Drink with me, to days gone by. To the life that used to be.

Just another multifandom blog...

[anneangel]

Nuances about the relationship between Aziraphale and Crowley in the book...

First:

The narrator tells us that angels and demons do not possess free will, that Crowley and Aziraphale learned this from humans, but this is disproven in the first scene in Eden!

You couldn't be a demon and have free will. - Good Omens Book

Being a demon, of course, was supposed to mean you had no free will. But you couldn't hang around humans for very long without learning a thing or two. - Good Omens Book

Aziraphale gave his flaming sword to humans even though wasn't told to do so. If that isn't a demonstration of free will what is this? Including he even spends the entire scene extremely worried about having made that decision on his own and tries to convince himself that it was the right thing to do.

Crowley also seems extremely bothered when Aziraphale suggests that he, being a demon, could only do evil.

Aziraphale: "Yes, but you're a demon. I'm not sure if it's actually possible for you to do good," said Aziraphale. "It's down to your basic, you know, nature. Nothing personal, you understand". - Good Omens Book

Crowley: "I'm not sure it's actually possible for you to do evil," said Crawly sarcastically. - Good Omens Book

He is basically refuting the idea of ​​essence and reaffirming that they are more than the qualifications/position assigned to them by the "status quo".

He also decides to change his name, as a sign that he is the one who determines himself, something he continues to do throughout the millennia (he is incredibly upset when forced to use his demonic name, being forced to use the name assigned to him and not the one he chose). Because he, even though hell tries to deny him this, can choose! He was doing so from the beginning when decided to change "Crawly".

Crawly, although he was thinking of changing it now. Crawly, he'd decided, was not hint. - Good Omens Book

Hastur: "No. Not A. J. Crowley. Your real name". Crowley nodded mournfully, and drew a complex, wiggly sigh on the paper. It glowed redly in the gloom, just for a moment, and then faded. - Good Omens Book

Second:

The narrator also tries to tell us that Aziraphale and Crowley would not freely choose to be in each other's presence, that their closeness is due to millennia of "forced" coexistence that made them accustomed to each other, trying to instill the idea that the only reason they became close was because they were far from their sides and realized they had more in common with each other than with their superiors.

Aziraphale. The Enemy, of course. But an enemy for six thousand years now, which made him a sort of friend. - Good Omens Book

On the whole, neither he nor Crowley would have chosen each other's company, but they were both men, or at least men-shaped creatures, of the world, and the Arrangement had worked to their advantage all this time. Besides, you grew accustomed to the only other face that had been around more or less consistently for six millennia. - Good Omens Book

However, the scene in Eden once again refutes this!

Note that they were already conversing when the narrator begins to transcribe their dialogue for the reader. In other words, we catch the conversation halfway through. Furthermore, it's the narrator who introduces the characters by name! Neither of them introduces themselves in the scene, suggesting that this may not have been their first interaction. This is evident because we don't catch the conversation from the beginning; we don't know who started it, nor if it was their first (probably not).

There are even elements that corroborate this perception that it wasn't their first conversation, nor their first interaction as angel and demon. These elements are: Their closeness is unusual for supposed "enemies"; they are completely at ease in each other's presence, with Crowley even being sarcastic, playful, and extremely spontaneous, even touching Aziraphale! Meanwhile, Aziraphale isn't afraid to express his fears and concerns to Crowley, the kind of thing you wouldn't do with an "enemy", right?

Aziraphale gave Crawly a worried grin: "That was the best course, wasn't it?"- Good Omens Book

Crawly nudged the angel: "Funny if we both got it wrong, eh? Funny if I did the good thing and you did the bad one, eh?". - Good Omens Book

So, you see, it doesn't seem that their closeness and companionship arose over millennia of "forced" coexistence, simply because "they only had each other". They've been demonstrating a pattern of very close behavior from the very beginning.

If anything, it was the fear of reaction and reprisal from their superiors that created some distance between them! And, in fact, at various times they show fear of disobeying and/or being punished by their respective sides!

“CROWLEY, IF IT GOES WRONG, THEN THOSE INVOLVED WILL SUFFER GREATLY. EVEN YOU, CROWLEY ESPECIALLY YOU” (…). Crowley wondered what would happen if he just stopped the car here, on this dark and damp and empty road, and took the basket and swung it round and round and let go and . . . Something dreadful, that's what. - Good Omens Book

"It's not that I disagree with you," said the angel, as they plodded across the grass. "It's just that I'm not allowed to disobey. You know that." - Good Omens Book

Conclusion:

So, you see, they always had free will. They were also always close. They feared reprisals for not being what was expected of them by their sides. And this leads to a more moderate behavior on their part, both, in relation to "the world" and in relation to each other. That is, until Armageddon makes them stop caring about what is demanded of them by their sides, and instead care about what they believe they should do.

Also, we know very well that the nightingale sang in berkeley square. The book may not make a big deal of it, but it's always been a romantic theme, this is specifically in their concluding arc, in a modest and almost imperceptible way for most readers, but it's there in their final scene, yet the conclusion of their arc which is situated between the concluding arcs of two other canonical romantic couples who should also be "enemies" but become "lovers". The book seems to only have this type of concluding arc for its non-childish characters. Some say it's just a coincidence, but I choose to believe it's not.

Furthermore, there is extra-book information, give in 2005, that Aziraphale and Crowley would share a cottage in South Downs. This also lingered in the minds of fans for years because it is similar to what happens with the others canonical couples (Anathema and Newt | Tracy and Shadwell), that's; living together in a quiet place!

Both are the ultimate prerequisites for a ship to flourish; a relationship as old as time itself, and still permeated by opposites that attract. It's practically asking to be shipped!

Which leads us to an interesting assumption: the narrator isn't entirely reliable! The narrator tries to make it seem like knows the characters and what they're thinking, tries to make it seem like 's telling us everything, but leaves out the nuances for the reader to perceive for themselves (if they so choose).

[anneangel]

Not that I didn't like the second season and the Finale, I did. its ok. But I'm pretending it's a self-funded and authorized FanFiction.

For me, the official canon is limited to the book and the first season.

