leave crowley? what else, in crowley's eyes, could he possibly bring to the table that would make aziraphale want to keep him? love him?

i think that this is crowley's own brand of insecurity; that unless he is performatively saving aziraphale and protecting him from harm, and actively dismissing aziraphale's ability to protect himself sufficiently enough, he has no discernible quality that aziraphale would want. so instead he tries to make himself so integral to aziraphale's survival so that aziraphale has no choice but to keep him.

the fact that aziraphale saves himself in s1, and they then reflectively save each other, did wonders for aziraphale in progressing as a character. however, in crowley, i feel that this frightened him so emotionally that it regressed his character somewhat. all coming to the climax of when aziraphale, in good faith, offers crowley the chance at salvation for himself, crowley vehemently refuses it and takes it to insult. there are many other valid and understandable reasons why crowley rejects the prospect, but one of them to me is that it would leave crowley's fundamental role in aziraphale's existence as completely redundant.

both: demonstrating love

essentially what i put in an ask recently, but needed referencing here too.

leading on from crowley and his hero/saviour complex: the thing is that these are two diametrically opposing people in all but a handful of aspects. crowley by large is usually the more obviously demonstrative in his affection, borne out of many different reasons, and he is the ultimate Acts of Service (ft. Quality Time) dude. aziraphale tends to be more subtle, with Looks and Words, in how he displays his, so let's give him the Words of Affirmation (ft. QT) crown.

in s2, it seems to me that this hasn't really changed, but they are starting to cross over into speaking the language that the other understands. and to me, this comes to a head by the time of the ep5, and the ep6 FD. so obviously crowley has finally bridged into verbally demonstrating to aziraphale how he feels. aziraphale did the same action but mirrored by - however misguided - offering crowley the chance to be restored.

but neither want what the other is giving; they want what the other usually does to show their affection. aziraphale wants crowley to demonstrate his willingness to be with aziraphale by coming with him to heaven, and crowley wants aziraphale to acknowledge what he is telling aziraphale and respond in kind. neither are at fault for wanting that; they have simply demonstrated their devotion to each other in different ways, but those ways have been quite damaging.

crowley does do a lot for aziraphale, that can't be denied, but AoS is way more demonstrative, and yet it's easy to miss what those acts are actually saying. WoA can be more casual but the words you choose speak volumes... "our car/bookshop", "id love for you to help me", "my friend crowley", etc.

whilst i don't necessarily subscribe to the psychology of love languages, they're useful for this sort of analysis. aziraphale does even branch out in other languages; he is constantly touching crowley this season; the pub, the ball, the bookshop in early ep6. quality time is a given, and has always been their common ground. giving gifts im not so sure on, but i think the significance of readily offering crowley the bookshop as being his - something that was wholly aziraphale's, not heaven's, and is aziraphale's own sanctuary - spoke volumes.

specifically in ep5 however, aziraphale really goes ham in demonstrating to crowley how he sees love, defines it, and that he could give this to crowley - the pinnacle of this being the dance and the evident romantic implications of it... it summarises all of aziraphale's own romantic idealistic make-up; touching, intimate conversation, choosing crowley as his partner, romantic literature, classical music, etc.

and whilst comedic and obviously reflective of crowley being otherwise preoccupied re: demon incursion, i also thought that the physical imagery of aziraphale literally dragging him to the dancefloor, and crowley questioning when they've ever danced in the past, was particularly telling about crowley's reaction to how aziraphale is trying to convey to him, without saying the words, that he loves him.

aziraphale in s2 truly does give crowley everything that he can. his love is quiet, and gentle, and romantic, and whilst not as high stakes as saving aziraphale's life, it is still valid. however, it seems that where aziraphale seems to have recognised his feelings quite early on and acknowledged them early on, having time to settle them into his soul (even if he couldn't act for fear of heaven), s2 seems to indicate that crowley refused to acknowledge his until the eleventh hour.

but crowley's love has been there all along, ticking away. ignoring his tendency to stick his oar in where it isn't needed (saving aziraphale and treating him as if he were made of glass), he shows his love in his own ways - following aziraphale around soho, silently supportive, admires him for calming down the bookshop and handling the IB situation, tidies the bookshop for him (which also possibly indicates that he's now finally accepting the bookshop as his home), etc.

both of them take a swan dive in the declaring-love endgame in ep6, but neither of them are responsive to the love language that they usually give. aziraphale is given words but wants actions, and crowley is given actions but wants words. the chronic lack of communication between the two of them throughout the show is the main contributing factor to this disconnect, and leads to serious ramifications in their ability to possibly mend it going into s3.

aziraphale: pre-fall

at the risk of daring to contradict LWA✨ in their assessment of aziraphale's feelings towards the angel-who-crowley-was (AWCW) in the pre-fall scene, upon reflection i don't get the sense that aziraphale falls in love with AWCW in this moment. and exactly as pointed out by @assiraphales, we don't have any of the gaps filled in between this scene and The Wall, so it's arguably unknown when exactly those feelings deepened.

there is definitely attraction of some kind (can angels experience physical attraction? presumably they do, if aziraphale thought the "gorgeous" comment was directed at him), an admiration of AWCW's abilities, and an immediate concern for AWCW's wellbeing if he were to question god. but i don't get the sense that he falls in love; more that he's bumped into a cool, attractive kid outside his locker and immediately starts spouting angelic heart eyes, and at the least develops an immediate fascination.

AWCW is presented as being rather classist in this scene, and whilst not outright maliciously rude, he definitely seems to look down on aziraphale, or consider him relatively inconsequential. which is odd, because i think if he actually listened to what aziraphale was telling him, aziraphale actually comes across as having his own brand of status. i can't imagine that any bog-standard angel would be entrusted with helping god with building Her ultimate creation, building humans, and being allowed to see the Great Plan. whilst maybe not the same level as AWCW, i think the fandom is underplaying aziraphale's own significance in this part of the story.

the fact remains however that the aziraphale we see in this scene is still the fundamental foundation of the aziraphale we see later on in the story. AWCW calls for him as he's wandering (rocketing) past, and aziraphale doesn't hesitate to come to AWCW's aid. he's presumably going somewhere, but prioritises helping someone who needs him, and does so out of kindness and then, it seems later on, out of attraction.

he recognises the achievement of AWCW's nebula, asks questions to learn more (and thus demonstrating his interest) of the construction and purpose of AWCW's craft, and outright compliments it for its brilliance and wonder. all behaviours that id say is rooted in wanting to establish a friendship, and meanwhile developing an arguably shallow crush.

i think that these are also general admirations that aziraphale brings forward as he gets to know crowley as a demon, but has to adjust his world-view that he may admire the principle if not the act; he thinks crowley is clever and fun and talented, even if he doesn't condone the new ways in which crowley displays this.

there are definitely times where aziraphale is still caught up in crowley being a good person and concluding that crowley must still be an angel in all but name, but i do not necessarily think that he thinks lesser of crowley as a demon out of maliciousness. i think it's hard for aziraphale to conflate the two ideas that a) crowley has moments of being a good person regardless of hellish or heavenly identity, and that b) crowley doesn't want to be an angel. aziraphale still parallels good with angelicness, holds being good (and therefore being an angel) as the epitome of character, and can't as a result understand that if they were given the opportunity to change and improve the bad bits of heaven, why crowley wouldn't want to help him.

as LWA✨ says, the further we see their story progress, it becomes clear that aziraphale then begins to hold himself above crowley morally, and this is largely lynch-pinned on their separate identities as an angel and demon respectively. aziraphale constantly bats crowley down and puts him back in his place throughout s1, but less so in s2; in this, id refer back to aziraphale's insecurity around his being a good enough angel, but now that we have the context of AWCW having been aziraphale's technical superior, doing this possibly helps him to feel better about himself. this is abhorrent behaviour and is not at all kind, that can't be denied, but i think it is however possible to empathise with it.

aziraphale has spent a long time having an endless reserve of love and not having a lot of places where he can meaningfully channel it. he's got humanity and earth, but whilst he certainly cares for it, it doesn't mean that he candidly loves it. he still feels kinship to heaven and the other angels, but he certainly doesn't love them. in fact the only person he's ever had to fully pour out his love has been into crowley, but faced with the prospect that crowley may still be like his angelic self in that regard (ie not love him back), i think that love has been repressed so much that it's almost atrophied and turned self-destructive and self-sabotaging. in that context, whilst awful and generally inexcusable, aziraphale's behaviour starts to make sense.

crowley: Lucifer theory

i will preface this by saying that despite initial excitement, i don't necessarily think that crowley was lucifer in the colloquialised sense that we regard lucifer in general culture, but perhaps more represents lucifer in the wider sense of having a story that mirrors the one we can somewhat attribute to lucifer. whether or not he will actually be named as lucifer i think is up for debate, but in any case let's take a look at what lucifer's story actually entailed.

now i realise that i am absolutely not an expert on the matter, but there are indeed a wealth of misinterpretations where lucifer as a biblical figure is concerned. i am very behind on this discussion, angelology (shudder) is not in my limited repertoire of specialist subjects, and i welcome anyone else adding in their thoughts on the matter.

but if anyone else has zero knowledge on lucifer, like me, we'll start with the basics as i see them. name coming from the Latin for light- or dawn-bringer, lucifer has been linked to the planet venus in various tellings in roman mythology. given the occasional bright illumination of the planet as seen from earth, this is in part where we coming to the moniker Morningstar when also historically referring to lucifer. so on this base level, we have the link between lucifer and crowley by way of celestial context.