I'm even taking all the excerpts about Aziraphale and Crowley from the book and mixing with the first season/script, compiling everything into a single file called "Good Omens, but only Aziracrow" to read, reread, and heal any harm, in my heart, that the second season and the finale may have done to our fav angel and demon as they are.

There are several free PDFs of the book and S1 script, online. I'm making good use of it now, copying and pasting into a single file called "aziracrow".

The only canon I know. Although I still love fanfiction, don't get me wrong.

[abbielauren2024]

I seriously love AO3. Like what do you mean that I get extra content of my favorite fandoms for free?? What do you mean that some of the Shakespeare-level writing is what we could only dream to get in canon?? What do you mean I can read all the content tags and warnings so I know what I’m reading and can choose what I enjoy?? What do you mean I can search and filter for specific troupes and emotions instead of vague genres?? WHAT DO YOU MEAN NO ADS AND ONCE AGAIN IT’S ALL FREE?? Ack I’ll never get over this website lol <333

[theladydrgn]

Something i haven't seen discussed much on here (possibly because I've been avoiding the tags because of all the hate) is that

CROWLEY AND AZIRAPHALE AREN'T IN THE BOOK OF LIFE

Michael burns the entire book. Crowley saves a *single* page. Yet Aziraphale and Crowley persist. Even when God "makes a universe" without them in it.... They still are. They persist. Aziraphale and Crowley are as foundational to creation as God and Satan themzelves (you'll notice Satan also didn't have a page)

Aziraphale and Crowley can not be destroyed in any way that truly matters.

[anneangel]

This also caught my attention from the moment I watched it. At first, I was thinking: "a plot hole! They should have picked up their pages too!"...

... But then I realized that God and Satan don't have one either and they're there!

So, Aziraphale and Crowley weren't characters, but rather fundamental entities like God and Satan?

I kind of wish someone would write a complex theory about this.

The ending itself, with them as humans, didn't make me sad because I believe that's THEM there. What I didn't like was Crowley and Aziraphale's personalities throughout the episode. Crowley was excessively grumpy and Aziraphale was extremely 'bastard' (in a way that's not really worth knowing him), it irritated me.

Yep. They were already full of traumas and flaws as Crowley and Aziraphale.

At least as Anthony and Asa, they can start over. So I prefer to believe that they remember eventually. Otherwise, why would they, as human, have the snow globe from another universe?

The ending itself is even cute. I just didn't like their relationship very much until before the end, as Crowley and Aziraphale. But, as Asa and Anthony they are cute and have a new chance, were able to remember and understand each other, reconnect, and live the love story they deserved.

I prefer to believe that they are happy with each other now and their new lives, and that they will meet in all lives and universes, because they are a fundamental part of existence, not just characters created by God in a book 😭😭

[ellipsus-writes]

If you haven't heard, the em dash has been getting a lot of attention lately…

Because it was trained on pirated work—including freely accessible online writing (like fanfic, academic texts)—ChatGPT picked up patterns and quirks native to human writing.

Including (sigh) the em dash.

There are other victims here (RIP tapestry and delve 🫠), but the appropriation of the em dash—a punctuation mark beloved by writers everywhere—feels especially personal.

A kind of low-grade panic is ensuing. Writers who once memed their own em dash overuse—the greatest punctuation mark ever to grace the control-freak’s lexicon, frankly—are suddenly backing away to avoid accusations.

No. More. We have centuries of dash-abusing writers behind us. We will not sit quietly while AI repurposes our beloved stilted aside—or the just-one-more clarification the sentence demands—or the dramatic pause your comma could never—etc.

You don’t write like AI—AI writes like you.

Defend the em dash.

(Feel free to download/share/stick it where it matters!)

[anneangel]

YES!!! Bothers me most is precisely the theft, by AIs, of a linguistic resource inherent and functional to the vocabulary of many languages.

In my country, the dash is frequently used to indicate dialogues between characters, in addition to functioning as a comma to separate or isolate ideas in a paragraph.

I have always used this resource, however, besides publishers starting to adopt the use of quotation marks for dialogues instead of the dash, destroying a resource inherent to the language, the only use that remained was to replace commas: but now we can no longer use it without someone accusing us of using a damn AI, when, in fact, was the AI ​​that STOLE this resource from us, human writers.

[clarizc]

Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman practice paintings I created in early 2017.

painted these (digitally) when I was at the peak of my //sherlock phase//. not sure how I feel about the series now, but back then I remember being a bit obsessed with it

[allthingswhumpyandangsty]

[bonesart]

Two Curiosities

[ID: A digital pencil drawing meant to look like a scientific illustration of busts of Mycroft and Sherlock Holmes. At the top of the page is text which reads “Two Curiosities”. Mycroft is a fat man in his late 30s with dark hair graying at the temples, an aquiline nose, thin lips, a prominent chin, and hooded light eyes. Beside him is text that reads “Fig. 1 H. Mycroft” Sherlock is a thin man in his early 30s with dark hair, a hooked nose, thin lips with a vertical scar on the upper lip, prominent cheekbones, and downturned hooded light eyes. Beside him is text that re add a “Fig. 2 H. Sherlock”]

[anneangel]

The difference between the Good Omens book and the Good Omens TV adaptation...

Now that Good Omens is over, I can finally see what I love and what I hate about this narrative, both, the book and the series, in terms of storytelling and characters...

Regarding Aziracrow/Ineffable Husbands, before the series, the audience understood their relationship as "an honest and solid queerplatonic" OR as "they are totally an old married couple, Your Honor, it's right under your nose".

Both interpretations worked because the book left enough room for it. Aziraphale and Crowley had a connection, but this unique connection wasn't openly explored, which opened the possibility for the audience's mind to explore it in whatever way they saw fit, in theories and fanfiction.

Although there are some elements in the book that I find somewhat prejudiced, nothing excessive, but it needed a post-90s revision (something that the adaptation attempts to correct, in S1, where possible).

But, too, after season 1, some things changed in how the audience understood the personalities of these characters…

I love the irreverent narrative tone of the book and Season 1. I think the adaptation retold the book, improving some elements. It was great to have flashback scenes of Aziraphale and Crowley, it was interesting to see Satan visually at the airbase, and the punishments of Aziraphale and Crowley and how they escaped were also creative additions. There's more Queen songs playing.