now down to a potential mistranslation, the hebrew for the name of satan, helel, has become synonymous with the name lucifer, down to their respective translations akin to the Latin for 'light-bringer'/'morningstar' as above, but that does not necessarily indicate that lucifer and satan are the same being. so this is where im fairly confident in that whoever crowley was, which is possibly lucifer, his story ran parallel to that of the former relatively unknown being and not the latter more infamous one.

crowley has referenced lucifer in s1, which has led to the debunk that the two are the same being, but when rewatching it, i think it can be completely reinterpreted:

c: "i never asked to be a demon. i was just minding my own business one day and then... "oh lookie here, it's lucifer and the guys!"... ah, hey - the food hadn't been that good lately, i didn't have anything on for the rest of the afternoon..."

this doesn't need to mean that AWCW was the one who came across lucifer and cohort, but possibly that someone else did, or just exclaiming it in the general sense. getting whimsical in the headcanon space, AWCW may well have been enjoying his afternoon, chatting with friends that he thought he could trust, and thought he could share his thoughts on challenging how things are run (same as he did with aziraphale). evidently, whatever happened completely bit him on the arse, and at minimum partially resulted in his fall.

there are multiple references to crowley being at least an angel of import, almost too many to count. however a common theme in many references to venus in various religious and mythological texts is the concept of reaching for higher power, but to be cast down and punished for it. given the indication (iirc) from interviews and also the pre-fall scene that crowley was up for collaborating with god on how to improve things in heaven, it could stand to reason that in a moment of anger or frustration he voices the thought that he could do a better job running the place.

and if other angels were behind him in this, equally dissatisfied with their lot in heaven, and being set aside by god in favour of humanity, it similarly wouldnt be a huge leap to think that this one sentence, this singular half-baked thought, might have precipitated the war. following said war, as LWA✨ suggests, it would make sense that in an effort to lick his wounds and keep a low profile, crowley would take or accept a middling rank in hell, and possibly even volunteer for the assignment of original sin; all the more opportunity to remove himself completely from the narrative between heaven and hell.

which then, now that i think about it, completely recontextualises crowley's aversion to being a part in helping aziraphale rebuild heaven. why would he want to, why wouldn't he be petrified of it, when the last time went so badly? there must be a sense of resentment towards aziraphale in this regard - what makes aziraphale, a potentially lower angel, so special that he would be invited to completely revolutionise heaven, when all AWCW did was make suggestions, and end up being villified for it? if he did join aziraphale, and challenged him, would aziraphale then be forced to cast crowley out again? what would crowley stand to lose this time?

so this is where i think the concept of crowley having a huge secret that he's keeping from aziraphale comes into play, and i agree must come out in s3. it would completely derail any faith that aziraphale had in crowley, for him to have kept such vital information from him, his potential part in the fall. i could imagine aziraphale interpreting the reveal of this secret as being that crowley fooled and hoodwinked him, however false or unintentional that might have been, and it representing the last vestige of aziraphale's innocence and naivety being swept away.

edit, because @baggvinshield has put this theory so eloquently and with far more comprehension and education than i could hope for: Lucifer theory

there are so many more topics that i have sat in various documents and in my notes as concerns these two characters; aziraphale's obsession with control and 'playing god', their shared inability to communicate effectively and meaningfully, crowley and his propensity for unintentional temptation, whether the love between them truly equates to any semblance of trust, etc etc. some of these topics have been alluded to in the above, but i felt that the above essay might be sufficient reading for now. im adoring (if a little bemused by it) the amount of discussion this silly little blog is generating, and im always more than happy to share my thoughts on anything GO-related where people want it!!!

and now - back to answering the hundreds of asks that have accumulated whilst i've hyperfixated on the above. ta-rah!✨💓

#good omens #good omens season two #good omens spoilers #good omens 2 spoilers #good omens meta #good omens analysis #good omens speculation #not a shitpost but its good omens babyyyy #ask #the great go angelology debate of july 2023 #aka 'was crowley an archangel and was he raphael? answer: fuck knows' #the legend of the longwinded anon✨ #🚨 lucifer theory🚨

[thesherrinfordfacility]

Crowley's flaws: I think Gaiman accidentally wrote himself into a hole that he either doesn't see or doesn't know how to escape, and he fell into the hole when he decided to turn what was a political allegory into a psychologized relationship issue. Pratchett's understanding of evil is rooted in post-WWII thinking about totalitarianism, in which unthinkable acts are perpetrated by bureaucracies staffed by "normal" people, and resistance comes from individuals who become aware of what this routinization really conceals. This is consistent across the Discworld novels, not just GO. What GO does is take this point and filter it through C. S. Lewis' THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS (the hell-as-bureaucracy model, which NG and TP then extend to Heaven). In the novel, there's a direct line from Crowley's "hung out with the wrong people" to the moment at the airfield when he tries to reject Aziraphale's claim that they're both responsible for the mess the humans are in because they were "only doing our jobs." That's a textbook example of what we now call the Nuremberg defense ("just following orders/just doing my job"). The fandom loves romanticizing this aspect of Crowley's character--he has trauma! he's a proto-Marxist with demonic class consciousness!--but when Crowley busts out this kind of reasoning, he gives way to /evil/, just as Aziraphale does when he tries to justify the ways of Heaven to himself. Any fan who wants to be uncomfortable ought to read Hannah Arendt's EICHMANN IN JERUSALEM and then go back and look at Crowley's dialogue again, because boy howdy. But when it comes to their relationship, the transgression is not /personal/.

In the series, the political allegory has vanished, and the direct line runs from Crowley's "it's not my fault" to manipulating Aziraphale into killing the Antichrist. So far, so good, sort of? Gaiman had to remind the fandom that we aren't supposed to buy Crowley's excuses, all of which are bad. He's called out on the "why me" bit three times in the first episode alone. But by the end, there is no sign that Aziraphale understands that he has been manipulated, and no sign that Crowley understands that he did something wrong! The moral epiphany Crowley had in the novel vanishes, so we are left with a nasty /personal/ transgression that neither character understands as such. Aziraphale, by contrast, keeps owning up to his mistakes (at the bar, to Adam during the timestop, on the park bench). Part of this has to do with comedy and its lack of object permanence, so to speak. However, instead of facing up to the conflict it's created for itself, the series drops the whole thing like a Hellfire-hot potato, and so appears to conclude that there's nothing wrong when one character repeatedly takes advantage of another one's gullibility, sometimes in destructive ways. The question is to what extent the new writer has any opinions about this, or even notices.

i have no words........ 👀 a very interesting and thought-provoking take. i dig it. i never thought to look at the tonal comparison of the book vs. the show but this is... eye-opening. yes. YES. (and this doesn't mean that the characters nor the story are unlikeable. it means they have depth but that depth sinks into murky, terrifying, bottomless oceans just as much as clear, shiny, crystal-like reefs). YES.

also anon if you are comfortable pls message me direct i just wanna give u a lil virtual kiss a lil smooch✨

#good omens #good omens season 2 #good omens spoilers #good omens 2 spoilers #i know a fair bit about ww2 socio-politics so im actually going to screenshot this and study it later but #oh man #this is a Something Else post #nonnie you have an acute and sharp mind god bless you #i love this i live for it #YUMMY. FUCKING. SOUP🍲 #also my analogy is SHITE but mea culpa i am trying to work at the same time as this #not a shitpost but its good omens babyyyy #ask #the legend of the longwinded anon✨

[thesherrinfordfacility]

Second Coming: it will be interesting to see if the third series, if we get one, follows up the hint from the novel that the resurrection has already happened. (It's the third baby from the swap, Greasy Johnson, leader of the opposing gang and /very/ good with breeding fish.)

...now the thing is, anon, that this has sent me into a spiral; that spiral being me thinking "nah neil didn't write him into s1 (iirc) for timing/relevancy reasons, he won't be the second coming it's too out of field to randomly bring him in now",

and then in the next thought,

💀"neil didnt write him into s1"💀

edit: follow-up theory/analysis/meta/speculation

#if this is in any way right we're going to have to burn you as a witch im afraid #good omens #ask #not a shitpost but its good omens babyyyy #pls excuse this answer anon i promise im more intelligent but ive just downed a pint pre-screening to stay my nerves #im sure you understand #pretty sure this is once again #the legend of the longwinded anon✨

[thesherrinfordfacility]

The decision to give Crowley a massive power-up is annoying, in light of the novel's/series' original themes, but OK, it's happened. In light of the potential conflict in S3, I think the current speculation that he's /Lucifer/, not Raphael, makes sense: to balance them out, if Aziraphale is trying to stop the war in Heaven as the Supreme Archangel, then the initial "Arrangement" would be Crowley going back to Hell in an equivalent role to try to do the same. (With Aziraphale being the one to suggest the possibility, to mirror Crowley in S1.) Cue the usual disasters that follow when these characters try to follow a plan.

i do wonder sometimes if different factions of this fandom occupy a hive mind👀✨

#good omens #good omens season 2 #good omens spoilers #good omens 2 spoilers #not a shitpost but its good omens babyyyy #ask #the great go angelology debate of july 2023 #aka 'was crowley an archangel and was he raphael? answer: fuck knows' #wait hang on is this #the legend of the longwinded anon✨ #it sure reads like it is

[thesherrinfordfacility]

Longwinded anon from yesterday again:) The thing about Crowley's self-contradictory narratives about his Fall, which are a warning that the viewer/reader should PROCEED WITH CAUTION, is that Gaiman writes all of them in ways that don't just diminish Crowley's responsibility, but also diminish just whom he was "hanging out" with. At the end of the day, there is nothing in canon or in Word of God *cough* to suggest that Lucifer & co. are anything other than evil according to our understanding of the term. God is also horrible--the novel and the series both take the bog-standard theological position "God's ways cannot be reduced to human concepts of good and evil" and push it to the logical conclusion--but "Lucy and the boys" are not an improvement, even though Crowley conceals that by talking about them as though they're random teenagers hanging out on the street corner getting up to random teenage mischief. (Insert my irritated rant here about the "God ships it!" trope in this fandom, which in the moral universe of the novel/series has horrific implications.) It's a revolt in which the revolutionary leaders are at best identical to the regime they're revolting against, and produce an outcome that's just as oppressive.