But despite everything, there are things we need to point out; The flashback scenes in Season 1 better outlined their relationship, giving them more prominence in Season 1. However, this makes it seem like it only takes on a more 'romantic' form in the last centuries, whereas before, because there are no flashbacks in the book, fans were much more freer to imagine when and how their relationship became more than it seemed.

But the change in personality began there, in season 1, albeit in a more subtle way;

Look, Crowley was an "optimistic" in the book, but in the series he's given a more grumpy and whiny personality. While in the book Crowley goes to Tadfield without being told to, I never interpreted the Crowley in the book as thinking Aziraphale was dead, only that he thought he was disembodied and in heaven (which he was). I simply thought he would know the difference between hellfire and ordinary fire. But the Crowley in the series doesn't know the difference; for him, Aziraphale is dead, so he suffers, drinks, and becomes a sentimental mess (the crazy thing is that NG stated that he changed this because he 'suffered from Terry's death' and wanted to express that in that scene, about 'thinking you've lost a friend', when I think about it now it makes me angry!!!).

But even before that, the series has them fighting in the 'bandstand scene', and after that when Crowley goes after him in S1E3 and S1E4. This change in the character's personality made the audience see Crowley as more needy and emotionally dependent on Aziraphale than he was shown in the book.

In the book there wasn't problem between them because they don't fight in the book, there's no scene in the bandstand, no argument, they were more integrated because the plot didn't focus on them, it's leaving room for for readers to simply assume they were a good duo and that's it.

Now, in season 1, that argument between Aziraphale and Crowley at the bandstand scene, and Crowley chasing after him in his car only to be rejected again, I see that as a foreshadowing of what was to come, because the problem was introduced there: neither of them ever talked about it, nor about their differences of opinion on heaven and hell or their relationship openly.

Now I see it as a sign that NG didn't know, since that, how to develop any kind of relationship between those characters!

So, this new understanding, brought about by the adaptation, of their personalities; of Crowley's more needy side, and the long time they spend together without really talking about 'us,' will have consequences for the next season...

Look, season 1, despite some flaws, is still brilliant overall. The problem with the narrative and characterization effectively begins in season 2 and spirals out of control in the finale.

In season 2, we have a Crowley who seems more grumpy (Crowley version from the flashbacks, as Bildad and with Elspeth and Wee Morag, still seems cheerful. He also seems to have fun when he goes to heaven with Muriel, but the plot forgets that he should be helping Aziraphale, not there), but increasingly in the present centuries he seems more closed off, serious and grumpy, further and further from the "optimistic Crowley" of the book.

Meanwhile, the audience expected a development of Aziraphale's character that didn't actually come. We expected that after season 1, he would be better able to discern that "sides" don't matter, and we even expected that the flashbacks in season 2 would be a way to explore this over time. However, in the final episode of season 2, we still hear him saying things like: “You could come back to Heaven and... and everything, like the old times. Only, even nicer” or like “Obviously you said no to Hell, you're the bad guys. But Heaven... Well, it, it's the side of Truth. Of, of Light. Of Good”. Ultimately, this contributes nothing to the character's development.

Fans began to see Crowley as the "poor, heartbroken guy", while trying to find plausible justifications for Aziraphale's words without interpreting it literally. This is evident in fanfictions and theories...

But this only happens because the plot of the second season had already mischaracterized them, since Crowley should never have been transformed into a "mere grumpy, miserable and emotionally needy fool" and Aziraphale should never have been reduced to a "mere naive fool who still believes in opposing sides". From there, things went downhill…

In season 2, the story fails to reconnect the characters with who they were, with what they were in the book, with what they were in season 1.

- First, season 2 erases the remaining human characters from Book/season 1 from the narrative because it doesn't know what to do with them, so it removes them from the narrative core. So we lose Adam, Anathema, Tracy, and all the others from season 1.

- And with the characters that remain, mainly Aziraphale and Crowley, they resemble them visually, but with dissonant personalities.

Because the plot also doesn't know how to truly write these characters!

Aziraphale becomes excessively silly (a disservice to the character; many had already mentioned that Aziraphale seemed to have regressed in Season 2, but most of us chose not listen, thinking there was more to his actions than what was shown, and in the end, it was just a regression, without anything truly elaborated behind his actions), while Crowley becomes more grumpy and needy (when in the book Crowley was optimistic! And in Season 1 he was more fun! But now he became a depressed and needy bore, almost a martyr, where the plot constantly tries to give him the spotlight).

Crowley never says he's living in the car, Aziraphale never asks. They never really talk about their relationship. The Season 2 storyline, without really addressing the second coming or a new apocalypse, getting lost in trying to develop random characters, and failing to establish the "Aziracrow" relationship, and after going nowhere, ends with a dispute between them that divided the audience into "pro-Crowley" or "pro-Aziraphale".

It was awful. The fandom was divided, people started creating theories and writing "fix-it" fanfiction or taking sides, whether it was Crowley's or Aziraphale's.

While the Finale be unsure how to develop their relationship; Aziraphale becomes even more mischaracterized because the narrative insists on forcing him to still believes in sides and making Crowley more and more depressed with martyr-protagonist tones.

And they continue without any dialogue about this or about anything happening between them. Both, the Season 2 plot and the finale, give shape to any other romantic relationships, but not to the main couple.

We never see them have an honest dialogue about "us".

It's curious that, in the book and in Season 1, we have several characters, and even though Aziraphale and Crowley are just more one of all them, they manage to delineate their personalities and relationship well. But in Seasons 2 and the finale, where they are seemingly placed in the foreground, where they should have more prominence and more screen time to develop THEIR story, this doesn't happen!

Perhaps it would have been better to keep them as supporting characters (it seems to have worked for Beelzebub and Gabriel, and for Muriel and Eric), perhaps it would have worked for Aziraphale and Crowley too if plot hadn't tried to force them onto the screen as the "protagonists" they never really were!