Crowley keeps trying to pretend that he didn't choose to do anything, but he's in a plot where free will means that it's paramount that you admit you have choices, make them, and then take responsibility for the results. Both the novel & the series explicitly come out and say this, in different ways, during the climax at the airfield. Crowley /chose/ to hang out with some terrible people, even though Crowley himself is not fundamentally terrible. He's just morally flawed like Aziraphale is (and Aziraphale's own journey in series one involves realizing that he has also /chosen/ to be with some terrible people and taking action to remedy that). But if you decide to chill out with [insert horrible political group here], then other people get to ask some hard questions and arrive at some hard conclusions about your own politico-moral beliefs. There's been a summary of the standard Vimes plot in Discworld circulating around Tumblr for a while, in which Vimes screws up, realizes that he screwed up, and decides to stop screwing up, but still has to accept the consequences of screwing up. That's also Crowley's plot, by and large, except Crowley so far has not been so great with step four.

hello Longwinded Anon✨ hope you dont mind the delay but after your first ask, and now this one, I wanted to ruminate on it all a little more in the hope i can respond with my own thoughts perhaps a little more intelligently... rather than you catching me when my feed was going beserk and also having to work in human-being world which was (as impeccable cosmic timing wills it so) also very busy - hence brain at the time being the consistency of melted chocolate icing.

for anyone else reading, the previous ask is here along with my original dumbass reply, but full response to that and this current ask are under the cut (she's lengthy, apologies in advance) (no seriously, a huge post but in my defence there is a lot to unpack from these asks)

first off, i think your reflection on how crowley was written, honestly, is exactly how he should be written, or at least is a very authentic way to write him.

i feel like some writers write characters the same way that one raises a child; the situations and dynamics you expose them to, the lessons you teach them... and what - over time - comes out are decisions, thought processes, personality traits and opinions that one is sometimes shocked by, surprised by, and even sometimes appalled by. this to me is the most truthful way you can make a character come alive off the page; they feel like theyve not just stepped fully formed out of someone's imagination, but have been nurtured into being exactly who they were always going to be, and even then may still have some growing to do.

so this is how i see crowley's character, in the abstract. he is, the same as any one of us, a product of his experiences and lessons. it doesnt matter if he only exists on paper or indeed on tv; any well written character will feel like they are a person that sometimes you will be shocked, surprised, or appalled by. you'd hope that whatever situation they come across, they make the right decisions. and that's why crowley being an arguably immoral character is so fascinating to me, and right, correct, and appropriate. i think he's written exactly how he should be written for this reason.

anyway i digress. i see your point about how possibly an overarching concept of 'political allegory', as you succinctly put it, morphed somewhat into being something way more subjective and personal, and possibly wasnt meant to be. but respectfully (genuinely welcome your thoughts here, i think i might have misinterpreted), isnt that the entire point? whatever kaleidoscope the concept of objective morality - the argument of right vs. wrong, good vs. evil - is seen through, doesnt it all boil down to how we think and act as people on the smallest of scales?

to me yes, crowley's self justification of his actions are very reminiscent of the idea of responsibility in command, in that he effectively appears to wash his hands of said responsibility when there is a higher entity to own it for him. there is validity to the nuremberg defence as a concept, but it has to be rationalised against the result - "do the ends justify the means?", as ive said before - and in many peoples lives, we literally justify our actions because we're just doing what we're told.

hardly the same scale as say the apocalypse or mass genocide, granted. but my point stands; morality to me is a fallible construct, same as anything else. why is what is evil, evil? and what is good, good? who decides that? and when is a good action necessary for the sake of evil, and an evil action necessary for the sake of good? doesnt that by definition mean that the good action becomes an evil one, and vice versa? how far does the stain spread when it makes contact?

a lot of what i do in my own job could be considered immoral on paper in actual physical words (and i wont go into further detail for risk of doxxing myself lol). but who is to decide that, when i can justify what i do because im told to do it by far more significant people than myself, and that accountability is removed from me? and also because i know that i am doing it for a good reason? things that on face value, in black and white, seem questionable, until i told you the context in which i do them?

context is key to morality. someone that gives to charity and promotes for good causes to the point of being awarded prestigious titles and rewards can be found to have essentially done it in order to commit evil atrocities. and suddenly, that evil taints the good immediately... the good even amplifies the evil of that initial action. what was initially evil is now even more evil because the conduit was something good.

context, and full, complete context, is not only key, but it is inescapably necessary when discussing morality.

this is where i come back to my interpretation of not only aziraphale and crowley, but good omens in general. the bureaucratic setting for this story's concept of good and evil trivialises this, and i think its meant to. the sterile nature of heaven/hell in GO is the perfect backdrop because i think it makes you as the reader/viewer misguidedly downplay the concept of morality, when instead as the reader you should be seeing it even more obviously than before.

yes its obviously comedic and very droll - and i love it equally for that reason; most of us have all had shitty office jobs and equally shitty bosses - but to me the main thing i take away from the sterile, efficient nature of penthouse heaven and the messy, filthy chaos of basement hell is that evil has nowhere to hide in the former, and good is practically a beacon in the latter.

crowley to me - for all the things that i love about him - is the character out of our duo that actively warps amd distorts the context. he plainly chooses to remain blind to certain aspects, because, frankly, it suits him. he completely disregards that he is in fact in charge of his actions, and that he alone is accountable for them. "but he loves the earth, wants to save it, he's threatened by hell, he's traumatised from the fall, he just wants a home", yes, that's all possibly true, and thats the context, but all of it is to his own benefit.

(i will add here that the descriptor of crowley as a "proto-Marxist with demon-class consciousness" was - well, to this house comprising of two political history enthusiasts, VERY funny)

he is, first and foremost a demon, and it's not a demons job to be altruistic, that's true. and crowley has moments of kindness yes (debatable book vs show imo), but does that justify his actions? him doing a bad thing (planning to kill a child) for a good reason (save the world) - shouldnt that, by the same logic, stain the good? in my opinion, it does. because he wants to save the earth for his own ends (which to be fair to him- absolutely understandable), but saving humanity seems to be just a byproduct. and in the same vein, just because he is under pressure and is scared, does not mean that he has any moral high ground in tempting aziraphale to kill warlock.

i still cannot fathom how anyone would try to trick their friend (crush? lover? partner?) into committing such an act. antichrist or not, killing an eleven year old boy. in the show specifically, aziraphale evidently displays discomfort with the idea, and abruptly shakes off the temptation and changes the subject. but even when aziraphale is clearly upset by the prospect, crowley pushes. and pushes. silver tongue indeed. to me, and this again would be a separate post, makes me wonder how convenient it has been all along for crowley to be friends with aziraphale. his feelings may have developed since or he may have had an initial crush, I don't know, but how much of that emerging and later established friendship went hand-in-hand with aziraphale just simply being useful to crowley?

theres no apology for the warlock temptation, and this to me is because aziraphale either doesn't realise that he did what he did, or because he's choosing to dismiss it; either option shows the huge amount of blind and arguably naive faith that aziraphale has in crowley (not going over this again, but ive touched on this here, but put it this way - aziraphale really has his faults where faith is concerned, and imo is part of why he and crowley came to verbal blows about how to handle armageddon - aziraphale has real issues with faith and pedestals). and like you intimated, anon, does crowley realise this? take advantage of this, because it suits him? yes, i think he does.

honestly congratulations to anyone who has made it this far (including you, anon), but the party isn't over yet!

so i made a post earlier about crowley's fall, and how obvious it now seems (anon may agree or disagree) that crowley's reason for falling is either complete bullshit, or was concocted by a higher power than himself. now i said jokingly in the tags that i hope its the latter because im a sucker for a It Was All For A Reason trope, the romantic that i am, but of course it may be neither, or even a bit of both. only time will tell, just have to wait and see.

but in response to your point about the difference (or there lack of) between god and the archangels, and 'lucifer and the guyyyys', it too (as i think youre getting at) demonstrates to me the differences in the respective definitions of revolution vs rebellion. a power vacuum that is replaced with an equally shit alternative is not change, progressive or inert; its just an insurrection that only succeeds to change the letterhead on the stationery.

i take it from the next bit of your ask that you consider free will to be a complete, comprehensive concept in heaven; that they are free to ask questions, to hang out with who they want etc. and i completely agree based on those examples; it must exist. but i come back to my previous point on whether (in essence) morality can truly be defined without context, and if so how this works with free will.

so, i appreciate that there must be the concept of fear in heaven if angels are discouraged (forbidden?) from questioning god, but is there any concept of punishment in heaven at this point, do you think?

my understanding is that there isn't; that falling wasnt a concept until The Fall, so what else could happen to an angel that starting exercising free will a bit too far? do you think it would follow the same bit (refrained from the word 'gimmick' here) as heaven being a corporate office; if you ask god a question she doesn't like, do you get stuck on the recycling roster? /j

the archangels are portrayed as being practically morally vacant; is that not similarly punishable? i guess what im leading to is: do you think crowley, at this point, whilst able to exercise free will, even understood the implications of hanging out with these people? would he have continued to do so if he had had the benefit of experience to know why they were a Bad Thing that he Shouldnt Get Involved With - experience of which presumably he didnt have before he fell?

obviously this doesnt invalidate the simple fact that crowley doesnt appear to have learnt from his experiences when he rises again as a demon and up until where his story is now. but if crowley is still mentally and emotionally stuck at the moment in time that he fell, stuck in that moment like a perpetually shaken snowglobe, unable to accept that that was the consequence of his actions, does that say more about his character, or more about whether his fall was justifiable in the first place? or... is that the point?

i hope you don't mind that i barely talked about aziraphale; my mental acuity has dropped significantly in the last two hours, but in any case i hope to see you in my asks again soon, anon✨

#good omens #crowley #not a shitpost but its good omens babyyyy #as may be abundantly clear from this post #i have a habit of Not Getting To The Point #and a similarly frustrating habit of talking about stuff noone asked for #but enjoy i... guess? #ask #tldr: rhi gets on her uneducated philosophical bullshit once again #personal #because of the personal reference that i may live to regret #the legend of the longwinded anon✨

[thesherrinfordfacility]

Longwinded anon again (thanks for the kind words!): You've brought out a few things in your last posts that crystalized some of my thoughts about the hole I complained about in one of my first posts here, left by the decision to never acknowledge that Crowley successfully tempts Aziraphale to try to kill the Antichrist. After S1 aired, Gaiman commented in an interview that Crowley does not have an actual character arc in S1. He is at the end what he was at the beginning. And my response at the time was, well, wait, he does have a transformative moment in the novel, this is strange. I think S2 in fact explores that lack of arc in an interesting way, and it /does/ think about the larger moral issues involved in the Antichrist temptation without referencing it directly.

Both S1 and S2 rely heavily on mirroring, included warped mirroring, to approach narrative structure and character development. In S1, after Aziraphale's discorporation, Crowley tries to reconstruct their normal dynamic--Crowley plays the white knight, Aziraphale the damsel in distress--on his arrival at the airfield, when he swaggers over from the burning Bentley and assures Aziraphale that he'll take care of the soldier ("Leave it to me"). Then the script /literally/ blows up the dynamic when the Bentley explodes, Crowley gets distracted, and Aziraphale has to take care of the soldier himself. And, of course, at the end the dynamic has been altered, because they save each other in the bodyswap. This looks like the relationship is now on a mutual egalitarian footing! Hooray!

...except S2 demonstrates that Crowley /liked/ the original dynamic, and he spends the season trying to manhandle (demonhandle?) Aziraphale back into it. Aziraphale asks for help with Gabriel, but Crowley interprets "help" as an excuse to play the strong protector again, through a combination of forced innocence (Crowley spends this season /not/ telling Aziraphale some important things about Gabriel and Heaven that Aziraphale needed and deserved to know) and, in the lead-up to the demon attack, outright dismissiveness of Aziraphale's ability to handle the situation. You referenced the dialogue there, which mirrors the "Leave it to me" of S1. But in S1, Aziraphale /was/ willing to leave it to Crowley, whereas here Aziraphale tries to assert his own capability and Crowley brushes it off. Nina, the character self-aware about being trapped in an abusive situation, temporarily stops the plot to call this out, and while Aziraphale cheerfully admits to being aware of what's going on (something left ambiguous in S1), unlike Nina he doesn't admit or doesn't see that what makes Crowley "happy" rests on perceiving Aziraphale as less capable and less powerful. Both physically (Aziraphale needs Crowley to fight for him) and psychologically (Aziraphale needs Crowley to protect him from full knowledge of his execution and from any knowledge that Heaven might murder him for helping Gabriel). I know that the fanfic community has quickly glommed onto "Aziraphale must apologize to the poor wronged demon" plots, but Crowley's inability to think himself out of this inegalitarian dynamic contributes directly to the break-up at the end of ep6, not least because we see him /help/ maintain Aziraphale's innocence about the extent of Heaven's malice.

good morning (well, it was morning when i started) LWA!!!✨ no problem at all, you're very welcome!!!

(further ask screenshots under the cut).

oh gosh yes i remember the ask you mean (everyone else, i believe it's this one). stating the obvious, if my previous posts criticising him are anything to go by, but the whole scene where crowley tempts aziraphale re: antichrist really does unnerve me, and was one of the key reasons why I think - although I do genuinely think crowley is a very empathetic character - i've always gravitated to aziraphale more. the parallel narrative of nina, with her story of surviving and escaping psychological and emotional abuse, really puts the spotlight on the level of aziraphale's naivety and indoctrination with anyone or anything that he believes confers any kind of worth onto him.

trauma from abuse does not stop when one escapes it, because it truly does alter your brain chemistry and emotional make-up into being more susceptible to finding any alternative that will give you a sense of value again. others have clearly remarked on it, but that is the most revelatory moment as concerns nina, for me; her knowledge of self and that she knows her own value, despite her recent abusive experience, is what diverts her parallel storyline with maggie into an adjacent position to aziraphale and crowley's.

and that's a really powerful point; i know that many people have remarked on the correlation between aziraphale and religious brainwashing (especially as concerns its relationship to queer identity, which is very, very valid), but i think what some may be refusing to also see is that aziraphale, in a very unique and particular way, is potentially experiencing some small, or large depending on your perspective, level of similar abusive behaviour (bracing myself for impact re: that statement).

i despair for aziraphale throughout most of the show, in that i interpret him as not only feeling that he's not enough ("that's okay, as long as i'm enough for crowley to see any worth in me") but also because he can't seem to see that anyone that wholly cares about him should be making him feel that he is more than enough, and accepting of every part of him - even his shortcomings. he shouldn't need to be manipulated into anything; he is by large an inherently good and loving person (as far as we've been shown), is shown to gravitate towards those that might need his help (*cough* crowley), and that the fact that he can't seem to see that if others do not trust or like him enough to be honest and vulnerable with him, when he hasn't really done anything to make them believe that they can't, that is entirely their issue/failing, not his.

such, to me, is why his decision to break away and follow his own path to heaven, following an opportunity to do something not only largely altruistic but also something that might help him develop a sense of value entirely on his own, is exactly the right decision for him to make when taking all of this emotional and psychological context into consideration.

as discussed in the last ask, crowley does appear to have a tendency for making aziraphale seem or feel lesser than him, by way of the dance (humiliation), disingenuous apologies (gaslighting), keeping secrets (imbalanced power dynamic) and constantly saving him and dismissing his ability to save himself (removing agency). crowley in contrast to aziraphale has his own brand of insecurity but that is in my opinion not rooted in a lack of self-worth. it is rooted in knowing that he had and has much to give, but it being rejected.

i hate to defer to psychological terminology that is innately human when referring to supernatural beings, but for lack of a better option; crowley's cognitive dissonance in ep6 of his belief ("helping to improve heaven is useless and they'll never change") and his action (manipulates aziraphale into trying to stay with him, ignoring aziraphale's own wants and aspirations) result in his choosing to believe that aziraphale doesn't love him for who he is - choosing the rejection narrative - rather than choosing to trust in aziraphale that they have the ability, together, to make a change that will benefit them as much as everyone else (which is what aziraphale is inviting him to).

the fact that this is rooted in rejection is key. i think it's fairly clear that crowley thinks himself to be of a higher status than aziraphale, harking back to his angel era (or at least purposefully tries to maintain the illusion that he is, rather than accept that they're - you know - equal). the overwhelming need, it seems, to plough on ahead and force aziraphale to keep pace with him whether he likes it or not, speaks to me of his committing to a 'failsafe' action that will protect him from being rejected, regardless of whatever good or clever thing he does, and this will naturally originate from the fall. as you say, aziraphale is similarly wrapped up in asserting his own superiority, especially where morality is concerned and thinking that he knows best for crowley in offering him restoration, but again - I feel like this stems from insecurity, especially in the face of a demon that is, to him, utterly brilliant and smart and sly, but also good and kind and brave.

neither are in the right - both are very much in the wrong - for even entertaining this mindset, but i do feel that once again crowley tips the scale on the morality front here. both were made to suffer from various trauma at the hands of heaven and hell, but the fact that crowley seems to perpetuate it with aziraphale (however much with original good intention, and perhaps without malicious intention) and so successfully to the point that aziraphale a) doesn't even really see it until ep6, and b) if aziraphale does see it, he possibly feels that it all that he deserves, is incredibly alarming.

in terms of a resolution, LWA✨, you've beaten me to the point i was going to make when your first ask came in! we are seeing two characters that were originally conceptualised as one, and now broken apart (both literally by way of the character design as well as in the narrative). i therefore find that the body swap in s1 was indeed the big hint to the audience (and should have been a big hint to aziraphale and crowley) that they are reflections of each other, and that is by extension the solution.

them simply forgiving each other and having meaningful communication is not going to be the Big Solution that makes them connect again. to me, there needs to be - after an actual, heartfelt apology and subsequent communication - a full, complete acceptance of each other, of their individual and conflicting minds, fears, wants, and ideologies, and understanding that they do not need, in fact, to be in conflict with each other, but instead are literally built as being complementary halves of the same coin✨

edit because i didn't address it: in my mind, my own personal, metaphorical jury is out on why the joint miracle had the result that it did, but the concept of it being literally because it's aziraphale and crowley working in harmony together is really intriguing!!!