And this leads: In the end, the Crowley of the finale was very far from being the "optimistic" Crowley of the book; he basically became his reverse twin, a pessimistic and depressed Crowley who lives on the streets and has lost all hope. Meanwhile, Aziraphale doesn't evolve; he continues to think that hell is terrible and heaven isn't as bad as its actions suggest, as in phrases like: "Someone must've had a motive for the theft. A motive for the murder. Angels aren't killers". So he suggests that it might be hell that stole the book of life. In other words, he learns nothing beyond the "sides".

Their character development was terrible because it was a "involution", a decline. And this, added to the fact that they never talk about "us", ends up making us, as fans, hate what plot did to them.

On the other hand, the Finale returns to central points of the narrative, of the book and the series, the question: is this universe, and the world they live in, deterministic or stochastic?

At this point the plot attempts to recapture elements from the book such as;

"God does not play dice with the universe; plays an ineffable game of own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players [i.e. everybody], to being involved in an obscure and complex variant of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time" - GOOD OMENS BOOK

and

"Maybe it's all part of a great big ineffable plan. All of it. You, me, everything. Some great big test to see if what you've built all works properly, eh? You start thinking: it can't be a great cosmic game of chess, it has to be just very complicated Solitaire". - GOOD OMENS BOOK

The plot of the finale even attempts to suggest that they're going from a deterministic universe to a stochastic one. But it FAILS.

It fails to conclude its central narrative arc because, in presenting the new world requested by Crowley and Aziraphale, this new world makes a point of showing that all the characters from the past universe, immortal or human, still exist in this new universe, all at the same time in the same place, that there's still a strong connection between who they were in the past universe and who they are now in the new universe. The new version of Aziraphale still likes books, still has "fell" as a name, his love still called "Anthony Crowley" and eventually they not only fall in love but also acquire a globe with the bookshop and the Bentley from the previous universe, proving that that universe wasn't truly forgotten.

Which leads us to the question: Did God bluff? Did they not overcome the system? Is it a deterministic or stochastic world?

In other words, in an attempt to give the characters a happy ending, despite all the flaws and setbacks in the plot, the story ends up returning to a deterministic universe. Except without the supernatural element. Making what Agnes had already predicted a reality? Consider this:

"Further Nife and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter," Anathema read slowly, "Concerning the World that Is To Come; Ye Saga Continuef l Oh, my . . .". - Good Omens Book.

What was the overall problem? I think it stems from trying to make Aziraphale and Crowley the protagonists they were never intended to be.

It would make more sense to me if it were like this: Instead of Crowley and Aziraphale, it could be Adam and Josh/Jesus at the end facing God, asking for their world back, but everything supernatural (angels, demons, heaven, hell, God, and Satan) would need to stay away in a parallel plane. At most, they could observe from afar, without interfering… So those who wanted to stay and interfere could simply stay, but as humans, and all the laws governing the universe from then on would be the laws of physics and nothing more.

That way they would solve the "determinism vs. stochastic world" problem that was created as the plot of the finale.

Crowley and Aziraphale would only need to talk about one thing: what do they want for themselves, what do they want for their future together? From there, they could even choose to remain human and finally live the love story they were never able to before, given that I doubt they would be happy in a parallel plane, far from humanity, surrounded by other angels and demons, forever...

...The story still wouldn't be able to fix the damage it did to their personalities on S2 and Finale, not at this point, not in 90 minutes, but it could still fix what it could and give them a happy ending in their original world, and at least get it right with "the right world".

But, in the end, that wasn't the chosen path. Yes, I was frustrated by that...

Well... the ending itself, what we saw, I don't think is bad, but it left many questions! Are they them? Aren't they them? Is it a new world? Isn't it? Will they eventually remember? Won't they remember? Did God bluff? Did God not bluff? Does God still exist? Does God not exist? Why does everything in the new world seem so ineffable? Many questions, no answers.

But, despite all the flaws and the TERRIBLE character development of Aziraphale and Crowley, there are still points I consider positive in the adaptation of the book in the first season and its expansion into the second season and the finale episode:

Of the good things...

1) I loved getting a red-haired Crowley played by David Tennant, I also loved Sheen's Aziraphale visual concept. I didn't know I needed it, but now I can't imagine anyone else playing these characters.

2) All the flashbacks are creative, whether make sense or not. I simply love when the plot shows them in another time, whether in S1 or S2, and whether people liked the finale or not, I became obsessed with Aziraphale's long hair in that first scene. Someone can put me in a straitjacket now, I'm obsessed with hair! Now I simply need a collection of fan art with Aziraphale and Crowley, both with long hair. It's mad!

3) I liked the blossoming of Beelzebub and Gabriel's relationship, as well as Eric and Muriel's. Aww, both so cute. These two couples were something I wasn't expecting, and I'm glad I got them in the adaptation. I liked Nina and Maggie too, despite everything. And, despite people hating it, I also liked Asa and Anthony! Regardless of whether people think they're still Aziraphale and Crowley or not, they're still so cute the way they are.

4) Oh, and I can't forget, I loved Jesus! Another such cute character!

5) And, despite everything that's wrong with Season 2 and the finale, I still laughed at several moments.

6) I like how much more queer the adaptation is than the book. In the book, God is a he, in the series a she. And we have many more queer characters in general than in the book. I know that in the book supernatural beings are canonically genderless or gender-fluid, but the adaptation embraces queer diversity more broadly! And this had an impact on the fans, who began to accept themselves more as a result.

It's a strange feeling. I didn't love it. Nor did I hate it. I just tolerated what I got from the adaptation. Maybe it's because I'm a Libra! It's very difficult to take sides when you're a Libra; we always try to measure things, balance positive and negative points, weighing all the pros and cons exhaustively without ever really reaching a conclusion that benefits either side!

Anyway, I'll keep the good things that Season 1 + Season 2 + Finale gave me in my heart (a collection of several things), but I'll minimize the things I didn't like (quite a lot, but what can I do? I can't change it, I can only overlook it). I didn't love the Book + Season 1 + Season 2 + Finale collection, but I didn't hate it either. I'm somewhere balanced between the two. Love the good things and hate the bad things. Life goes on…

These characters now belong to us to do with them as we please, because what they originally were in the book or the series no longer matters, but rather what they represent to us, because they live in our minds now; the part of them and the plot that still 'll lives in our minds is all that matters at the end of the day. And fanfiction will continue to explore what's best to explore, whether from the book's plot, or from Season 1, Season 2, or the Finale!