#good omens #good omens season 2 #good omens spoilers #good omens 2 spoilers #not a shitpost but its good omens babyyyy #ask #the legend of the longwinded anon✨

[thesherrinfordfacility]

LWA: I'm procrastinating again from professional writing, so I'll take the opportunity of you being uncomfortable with "God Ships It" to do my rant. When I started attempting to read GO fanfic, I was startled by how...panicked?...it is about the source material. The panic is most obvious when it comes to dealing with any of Crowley's character flaws--this is a fandom that gets very sentimental about how cruel Crowley might be to his plants, but then does a Bentley-sized swerve when it comes to how cruel Crowley is to /Aziraphale/ when he /successfully/ manipulates him into trying to kill the Antichrist for him--but it also comes out in its treatment of religion.

The irony of post-S2 fanfic is that pre-S2 fanfic overwhelmingly endorses Aziraphale's attitude to Heaven (without realizing it). That is, it implicitly or explicitly assumes that Heaven has become warped in the absence of God, and that the presence of God Herself (or Himself, in the novel) would provide the "good" alternative. Heaven, that is, can be reformed if the real authority would just stand up. Moreover, there are multiple fics that really do assume that being an angel is better than being a demon because angelic grace means they are still in touch with the divine, and there are even fics that posit how great it would be if Crowley were reinstated to angelic status. "God ships it" rests on the assumption that the GO God is "good," that His/Her "shipping" is beneficent and rooted in care specifically for the protagonists (particularly if it proves to be part of the ineffable plan), and that His/Her imprimatur is desirable and necessary.

None of these assumptions are supported by the novel or series. (I keep wanting to write "Source for this claim?" in the margins.) Gaiman inadvertently sets the stage for "God ships it" by making God the narrator in S1, but "God reports it" is not the same as "God ships it." More to the point, both the novel and the series reject the terms of Pascal's Wager: if we cannot be assured of the existence of God or the nature of God's will, GO responds, then the correct course of action is to locate moral authority "on the ground," as it were, in human communities, and to proceed as if /God does not exist./ (Anathema burning the second book of prophecies is a case in point.) Moreover, in the series we are shown repeatedly that God's actions violate human (and angelic and demonic) moral norms, particularly in repeated sacrifices of children, and viewers are not invited to side with God! There is no evidence that the GO God is good, or loving, or even fundamentally decent in a way that can be articulated in terms of earthly morality. God's ways are incomprehensible, which is why, as I said before, attempts to do theology in GO-verse don't arrive at anything coherent. There is certainly no sign that God thinking you're a great person is going to do wonders for you (see: Job). And after seeing what God either causes to happen directly or allows to happen by withdrawing, there are no circumstances under which centering the protagonists' love lives makes God look any better. ("Isn't it amazing that all the horrors of the past several millennia had to happen just so Aziraphale and Crowley could be in love?") Finally, the "shipping" suggests that it is /desirable/ that the characters' love be divinely authorized or that they should be outright directed into a relationship by providential means, even though GO is all about the centrality of free will and the necessity of learning how to choose. So...no.

hey, look LWA; far be it for me to tell you how to spend your breaks in between work but i do have to question your decision that any part of that break is spent delivering Hot Tea to my inbox - but im never going to complain about it, rant away!!!✨ (also - hope the writing is going well, procrastination or no!!!)

it does make me uncomfortable for this one simple reason:

"god does not play dice with the universe. i play an ineffable game of my own devising."

so look - i know it's literally god speaking. she can do as she pleases, whatever. but to think that she tampers with her best and yet most ironic invention truly unnerves me - that she takes free will, and manipulates it to her design - and even more alarming is that that design is completely unknown and unknowable to anyone other than her. honestly, it's this kind of thought that makes me steer well clear of any religious leanings personally; people will make decisions and will mess them up and will succeed with them, but the thought that those occurrences were "god's will", or down to a higher power... well, it's not a good feeling, in my opinion. extrapolate that thought to any real life scenario as you will.

but in any case, to apply this to GO gives me the same sense of unease. i have still the thought that there is going to be a clear, definitive line between the great plan and the ineffable plan in the narrative. that seems to have been set up very firmly in s1, and arguably becomes way more understated yet elaborated on in s2 (job and resurrectionist minisodes) until the end when metatron mentions the second coming. id absolutely love for it to be a huge narrative point in s3 again; the ultimate long-con chekhovs gun metaphorically jamming, backfiring, and spraying shrapnel all over the place.

but which is worse? a great plan that at the very least almost everyone of influence in heaven, including aziraphale if you hypothesise based on his knowing of the plans for the humans/earth in the pre-fall scene, has seen or at least seen bits of, and now presumably will work to ensure will come to pass because they know better than to question something metaphorically written in stone? an awful concept at face value, fulfilling prophecy, but at least you'd know what you're getting - you're buying what's advertised. i got rather ensconced in looking up some biblical stuff the other night, thinking about something similar to this, and:

And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. (Matthew 24:6 - KJV)

that is terrifying, even if you take into account "the end is not yet", because that is ominous as all hell. but is it more terrifying that the ineffable plan, that is controlled and shaped and enacted by only one entity, cannot be questioned or challenged until it has already come to pass? that it is not of even questionable morality, but unknowable morality? god does not play dice, because that would be fairer - that would leave things up to chance... free will. instead she is playing by something only she knows, only she can control. so in that first quote, i interpret that she is either directly or indirectly telling the audience not to trust her and her actions. maybe god is self-aware, maybe not. she's ineffable.

so, even if the great plan is awful and inevitable, is it better to anticipate exactly what's coming? better the devil you know? either way, between the two, you're actually caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. that's the whole dilemma, the whole point, i know. but this is where i come to the "god ships it" trope: i originally thought that aziraphale and crowley being a part (and possibly inadvertently cocking up) the ineffable plan by way of their love story would be a great plot device - until i realised that, to be honest, that would a) feel like lazy writing with very little nuance to be had, and b) directly contradict my whole thought process on free will.

i do think they're involved in the ineffable plan, have a stake and place in it. i don't think, in some way, that there's any way they can't be. but it would have to be for god's benefit (ie whatever conclusion for the world she's currently got running on standby mode), and i don't think god, being what/who she is, would be able to understand love like that. she might foresee it, being omniscient and all, but what would she know about it? love is something to be felt, and that kind of love (unless GO is going to take a very weird turn) is not something she could ever experience. she sees it, sure, in her creations, but that's not knowing it.

so no, i don't think god has any place in the relationship between aziraphale and crowley. if anything, her mere existence is the ultimate barrier to it, through crowley's resentment, hurt, and anger, and in aziraphale's naivety, blind faith, and own brand of god complex. to give her seal of approval to any of it would be redundant anyway; it wouldn't change anything, it doesn't prove anything, and it immediately questions whether the characters choosing to have a relationship of any kind is of their own free will or was predetermined and inevitable. so, no, thank you.

i would like to think god is good - because if there is a higher power, you just have to hope that they don't have it out for you, right? - but logically she just... is. arguably, she is beyond morality, and arguably she is both good and bad. she makes bets with satan to test the faith in her most loyal faithful - which again, it might have been the great plan to make job suffer, but equally it might have been the ineffable plan for aziraphale and crowley to thwart it at great risk, sacrifice, and pain to their psyches... frankly, it's fucked either way you slice it.

(and it does make me wonder about why this appears to be the last that we actually see of god's 'physical' presence in heaven so far...)

furthermore, the issue in the resurrectionists; not even just aziraphale's alarming speech completely disregarding inequality as a means of arriving at a ridiculous point about morality, but - did god have a hand in having aziraphale and crowley come across elspeth and morag, leading to aziraphale starting to question what right and wrong is (rather unsuccessfully, he swings between redefining the two like a sodding metronome)? and equally have a hand in morag's death, that made aziraphale potentially retreat back to his usual standby of exalting in god's power and mercy? but leads to elspeth being able to live a better life? unknown, but this possibility does indicate that no, she isn't good, and she isn't bad, she's just playing a game that has an equal chance for the rest of us as being a good or bad move (insomuch that only she knows what game and rules she's playing - schrödingers chess move, really).

that's why aziraphale's decision at the end of s2 is so important to me. he spent the previous episode playing at being god, moving pieces around the board in a series of patterns as he pleased in order to reach the check, but having little regard for them in doing so - removing their free will and ability to think or feel or act independently, but equally whilst never at any intention of causing harm. does that make it okay? of course not - it's playing a game only he knows how to play.

so to then look at heaven as being something that he could change, should change - because he's being handed the opportunity - is meritable; he's not leaving it up to someone else, not following blind faith that "the almighty will fix it", he's choosing to be the change himself. and there's no confirmation at all that he's doing it to return it to what he considers to be god's original intention; as it stands, we have to assume that he's just going to fix/change/improve it for the wider benefit of everyone. but then again - is this fair? that at the top of heaven there will essentially only be aziraphale (not counting the metatron), and his vision, his decisions? perhaps that's why it was also so important to see that conference meeting in ep6 - it's not just the supreme archangel in charge; there is a precedent, however questionable the board of directors, of democracy in heaven.

lastly, just to touch on it: i think it would have been an interesting conundrum if crowley had accepted the restoration; whether it would have changed him, erased parts of him involuntarily, or if he would have remained as just crowley and used the opportunity to bring down the second coming and heaven's corruption from the inside. as it stands, we'll never know - but there never was any true characterisation reward to be had from making him an angel again, and it would have been a weird choice for him to make. the way it went down was exactly as their characters are and believe.