[childlost1313]

Calvin & Hobbs ~ Reverse life ~

[sealbug]

Hymenoptera Holmes (honey bee)

[anneangel]

I wasn't saddened by the ending of Good Omens because I chose to interpret the final message as being content with being alive/existing, being loved, and loving. I chose to believe that Asa and Anthony are Aziraphale and Crowley, that they remember this at some point and that's why they ordered the snow globe with bookshop and bentley. I chose to believe that God bluffed. That God put all the people back in the new universe, whether they were previously human or supernatural, now all they're human, which is why they appear in the final scene together (in same place and time, ineffable). Some may remember, others may not. As a message, a moral, I simply see that it doesn't matter if there is a system against them or not, if there is or isn't a god yet, if they have all the time they would like or not. We, humans, are just a grain of sand in the universe. No matter the great things or actions that shake the universe and whoever rules it, being alive and with those we love is enough. I prefer to believe that Aziraphale and Crowley understood this in the end as Asa and Anthony.

[beekeaper]

making a collection 🎻

GIVE ME MORE

eille norwood, arthur wontner, john longden, ronald howard, jeremy brett, basil rathbone, peter cushing, robert stephens, sherlock hound, basil of baker street, igor petrenko, peter cook, robert downey jr, john neville, anthony higgins, vitaly solomon, benedict cumberbatch, moriarty the patriot manga, dean fujioka, yuko takeuchi, henry cavill, henry lloyd-hughes, moriarty the patriot anime, sherlock chapter one.

[anneangel]

I see that the only one who isn't actually Sherlock Holmes is the image of Vitaly Solomin/John Watson from the Soviet version, but I completely forgive that, because that scene is beautiful.

[anneangel]

I understand where the premise of the Finale came from. But I don't think the plot concludes the narrative arc well as a message.

I understand that the narrative chose to use these specific lines.

"God does not play dice with the universe; plays an ineffable game of own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players [i.e. everybody], to being involved in an obscure and complex variant of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time" - GOOD OMENS BOOK

and "Maybe it's all part of a great big ineffable plan. All of it. You, me, everything. Some great big test to see if what you've built all works properly, eh? You start thinking: it can't be a great cosmic game of chess, it has to be just very complicated Solitaire". - GOOD OMENS BOOK

The plot itself says that God placed Satan as opponent so would have someone to play with. He's nothing more than a pawn too!

And, remember, Solitaire is a one-on-one game!

How to solve it? It's difficult! The finale was an attempt to directly answer the central dramatic question: how could people continue in a system that was a game for God (and is, since the book), how to solve this problem?

The realization of this has an impact Crowley; and it makes them, he and Aziraphale, choose a new universe, in an attempt to overcome the one where they were created and in which they were nothing more than pawns.

I understand the Finale narratively, in this respect. But many things remain open; is the new universe really what they asked for? And if it isn't?

Are they or are they not Asa and Anthony? If they are, what are the implications? If they aren't, what is the explanation for so much similarity? They didn't want anything ineffable for that new universe, but isn't everything that happens in the new universe already ineffable enough?

In the END, God caught them alone. The world was already destroyed when they were allowed to ask 'the questions' and 'reach a decision'; they had no one left to fight with them against God, and accepting God's idea of ​​putting everything back in the same place doesn't seem very sensible after all.

But a new universe, I'm not sure if it was the right decision either, especially since we don't know if it was a bluff by God (as it seems it was).

I find myself thinking that a Tolkien-style ending, where the immortals had to leave Earth, would be better as a 'final decision'.

Instead of Crowley and Aziraphale, it could be Adam and Josh/Jesus at the end facing God, asking for the world back, but everything supernatural, angels, demons, heaven, hell, God and Satan, would need to stay away. At most, they could observe from afar, without interfering… those who wanted to stay and interfere could simply stay, but as humans, and all the laws governing the universe from then on would be the laws of physics and nothing more.

So Aziraphale and Crowley could choose to stay, or not. And they could talk about their feelings and their actions, keeping their memories, they could decide whether or not to be a couple. They would decide about the bookshop and the Bentley, and whether or not they would go to South Downs!

The ending that the plot officially could have been MUCH different. I think we all wanted it to be different!

The problem is that since the second season, remove the humans from the focus (S2 simply ignored all the other humans from season 1, Anathema, Newt, Tracy, EVERYONE), and put Crowley and Aziraphale as protagonists. A fatal flaw in the plot, it seems.

But then I remember Agnes Nutter's prophecies…

"Further Nife and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter," Anathema read slowly, "Concerning the World that Is To Come; Ye Saga Continuef l Oh, my . . .". - GooD Omens Book.

And I keep wondering if… this new world we see is about that on Finale.

In any case, I was left with the feeling that God won! Yep, without heaven and hell, ok, it's no longer playing cosmic chess, but this is still Solitaire, isn't it?

God is playing Solitaire and everyone continues to be her playing cards?

It doesn't sound encouraging at all as a message.

Whatever God is playing, it's still a game in the end… how can I be positive about it? Trying to reconcile myself with this idea, but it's difficult.

I'm glad that humans still exist and, apparently, are happy in the new world, including the new versions of Aziraphale and Crowley, but I'm concerned about the implications of what this new world/universe represents.

The question of whether God is still playing or not remains open, according to that finale on screen.

[anneangel]

There was never an Aziraphale in the original story, in William - The Antichrist. Well, there was never a Crowley either.

These characters only became who they were supposed to be when Terry Pratchett came on board as writer.

NG never knew what to do with these characters. So he turned Aziraphale into a fool, and gave Crowley the spotlight.

I'm hearing people say that Season 2 was good, as if it wasn't S2 that brought us to the Finale, as if it wasn't S2 that divided us into "pro-Crowley" or "pro-Aziraphale", where this kind of discord didn't exist before.