(putting this into a separate section because my mind just got a factory-reset by this point and my having a philosophy-realignment moment didn't really fit in any of the above very well):

it's really interesting to bring in pascal here, because i wouldn't have seen GO as rejecting it altogether on first glance (ie not contradicting you, just realigning my thought process). so... my initial thought is that GO eradicates at least half of the wager by confirmation that god exists, full stop (aaaand immediately going off on a long tangential thought of how different the story could be if we didn't have god as the narrator/no confirmation of god in the book other than in abstract, and therefore the pascal wager could theoretically apply - big yikes). removal of the dead-end outcomes leaves you with receiving either damnation, or eternal peace. but add in the element of ineffability, as you say, and the entire argument is rejected altogether... it makes sense to have GO reject such a binary argument, and the whole representation of agnes as being a stand-in personification (?) for god, in that respect, and anathema essentially rejecting her, carries so much more weight for me now... thats so cool to think about, thank you!!!✨

#good omens #quite a few new followers so let me explain #if you're new here: this happens once or twice a week at most #LWA pops in for a cuppa and a GO/philosophy chat (very one sided they are v smart) and then goes on their merry way again #i dont know why they do it in my ask box but im not examining that too closely #there's evidently something here that draws them in and fuck knows if i know what it is #but yes they are a legend in these halls (i sometimes get random messages asking if theyve appeared in my inbox again) #just dont expect any particularly insightful responses from me but i try my best #the legend of the longwinded anon✨ #not a shitpost but its good omens babyyyy #ask

[thesherrinfordfacility]

Longwinded anon, having done more of the writing I need to be doing, back again in response to your post about the apology & the apology dance vs. forgiveness. Pratchett narratives in particular are not usually about forgiveness and redemption arcs; they're about choosing differently. At the airfield, Novel!Aziraphale doesn't ask Novel!Crowley to undergo some long penance and redemption, but just to acknowledge that they bear responsibility for having done their sides' work ("messing about," as Adam says) and now they need to stand up for the humans they've harmed. And that's it! In the series, Aziraphale's forgiveness comes in two brands: either it's cheap (he doesn't need Maggie's money, so what does it matter if she pays rent or not?) or, as you point out, it's a riposte to what he feels is an act of cruelty on Crowley's part. It's a performance of benevolence, not the thing itself! But he sincerely /apologizes/. He really does admit it when he understands that he has got something wrong, not necessarily by saying "sorry," but by naming and owning up to the mistake. We hear him do so three times in S1eps 5 and 6, and we find out in S2ep1 that he has admitted getting things wrong in 1650, 1793, and 1941 (and since Crowley cuts him off there, probably later as well).

The thing is, the silly apology dance is explicitly an act that Crowley expects Aziraphale to do. "I don't do the dance," he growls, when Aziraphale tells him it's his turn. And what's wrong here is that Crowley never apologizes for anything. He fauxpologizes when he tries to get Aziraphale to come with him after the bandstand argument (folks, "whatever I said I didn't mean it" is not an apology), and then he's doing it /again/ here (because he doesn't think Aziraphale is right! in fact, he's withholding crucial information that Aziraphale has a right to know!). Aziraphale uses forgiveness on Crowley as a means of displacing his own anger, while Crowley so far uses apologies on Aziraphale instrumentally, as a means of persuading him to do something Crowley's way. The implications of Crowley making Aziraphale perform a ridiculous and, quite frankly, somewhat humiliating dance whenever he admits he's in the wrong maybe need some more investigation?

LWA✨ alert!!! brings me such joy, i cannot tell you! congrats on achieving Jobs, far more than the GO brainrot has allowed me to do today

for anyone else - previous ask talking about I Forgive You.

thank you for highlighting aziraphale's concept of forgiveness in the example of forgiving the overdue rent, i had completely forgotten about that!!! i can see where it could be considered cheap, but i do think that whilst there is definitely an ulterior motive to it (by god does this angel love his shostakovich, and he's wealthy enough to boot), he does completely acknowledge that he did so out of purely selfish action (to crowley as they head back to the shop from the Naked Man Friend conversation).

the fact that it was a kind thing to do for maggie? yes, thats a byproduct, but i think aziraphale is so relatively kind by true nature that he doesn't even realise he's doing it, and the equal measure of kindness served alongside his self-interest is just a part of his personality... he doesn't seem to derive any self-important pride or conceit from being kind, it almost seems like it doesn't even register in the moment - so my conclusion from that is that his kindness isn't performative, it's largely sincere and natural.

so yes, this absolutely solidifies for me that aziraphale definitely knows and deliberately accentuates the difference between forgiveness, and I Forgive You. i thank you for your comment on my interpretation of I Forgive You (i truly crave validation) because as with anything analysis-wise, i wasn't entirely sure i had interpreted it well enough to have a valid conclusion on why aziraphale said this. imo, it is absolutely just benevolence; it's not kindness, not an offer of redemption, nor true forgiveness, but the only way that aziraphale can wound and hit back without sacrificing his perception of himself as an angel, or as a good person. it's easily deniable that he was hurting crowley, and only crowley knows what aziraphale was truly saying with those three words (in my eyes, putting it simply and bluntly, "fuck you, that hurt").

i talked a little in this post about how aziraphale seems to be able to learn from mistakes (granted, the post talks pretty exclusively about aziraphale learning from misplaced faith, but the principle remains). he essentially apologised to adam in crowley's time-hold (alternate plane? not sure) for assuming that adam would be inherently good or evil, rather than perhaps just human, and i think we can reliably interpret from this 'apology' (aziraphale doesn't say sorry, but instead acknowledges his short-sightedness which is just as valid, if not more) that aziraphale realises that he cannot go on seeing things in black and white; morality is not wholly binary.

whilst we haven't seen aziraphale do the apology dance, i think the delivery of his frustration and irritation when recounting how many times he did it for crowley really demonstrates how readily, without much question or hesitation, aziraphale must have performed it in the past when he felt he was in the wrong. by extension, it possibly calls into question how many times aziraphale may have done it when he wasn't in the wrong, but either did it to make crowley happy, or in order to keep the peace and ensure that they didn't fall out because of crowley's stubbornness to admit his faults.

obviously we don't know for sure that the 1793 and 1941 dances were in response to the events shown to us re; the Bastille or the Church scene/magician minisode respectively, but if they were, i can't quite see any instance where aziraphale would need to do the apology dance, and certainly don't see where crowley would be entirely blameless and merit receiving the dance himself. again, there may be other flashbacks from these years that we haven't seen, but i feel like the years were chosen specifically - and specifically to highlight that aziraphale may have done the dance but not actually been wholly at fault for anything.

which brings me to crowley. the concept of the apology dance and aziraphale (at least as far as known) being the only one to have done it indicates that the motif of crowley falling and him making various excuses for it carries all the way through to his inability to admit wrong. i realise thats fairly obvious, but stick with me because i think it goes hand in hand with crowley's ability to trust, and specifically trust aziraphale.

i think apologising for anything would indicate a vulnerability in crowley that he doesn't trust with anyone, and possibly doesn't even acknowledge himself. he breezes through his existence as if he is untouchable and unbothered, complete with matching swagger and barbed wire tongue, refusing to admit any kind of weakness. to be forgiven is to have apologised in the first place, and to have apologised is to admit wrong, and to admit wrong is to realise he may not be infallible. so his apologies, such as they are (which are mocking, perfunctory and sit precariously on the fence of being gaslighting), are shallow and skin-deep.

despite what others might like to believe about crowley, i firmly hold him as a master of manipulation, and getting the beholder to see whatever he wants them to see in order to satisfy his ulterior motive (however well-meaning that motive might be - ie. protecting aziraphale). the worst bit is that he is not even outright nasty and malicious about it by the point in the story that we see the dance; it's just simply ingrained in him that this is the best way to get aziraphale to do what he needs or wants... instead of, you know, communicating that aziraphale has been threatened and that is more important than crowley's hangup on gabriel... but of course that would be admitting that crowley may not be able to keep aziraphale from harm, and would actually allow aziraphale to have his own agency.

in terms of why crowley would force aziraphale into doing the dance is relatively unknown given that we haven't seen any context as to why aziraphale would 'need' to apologise in the first place (tone read: aziraphale probably doesn't at times). educated guess, however? i would hazard that there is an element of projection and resentment at work.

aziraphale, who is an angel with a bastard streak (that i think crowley does truly love, but also begrudges in equal measure), is able to be a bit of a bastard and largely get away with it without punishment, whereas crowley is a demon with 'a heart of gold' but is made to suffer for it pretty consistently. it would stand to reason that he'd force aziraphale to apologise needlessly, and in a humiliating manner, because ultimately it makes crowley feel good. there's also the element of superiority that crowley projects against aziraphale; to have him in subjugation and be vulnerable in admitting fault probably also feels to crowley like he still has status and worth.

the above makes it sound like i think crowley is a cruel piece of work, but i don't think that at all. he certainly has the ability and inclination to be cruel at times, but i don't think him an outright Bad person. but as ive remarked before, crowley has a very special ability to be brutal and vicious out of his own pain, and that's very, very understandable. unfortunately though, by nature of proximity, it seems that the main collateral damage always has to be, or at least linked to, aziraphale.

edit because further thought, especially in defence of crowley because balance: if we work with the emerging theory (putting 'theory' conservatively) that metatron is manipulating aziraphale, and also look at the fact that the archangels were manipulating aziraphale in s1 regarding the antichrist, we (see: me) actually need to let go of the notion that manipulation is an entirely hellish trait. it isn't - it's inherently neutral, but the motive for which you use it could taint it as good or evil.

crowley isn't, by large, manipulating out of maliciousness or twisted pleasure; we mostly see him do it in order to better protect aziraphale. that doesn't make the manipulation good per se, but it has good intentions (however much he may be tilting the scales by removing aziraphale's agency and keeping important information from him) and therefore is understandable.

it does however really highlight when he manipulates out of an almost - but not quite - sadistic pleasure or for no justifiable agenda at all. crowley is very much an end justifies the means kinda person, and doesn't care what he has to do, just that the job is done (a rhetoric that again is shared by both heaven and hell, and is more indicative of the import they both confer on having power than on efficiency).

but it would go some way to explaining why crowley does what he does re: manipulation; if the end result is what everyone wants and means everyone is safe, what does it matter if there is indeed collateral damage? that's pragmatism, and not the idealism of everything being perfect and happy and trauma-free every step of the way. and if we take into context crowley's experiences through the fall and what he has suffered by both the hands of heaven and hell, it's possible to empathise with why he will run full tilt towards a happy ending, no matter what destruction is left in his wake.