I'm hearing people say that the Finale would have been better with 6 episodes, or if NG had been directing it…

The problem is precisely that the only person who truly understood the characters died in 2015. And we're pretending that S2 and the Finale are something by Terry Pratchett, when it's not possible that it is.

Season 2 and the Finale are much more NG than we're all willing to admit.

Season 1 is only so good because it follows the book closely and improves upon it, like, "you want more Aziraphale and Crowley, here it is!"... But...

... It's like sugar being added to a dessert, it was good in S1, became excessive in S2, and turned bitter in the Finale.

Because those who knew these characters died in 2015, and we prefer to believe that the another writer would be able to give us Aziracrow/Ineffable Husbands.

Did he succeed? At what cost?

[child-of-ineffable-divorce]

I think people are too harsh on s2. An unhappy ending doesn’t mean a bad ending, and I think people need to realize why the characters did what they did— it’s very in character (for the most part)

It only becomes a problem once the finale is brought into the picture because I think NG knew how to CARRY the characters, he just couldn’t END the characters (their story, that is)

And I’m not saying s2 is perfect, it has its flaws and critiques are an important part of discussions, and I’m NOT supporting NG, I’m just talking about what has already happened.

S1 is still the best by any metric, because it still has Terry’s heart in it.

People using s2 to become pro-Azi or pro-Crowley aren’t reading the text as a whole, and are (likely) just in it for the Ineffable Husbands of it all, which is kind of what s2 and 3 became solely focused on, but there’s still much more of the story to read into.

I like s2 because it feels like the dessert to a fantastic main course. S3 is where it becomes too sweet (or sour in this case), because the ending (I refuse to believe) is how Pratchett envisioned it.

I have more thoughts on all of this but this largely sums it up. Disagreement and debate are important in fandom culture, but fighting less so

[anneangel]

Hey, I hope I haven't upset you. My goal isn't to belittle Season 2 and the finale. I just want you to know!

I just can't understand the hypocrisy of some in my feed…

I liked Season 2 (I left that as a "p.s." in the comments). I also liked the finale overall (although I may have only liked it because I didn't have high expectations) and also because I'm choosing to only see the most positive things about the finale and ignoring the negative ones.

However, the fans' reaction is what really devastates me the most.

Season 2 was fun, except for the ending. And it was precisely the final 15 minutes that made many fans focus on "pro-Crowley" or "pro-Aziraphale", and that somewhat ruined the fandom experience for me.

As for the finale, it's being sold as "the ending Terry wanted", but honestly, we have no solid basis to believe that this was really something that Terry and NG formulated together in a solid and definitive way…

I think they MAY have had the conversations that NG claims they had regarding a supposed "book 2" of Good Omens, but I also think that if those conversations had been truly productive and deserved attention, then they would have made the time and WILLINGNESS to write it. But they didn't, because it wasn't a good enough idea to dedicate time to.

Then Terry passed away. And then NG made a series based on that book.

It was great. I still think it's great.

But I think NG was outlining what he thought it should be, based on the unfinished and not yet well-formulated conversations they had, and sold it as "something Terry wanted" because that was a 'moving' way to present the project to the public.

And, I really hope you don't misunderstand me. I really liked the plot that the adaptation led to, yes, it has flaws, but I can overlook and appreciate the good things.

I like S1 + S2 and the Finale as a box set!

But I don't see it as something "Terry" because he's not here to speak for himself, and it's very easy to put words in someone's mouth. who is no longer here to speak for himself.

I wrote this post because my feed is getting on my nerves; My problem is that people used to be like "I'm only going to watch this because of Terry, screw Gaiman", and now that the ending wasn't what Aziracrow fans wanted, it's like: "Screw Terry and his ending, if Gaiman had directed it, it would have been better, or if we had all the episodes!".

Yes, the reduction to 90 minutes hurt the narrative, but I don't think the ending would have been different whether NG was directing or not, I also don't think the ending would have been different if there had been more episodes.

Furthermore, there are so many people saying, on my feed, that Aziraphale (especially him) is out of character. And, if people are right to say that, the only explanation is precisely NG. He didn't create these characters by himself, he created them with Terry. And Terry wasn't here during S2 and the finale to guide NG's hand. That's it.

Don't get me wrong, I liked the Good Omens adaptation as a box set. Despite any flaws it may have, whether along the way or at the end. I can overlook the errors and flaws and keep the overall impression positive.

I just can't understand why some people seem to think that the "problem with the finale" didn't already start in Season 2, and why they think it's not NG's fault, when both Season 2 and the Finale are more his than Terry's (even if they say otherwise, there's no proof of that. Is there any manuscript by Terry that proves this? It's only said that it's based on conversations Terry and Gaiman had, conversations they never really sat down to define and seriously shape! And then NG took those conversations and turned them into Season 2 and the finale. Whether we like it or not).

I like what the adaptation built on its own as an adaptation; in general, it's always fun for me to see what an adaptation does on its own, beyond its original material (the book). I know. I'm in the minority when it comes to this sort of thing; people generally prefer 'fidelity to the original'.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I just don't think it's fair for people to criticize the finale without also criticizing the primary reason that led to it: it was supposed to be just a miniseries. It was NG who wanted to expand it. He exploited the fans' desire to see "Aziracrow" and that's what happened. That's why there's a Season 2 and a Finale.

Terry Pratchett wanted his unfinished works destroyed! If that had been respected, we wouldn't have a "Good Omens 2 and Finale."

This plot wasn't finished by Terry. It was finished by Gaiman.

… And yes, I don't think the path taken was bad. I also don't think the conclusion was bad overall.

But, for the people who think it's bad, I would just like them to at least criticize the right person, that one who decided to continue something that Terry didn't finish. And I would also like those who criticize the Finale to criticize it from the right moment, from season 2, because that's when things escalated beyond something Terry actually DID.

Terry can't be to blame. He wasn't here when they decided to continue the book's plot; he wasn't the one who wrote a season 2 that demanded a sequel. And the sequel presented is just an unfinished draft of something he supposedly said, but never fully developed.

Once again, I enjoyed the journey, and I tolerate the finale.

I just don't understand why some of the audience dislikes it and still thinks Gaiman isn't primarily responsible for it at all.

[child-of-ineffable-divorce]

No I get it, don't worry.

I also very much dislike polarization in fans about the ending of s2. It seems like you were mostly commenting on the Terry vs NG disputes, while my reblog was a little more focused on the divide in fans.

I think the reason people are able to say "this is the ending Terry wanted" is because there are parts of it that were in the loosely planned ending, like the South Downs cottage. Because we got the cottage, they're able to say "this is the correct ending!" even if everything else was completely NG

My personal belief is that NG had every right to continue the story, given that he was a co-author (even if he contributed less than Terry), but people should never have expected it to read as Terry. I know that creates a sort of moral dilemma of "if this is solely NG, do I still support it?" and I think everyone has to form their own opinion on that, but it has a right to exist.

You're absolutely right on wanting people to criticize the right person, but also people need to think critically about what makes something good versus what they like. S2 is good it's just very Gaiman, like you said, and it doesn't end happily because it was supposed to be a bridge to s3.

This probably doesn't accurately voice everything I'm trying to say, but TL;DR is that I get what you're saying

[anneangel]

Oh, I'm glad it didn't upset you. I really don't want problems with anyone, I'm just tired of the divisions this is having, not because of the fandom itself, but because of the content we received that polarized everyone (and has been doing so since the end of season 2).

And yes, I think NG, as the creator, also had the right to continue the work. I think Terry only imposed the condition of destroying his unfinished works that were exclusively his own, but allowed NG to do what he wanted with GO.

And he did, GO season 1 was a beautiful homage to Terry. But I think that since season 2, Gaiman has already given his own contours to this work!

That's why the finale doesn't surprise me negatively. I always avoided NG's works because I found it "dark" and with endings that were too "bittersweet".

And yes, the finale has contours that Terry also ruminated on, the finale also takes elements from the original book! The point is that it's done from Gaiman's perspective.

Season 2 and the finale are good to me, but "good" in the same way I see NG's other works: something dark, with a bittersweet ending.

I went into this knowing that NG was in charge from Season 2 onwards and I took a chance to see where it would lead; so NG led in the same way he always does, and I realized that I should have known better.

That's why the finale feels fitting to me; it's what I expected from him.

In the end, I understand why many people are upset with the finale.

I'm just not as upset because I'm trying to convince myself that Asa and Anthony are still themselves (bargaining; grief stages).

In the end, we trust the wrong person to conclude GO, but since we decided to bet on him from Season 2 onwards, there's not much we can do now. It's either accepting the ending he gave us OR ignoring it and pretending that this story officially ended in Season 1/Book, which is as far as Terry was involved.

I truly regret how divided and fragmented this fandom has become since Season 2 and now with the Finale.

I'm trying to see only the positive aspects of everything, of the series as a whole, trying to convince myself that the journey wasn't bad and that there are positive points in the Finale.

But I've seen many people in the fandom also in anguish. And this anguish began when NG started outlining this plot himself, back in Season 2.

The journey and finale wasn't bad, It's just like NG's other works. Good Omens have now all the dark and bittersweet aspects, but although it have nuances of beauty, spoiled the experience of most of what Good Omens used to be. Something more fun and light, satirical yes, but well measured. It's not that anymore

I hope that this fandom, me, you, everyone, can try to rediscover what these characters and story mean to us, to rediscover happiness.

It no longer matters what they were to Terry. Or to Gaiman.

But also, this fandom is so wounded and fragmented after Ending of Season 2 and the Finale that I don't know where to find hope here.

I wanted to focus only on the things I liked in S2 and the Finale. But I also know that people have every right to focus on the things they DIDN'T LIKE, including the way NG handled it in the Finale.

So things are so dark now…

Well, Good Omens has become what I always thought NG works were. I shouldn't have even gotten into this, not after the end of S1. Because I knew that NG only writes tragedies, beautiful tragedies for some, but tragedies. And well, he wrote another one for us. Bad luck for me, I always avoided his works and now I'm stuck in one!

But at some point we'll have to get over this, right? This anguish and pain, and bargaining… at some point it will have to end.

I hope everyone in this fandom will be okay in the near future, despite what we're feeling.

Take care, man! It was great talking to you❤️

[anneangel]

There was never an Aziraphale in the original story, in William - The Antichrist. Well, there was never a Crowley either.

These characters only became who they were supposed to be when Terry Pratchett came on board as writer.

NG never knew what to do with these characters. So he turned Aziraphale into a fool, and gave Crowley the spotlight.

I'm hearing people say that Season 2 was good, as if it wasn't S2 that brought us to the Finale, as if it wasn't S2 that divided us into "pro-Crowley" or "pro-Aziraphale", where this kind of discord didn't exist before.

I'm hearing people say that the Finale would have been better with 6 episodes, or if NG had been directing it…

The problem is precisely that the only person who truly understood the characters died in 2015. And we're pretending that S2 and the Finale are something by Terry Pratchett, when it's not possible that it is.

Season 2 and the Finale are much more NG than we're all willing to admit.

Season 1 is only so good because it follows the book closely and improves upon it, like, "you want more Aziraphale and Crowley, here it is!"... But...

... It's like sugar being added to a dessert, it was good in S1, became excessive in S2, and turned bitter in the Finale.

Because those who knew these characters died in 2015, and we prefer to believe that the another writer would be able to give us Aziracrow/Ineffable Husbands.

Did he succeed? At what cost?

[child-of-ineffable-divorce]

I think people are too harsh on s2. An unhappy ending doesn’t mean a bad ending, and I think people need to realize why the characters did what they did— it’s very in character (for the most part)

It only becomes a problem once the finale is brought into the picture because I think NG knew how to CARRY the characters, he just couldn’t END the characters (their story, that is)

And I’m not saying s2 is perfect, it has its flaws and critiques are an important part of discussions, and I’m NOT supporting NG, I’m just talking about what has already happened.

S1 is still the best by any metric, because it still has Terry’s heart in it.