#good omens #good omens season 2 #good omens spoilers #good omens 2 spoilers #not a shitpost but its good omens babyyyy #ask #the legend of the longwinded anon✨

[thesherrinfordfacility]

Longwinded Anon (LWA)✨ gets their own special hotlink and dedicated masterpost✨mainly because im fed up of searching through my whole entire blog when i need to refer back to their asks:

oldest ones first:

ahhh, the first ever LWA ask, a golden post. i remember it fondly. my response as you can probably tell was just sheer incredulity that was sent to me, instant brain crush. anyway, talks about the influence of politico-moral dynamics on GO and how this extends to how we perceive crowley. i promise my responses get more intelligent after this.

more on crowley in terms of his arguably unreliable narrative and questioning the choices he makes as a result. in this i actually answer the first one as well as this.

see now im not 100% on this one but it sure does feel like it was LWA, maybe not... either way, full response/meta on who the second coming might be is linked within, as i elaborated on it more in a different ask.

this one gave me a cardiac arrest because LWA decided to spam me with everything they could possibly think of, it was so fun! so this time they talk about aziraphale and his own flaws as concerns his superiority complex and the damsel in distress nonsense, a bit about s3, the pre-fall scene and how this sets up the boys' dynamic, discussion on how long the boys have liked let alone loved each other, lucifer theory (sob), and who indeed the wider question on the angel that crowley was (AWCW) might have been. i responded with talk about aziraphale's insecurity, crowley's saviour complex, their love languages, aziraphale pre-fall, and (wails) lucifer theory.

talking about the apology dance and forgiveness between the two of them in general, and i added in a sprinkle of talking about manipulation.

here we discussed the whole business of crowley's temptation to get aziraphale to kill the antichrist (still a bugbear that crops up again later on in the LWA timeline), and more on crowley's tendency to push his protectiveness on aziraphale (and aziraphale laps it up). also talking about aziraphale's superiority complex again, and the nuclear miracle.

a little bit on the emerging topic of how GO looks at religiously allegorical literature, and a ✨challenge✨ to find where bits of the book may have been transposed or conceptualised into s2.

LWA kindly gave me their thoughts of where, if it does, the lockdown audio clip fits into the canon, and then more on the antichrist/aziraphale manipulation business and how the boys keep secrets from each other, as well as how it impacts on their individual morals. there's also, fair warning, a little bit of gentle but intelligent criticism on how this sometimes get mistranslated in fanfiction.

so here gets a little critical of the magic trick theory, but also similarly looks at some of the technical and narrative weaknesses of s2, as well as looking again at how lopsided the love-story element gets when we look at the boys' journey through history.

this looks at how GO is not a carbon copy of any one biblical text or piece of literature but is inspired by, and reimagines, a bit of everything.

a wee rant on the 'god ships it' trope and its moral implications. im sorry but it rubs me up the wrong way (but no shade at all meant to anyone who writes or likes it!), and i tried my best to explain why it does.

so this was following the startling (see: i was absolutely blindsided at 4am by this) confirmation that aziraphale did not in fact know about crowley living in his car. discussed why that might be, but also again a bit more on the antichrist shitstorm from s1 and its effect on the trust between them.

shorter one, once again examining the wider thought that the boys have loved each other since eden, and whether or not this actually has any validity when considering the narrative objectively as it's been given to us.

talking about the theme of rescuing, how crowley somewhat forces this on aziraphale and aziraphale plays into it, even though he can save himself - and what this might spell for their future

further ruminations on the holy water argument and what this spells for in 1941 and 1967

after a small absence, LWA came back!!! with analysis on aziraphale's willingness/disdain for forming human relationships, and a bit on the ethics of miracles too!

the one about 1650/aziraphale's stint as a bishop, about (as always) the boys' fumble with morality, and then about what will/should happen to heaven

LWA's ability to draw parallels absolutely everywhere is mind-boggling and im essentially that spiderverse meme pretending that i know what im talking about. this one was about aziraphale and his depiction with halos/aureola

this one was really difficult! talking about aziraphale and crowley's respective approaches to problem solving throughout the whole story, and how they both view the narrative of their relationship (such as it is) throughout history

they keep getting more challenging to respond to intelligently. getting into the nitty-gritty of how aziraphale and crowley operate in the grey, and what they ask from each other

it never ceases to amaze me that LWA actually reads any of my idiotic ramblings but here we are: some really fun (for me anyway) talk about shax and demon/angel abilities in general

talk about actions and consequences - and aziraphale and crowley's difficulty with understanding and accepting them - and subsequently the occasional fandom-blindness to this very thing ("Dead Whale Theory") (genius)

actually think this is my favourite one so far? talking about the extent to which crowley is content existing in the system, and how much he benefits from it, to the point that he doesn't model any resistant behaviour to aziraphale beyond malicious compliance and exploiting loopholes. lots more than that, and honestly i could have talked about this for a fortnight

LWA lurking in my walls again and choosing to haunt me by talking about, if there is trauma to be interpreted from crowley's fall, why would they have even talked about it? so goes into whether they were even friends for the majority of their association, plus some speculation on how crowley chooses to look back on their time together as having been in love for any great length of time.

wise words of comfort re: s3

okay so here is where LWA look closer at nina and maggie mirroring the boys, where their respective interactions are inappropriate (ie. nina's questioning of crowley and aziraphale's personal lives), how free will gets tampered with in their plotline, and where crowley in typical fashion ends up listening to the wrong part of the ep6 advice that they give him :(

AND THEY'RE BACK BABY✨ a long (lol like a month. calm yourself, rhi) awaited return, where LWA chooses to whack me over the head with questioning the power imbalance between heaven and hell, whether there is anything to say that heaven takes human souls in the first place, and why therefore aziraphale might even be told to do the things he does by heaven

and then on a lighter note; where and when would aziraphale have been a garden designer, as per furfur's little book? and if crowley actually indeed has a green thumb (open for debate)

LWA back to discuss a really good post that explored book vs tv canon, how far this extends into the book/tv characterisations, and then how s3 could resolve when the show has largely lost a lot of the political overtones

this one was really difficult but such a great point - compared to the book, aziraphale and crowley's 'issues' are divided up between them, and what results is that they do not understand or recognise how the other sees themselves, nor are they (imo) able to truly completely empathise with the other's position and beliefs (LWA tag was missing but they came back to confirm it was them!)

right i think ive captured all of them (sods law if i haven't, tough shit territory really), and this will be updated as they come in providing that LWA continues to haunt me. feel free to like or ignore, ill be linking this in my main masterpost anyway!!!✨

a spicy one that made me pace my living room a good few times - but an important one in that it goes further again into actions and consequences. love it love it love it

just a little one about how crowley - for all our thoughts on how he's got a finger on the pulse of fashion - might not really know how to dress himself properly

#no need to interact this is mainly for my own sanity and to keep things neat and tidy #good omens #the legend of the longwinded anon✨

[thesherrinfordfacility]

LWA: I'm circling back to the problem of trying to somehow identify Crowley's Angel-identity from extant Biblical precedents, and some posts from yesterday about novels that have inspired or will inspire aspects of S1 and S2--TALE OF TWO CITIES, PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, and THE CROW ROAD--have accidentally highlighted what's bothering me about this (even though I fell into it myself!).

There are so many ways that novelists, filmmakers, etc. can rework their literary antecedents, and assuming that we can go back to the Biblical (or Miltonic, Dantean, etc.) source to decode what Gaiman is doing rests on assumptions about how Gaiman--and Pratchett and Finnemore--are engaging with other texts. That /is/ something you can do with, for example, Akira Kurosawa's Shakespeare films (THRONE OF BLOOD/MACBETH, THE BAD SLEEP WELL/HAMLET, RAN/KING LEAR), where the films are extensively in conversation with Shakespeare, fundamentally share Shakespeare's plots, inhabit the same tragic mode, and have characters who can be mapped directly onto Shakespeare's. And yet the films /aren't/ Shakespeare, but Shakespeare reinterpreted through Japanese cinematic and theatrical genres (jidaigeki, Noh), cultural and historical referents, and twentieth-century preoccupations. They often signal differences through inversion--the gender-flipped characters in RAN, the silent protagonist in THE BAD SLEEP WELL--and they experiment by pulling threads. How would we reinterpret KING LEAR if Lear had a backstory? What happens if you pull a major character out of HAMLET?

But this is not how GOOD OMENS--the novel, S1, or S2--works with its own antecedents. Instead, it invokes antecedents to fracture them and then shoot off in its own directions; they appear in the text or series to establish expectations that are then abruptly undercut. You can't do an extended reading of GO's "conversation" with THE OMEN, because it isn't having one (in S1, the major points of contact are done with in ep1). Instead, we have THE OMEN banging up against the JUST WILLIAM series, THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS, John Le Carre, the Bible...The genres and modes deliberately don't shake hands. Characters may or may not be parallels, but they are at best partly so and the analogies soon break down. In the series, yes, A TALE OF TWO CITIES inspires the appearance-swap at the end of S1, but it is so wildly different that it doesn't help the reader interpret what GO is doing. (Among other things, Sydney Carton /actually/ dies--obviously!--and Charles Darnay doesn't, meaning that it's a true self-sacrifice; Carton's underlying motivations are different; Darnay is upset by the proposal and effectively forced into it by being knocked unconscious; etc.) It's less a conversation and more a starting-point for play.

Similarly, S2 invokes and plays with PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, but it /isn't/ PRIDE AND PREJUDICE. (This time, PRIDE & PREJUDICE bangs up against Richard Curtis films, the cozy mystery genre, the Hollywood Biblical epic...) If anything, Aziraphale's ball serves as a metafictional warning to /not/ try to force an interpretation of events through P&P's lens. (It's also a bad misreading on Aziraphale's part, since Jane and Bingley fall for each other at the ball, but the protagonists exit it disliking each other!) Aziraphale and Crowley absolutely occupy aspects of Darcy's and Lizzie's roles, including the "both right/both wrong" problem and the relationship meddling (which is the opposite of Darcy's strategy with Bingley), but the series is far more invested in miscommunication as a problem than the novel is. The plots don't track and character parallels break down pretty quickly. It's impossible to maintain a good analogical "fit" between Heaven vs. Hell and wealthy vs. relatively-impoverished gentry (among other things, pursuing the analogy would leave us with Crowley eventually deciding to return to Heaven, which, no). Aziraphale and Crowley are nowhere near the same emotional space that Darcy and Lizzie are during the proposal scene, and while Darcy has not adequately communicated his intentions to Lizzie in the lead-up to his first proposal, the problem /during/ the proposal is that he's being a jerk and she has every right to be aggravated with him, not that they're mutually misunderstanding each other. The stakes, narrative contexts, and mental hang-ups are different. Etc. Presumably Gaiman will invoke and then disrupt THE CROW ROAD in the same way.

So, again, with the Bible. We can't use the Bible to predict anything that will happen in the GO universe because we have no way of knowing what GO will declare to be /wrong/ about the Biblical record. In S1, we discover that it's a Principality guarding the Eastern Gate, and that there's a minor matter of a missing sword; we also find out that the Flood is local and that Crowley felt that Jesus just needed a bit of a vacation break. (If you've read the novel, you also know that Aziraphale is dismissive of Revelation, thanks to John's addiction to shrooms.) In S2, we have the Job minisode, and it would take a really, really long time to break down just how far that minisode departs from the Book of Job (and this ask is already long enough!). The point, as Crowley might say, is that we approach the series with expectations set by the Bible, but then we discover that the series never takes the Biblical narrative as set. It's unpredictable (as Crowley also says).

evening (morning technically, currently at 0050hrs and will probably be done around 0300) LWA, hope you're good!!!✨

this is obviously far more eloquent, nuanced, and empirically evidenced than i could have ever put it, but im going to view this as going some way to being validation for the thought processes on a couple of theories/speculations that have been floating around in the wake of s2. meant kindly, i think the allegorical element of GO can sometimes misconstrued, and fans can sometimes get so caught up in what they believe is the only true inspiration for the story, and miss that it is a work of fiction. it is literally made-up. it stands to reason therefore, and has been demonstrated time and time again, as having been inspired at its core from lots of different places.

there is representation of so many things in GO, and it's truly one of the aspects that i love most about it. it is not representative of any one set rhetoric. specifically about your example of who crowley was before the fall; this caused so much underlying discourse that i fully appreciated and considered perfectly valid. crowley was described by neil as a jewish-coded character insomuch that he asked questions (tbh by extension from that the whole story could be described similarly?), and then, as ive since learned, a lot of the angelic names mentioned are hebrew in origin. since having a plethora of asks flood me contradicting that crowley cannot or should not have been an angel of christian origin, or otherwise, ive educated myself more. but im not going to go back on what i myself have speculated on because it is a story, and it can take inspiration, and rework that inspiration in kind, from anywhere. that, i think, sometimes gets missed. ive usually speculated and analysed based on where the narrative, to my mind, has been heading, taking cues from what we've seen so far, and then researched off the back of it what might fit or would support it - not the other way around.

religious representation is important. speaking personally- being someone non-religious and raised largely secular (as said many times) i will never fully understand what it means to have that representation portrayed in popular media... because how on earth could i begin to? but i would like to say i understand emotion and how people think, and i can understand why representation is important to people. that is valid, in every respect. but GO is not a reworked version of any one biblical text, as you said. inspirations not shaking hands, but flitting around each other in a dance. it pokes holes at, reimagines, and validates as well as invalidates elements of multiple religious texts and teachings (one of my favourite and imo funniest book lines was the mushrooms recollection, was gutted it didn't make the show in full!)

again, this is part of why i love it - because whilst these different allegories provide the backdrop to the story, it is not the story. the reason why the story is so important to me is because it is an examination of the human condition through the eyes of beings that are not human. the story could be told from the pov of a human-form pot plant and reach the same kind of conclusions, but the religious inspiration gives the story more consistent context, dichotomy and insight, more depth and philosophy. and it's much more entertaining. but yes - let the narrative be inspired by anything; bits and pieces from this, pinches and dashes from that... it creates a story that is so arguably unique that way, frames its own questions and problems, and remains to true to being a work of fiction - set to inspire and challenge in kind on to other present and future works - and so on and on the cog turns - isn't that the point?

GO is not the only religious-inspired work that ive loved for these reasons; favourite book (no offence to anyone by daring to type this sentence as a GO blog; it's sentimental to me) is andrew davidson's the gargoyle. it very scrupulously follows, at times, elements of dante's divine comedy and makes overt references to it given its a key part of the story, but it's manifestly allegorical too. but the best part of the story is how it interprets religion's often tumultuous relationship with mental health, love being flawed and discriminatory, and the concept of salvation. again, religious imagery and inspiration as the backdrop, human condition being the narrative.

i haven't really remarked on any else that you've mentioned, LWA, which is par for the course with me, so going to speedrun slightly.

P&P: when i watched s2 i must admit i was almost surprised that this work had so much weight, because i felt it had more relation to other austen works (emma and persuasion particularly) but then i remembered that was the Whole Point

Kurosawa: will admit that i haven't seen these but based on what im assuming is your recommendation i will duly add to the watchlist (seen Kagemusha, but that's it for my foray into his works!)

Le Carré: ah, im so glad you said this! when ive been thinking idly about the corruption in heaven and the risk in looking back on it with the metaphorical rose-tinted glasses, this is the same feeling as when i read his work - bits from TTSS, and constant gardener, but TLGW especially in my mind... not sure if you were referring to these works in particular and in this context, but huge fan of Le Carré and happy to see it mentioned!!!

richard curtis: i... yeah. this was a revelation for me. enough said.

ultimately im so excited about the unpredictable; i love speculating, and whilst it's fun to have gotten something right (s2 was not a good track record for me, the only things i got that were even a smidgeon near the truth were half-arsed shitposts and if that doesn't humble a girl, nothing will), i want to be taken aback by where the narrative has gone, the dilemmas that have been raised, dialogue and exposition choices... i want to be wrong, because that's infinitely more fun!

(0220 - not bad)✨

#good omens #this was a wild ride #not a shitpost but its good omens babyyyy #the legend of the longwinded anon✨ #ask #and now i sleep: goodnight world #i cant fathom why LWA keeps coming back but im not gonna complain #i take so long to answer these bc i write a bit #reread what LWA has said #ponder the universe for ten minutes #then carry on typing #rinse and repeat

[thesherrinfordfacility]

I love TV Crowley and I don't think he's a bad/unfaithful adaptation of book Crowley I just. I wish that when he says things like "I'm going to run off to Alpha Centauri" or something along those lines, about abandoning the Earth, more emphasis is placed on the fact that He Would Not Actually Go Through With That. Like for as much as he threatens to do so, when it comes down to it he truly cannot bring himself to up and leave the humans like Gabriel and Beelzebub did. It would grate on him and he'd end up turning right back around and I want something other than Aziraphale to be the clear, immediate reason for it. Crowley notably hates the 14th century and that was the century where over a third of the population (245 million people) died due to a combination of the Great Famine and the Black Death. I think about that sometimes idk.

hi (again?) nonnie!!!✨ you're good dw, i got what you were saying and it's perfectly valid; ultimately as i added to the tags of the last ask, for many reasons it's difficult to accurately translate a character to screen when you don't have the more overt narration of their internal thought processes, because these give great influence to how the reader should view the character.

its not at all bad (the way that book crowley was depicted in tv crowley), there are elements i like about each more than i do about vice versa (same for aziraphale, and anathema, and madame tracy and- you get the idea), but he is in many ways different. and i trust that maybe we'll see the other facets of crowley's character in s3, by nature of s3 perhaps being more solid in the original plan for the GO story in general (again, bc t+n discussed it)... particularly those traits demonstrated more in the book, because if there's a particular season where i think this is going to necessary, it's that one.

might be worth having a read of this first ask that i got from LWA✨ (if youre new here, first of all welcome! and second, Longwinded Anon/LWA is a legend in these halls for dropping their analysis of different elements of the story and characters in my ask box from time to time... they have truly elevated my way of thinking about the story that's perhaps a tad more critical than most, but i think that's important!!!). anyway, this ask has a bit of critique on book vs show crowley that might of interest!!!✨

#in this house all opinions are valid if you can argue them well enough #we entertain all schools of thought here especially critique #this is a safe space✨ #good omens #ask #crowley meta