People using s2 to become pro-Azi or pro-Crowley aren’t reading the text as a whole, and are (likely) just in it for the Ineffable Husbands of it all, which is kind of what s2 and 3 became solely focused on, but there’s still much more of the story to read into.

I like s2 because it feels like the dessert to a fantastic main course. S3 is where it becomes too sweet (or sour in this case), because the ending (I refuse to believe) is how Pratchett envisioned it.

I have more thoughts on all of this but this largely sums it up. Disagreement and debate are important in fandom culture, but fighting less so

[anneangel]

Hey, I hope I haven't upset you. My goal isn't to belittle Season 2 and the finale. I just want you to know!

I just can't understand the hypocrisy of some in my feed…

I liked Season 2 (I left that as a "p.s." in the comments). I also liked the finale overall (although I may have only liked it because I didn't have high expectations) and also because I'm choosing to only see the most positive things about the finale and ignoring the negative ones.

However, the fans' reaction is what really devastates me the most.

Season 2 was fun, except for the ending. And it was precisely the final 15 minutes that made many fans focus on "pro-Crowley" or "pro-Aziraphale", and that somewhat ruined the fandom experience for me.

As for the finale, it's being sold as "the ending Terry wanted", but honestly, we have no solid basis to believe that this was really something that Terry and NG formulated together in a solid and definitive way…

I think they MAY have had the conversations that NG claims they had regarding a supposed "book 2" of Good Omens, but I also think that if those conversations had been truly productive and deserved attention, then they would have made the time and WILLINGNESS to write it. But they didn't, because it wasn't a good enough idea to dedicate time to.

Then Terry passed away. And then NG made a series based on that book.

It was great. I still think it's great.

But I think NG was outlining what he thought it should be, based on the unfinished and not yet well-formulated conversations they had, and sold it as "something Terry wanted" because that was a 'moving' way to present the project to the public.

And, I really hope you don't misunderstand me. I really liked the plot that the adaptation led to, yes, it has flaws, but I can overlook and appreciate the good things.

I like S1 + S2 and the Finale as a box set!

But I don't see it as something "Terry" because he's not here to speak for himself, and it's very easy to put words in someone's mouth. who is no longer here to speak for himself.

I wrote this post because my feed is getting on my nerves; My problem is that people used to be like "I'm only going to watch this because of Terry, screw Gaiman", and now that the ending wasn't what Aziracrow fans wanted, it's like: "Screw Terry and his ending, if Gaiman had directed it, it would have been better, or if we had all the episodes!".

Yes, the reduction to 90 minutes hurt the narrative, but I don't think the ending would have been different whether NG was directing or not, I also don't think the ending would have been different if there had been more episodes.

Furthermore, there are so many people saying, on my feed, that Aziraphale (especially him) is out of character. And, if people are right to say that, the only explanation is precisely NG. He didn't create these characters by himself, he created them with Terry. And Terry wasn't here during S2 and the finale to guide NG's hand. That's it.

Don't get me wrong, I liked the Good Omens adaptation as a box set. Despite any flaws it may have, whether along the way or at the end. I can overlook the errors and flaws and keep the overall impression positive.

I just can't understand why some people seem to think that the "problem with the finale" didn't already start in Season 2, and why they think it's not NG's fault, when both Season 2 and the Finale are more his than Terry's (even if they say otherwise, there's no proof of that. Is there any manuscript by Terry that proves this? It's only said that it's based on conversations Terry and Gaiman had, conversations they never really sat down to define and seriously shape! And then NG took those conversations and turned them into Season 2 and the finale. Whether we like it or not).

I like what the adaptation built on its own as an adaptation; in general, it's always fun for me to see what an adaptation does on its own, beyond its original material (the book). I know. I'm in the minority when it comes to this sort of thing; people generally prefer 'fidelity to the original'.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I just don't think it's fair for people to criticize the finale without also criticizing the primary reason that led to it: it was supposed to be just a miniseries. It was NG who wanted to expand it. He exploited the fans' desire to see "Aziracrow" and that's what happened. That's why there's a Season 2 and a Finale.

Terry Pratchett wanted his unfinished works destroyed! If that had been respected, we wouldn't have a "Good Omens 2 and Finale."

This plot wasn't finished by Terry. It was finished by Gaiman.

… And yes, I don't think the path taken was bad. I also don't think the conclusion was bad overall.

But, for the people who think it's bad, I would just like them to at least criticize the right person, that one who decided to continue something that Terry didn't finish. And I would also like those who criticize the Finale to criticize it from the right moment, from season 2, because that's when things escalated beyond something Terry actually DID.

Terry can't be to blame. He wasn't here when they decided to continue the book's plot; he wasn't the one who wrote a season 2 that demanded a sequel. And the sequel presented is just an unfinished draft of something he supposedly said, but never fully developed.

Once again, I enjoyed the journey, and I tolerate the finale.

I just don't understand why some of the audience dislikes it and still thinks Gaiman isn't primarily responsible for it at all.

[anneangel]

There was never an Aziraphale in the original story, in William - The Antichrist. Well, there was never a Crowley either.

These characters only became who they were supposed to be when Terry Pratchett came on board as writer.

NG never knew what to do with these characters. So he turned Aziraphale into a fool, and gave Crowley the spotlight.

I'm hearing people say that Season 2 was good, as if it wasn't S2 that brought us to the Finale, as if it wasn't S2 that divided us into "pro-Crowley" or "pro-Aziraphale", where this kind of discord didn't exist before.

I'm hearing people say that the Finale would have been better with 6 episodes, or if NG had been directing it…

The problem is precisely that the only person who truly understood the characters died in 2015. And we're pretending that S2 and the Finale are something by Terry Pratchett, when it's not possible that it is.

Season 2 and the Finale are much more NG than we're all willing to admit.

Season 1 is only so good because it follows the book closely and improves upon it, like, "you want more Aziraphale and Crowley, here it is!"... But...

... It's like sugar being added to a dessert, it was good in S1, became excessive in S2, and turned bitter in the Finale.

Because those who knew these characters died in 2015, and we prefer to believe that the another writer would be able to give us Aziracrow/Ineffable Husbands.

Did he succeed? At what cost?