Monterey Bay Aquarium
tumblr dot com
d e v o n

#extradirty

izzy's playlists!

if i look back, i am lost

Kiana Khansmith

tannertan36
No title available
Peter Solarz
Cosimo Galluzzi
Keni
đȘŒ
ojovivo

No title available

Origami Around
will byers stan first human second
art blog(derogatory)
Aqua Utopiaïœæ”·ăźćșă§èšæ¶ă玥ă

Janaina Medeiros
seen from South Africa

seen from Bulgaria
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States

seen from TĂŒrkiye

seen from Netherlands
seen from United States

seen from Netherlands
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from United States
@cousin-serena
Aziraphale challenges himself to forego miracles for a month to better mingle with his new South Downs neighbors and discovers he has, indeed, married a demon.
Accompanying Fic: https://archiveofourown.org/works/55579279/chapters/141061969
KUDOS THAT!
An Archive of Our Own, a project of the Organization for Transformative Works
As someone who took etiquette lessons, politeness is an incredibly effective tool for disarming bigots. You can either force them to reconsider their words/actions by directly and calmly confronting their behavior (by using the rules of society in your favor), or you can dip entirely while they appear to be in the wrong.
Both options are great.
Because the thing is, when bigots pick fights, they are 100% counting on you to get louder than them. Or meaner. They want you to react emotionally and provide fodder for their 'You're Too Emotionally Immature To Understand' cannon.
What they aren't expecting you to do is say one of the following phrases in a polite, concerned tone:
Are you okay?
That's not the kind of language I was raised to use with others.
Do you need a moment to think on why that wasn't acceptable?
This is no way to engage in intelligent conversation. Please try that again in a kinder tone if you'd like this to continue. (I really like this one because it lets you turn their public-shame rhetoric around)
For those of you who'd are spiteful and/or dealing with Fundamentalists/Evangelicals/generally shitty Christians:
What's happening in your life to cause you this much anger? I can't imagine hurting so badly that I need to hurt other people.
Who taught you it was acceptable to treat other people this way? Certainly not the Jesus I remember.
Whatever happened to 'judge not lest ye be judged'?
If I talked like that in front of my parents or grandparents I would be ashamed.
I think there's something you need to pray on before we try and have this conversation.
And my all time favorite:
"It sounds to me like there are some seriously dark and angry forces at work in your heart."
(Nothing stops a Christian bigot in their tracks faster than implying the Devil is causing their bigotry. But you MUST be calm, polite, and gentle with your tone and wording. It is absolutely fair to twist the rules and play them at their own game, but you gotta play hard.)
TLDR: It's much faster to use etiquette, politeness, and rhetoric reversal when eviscerating idiots online and in person, because they aren't expecting you to weaponize their behaviors back in their direction. Don't get angry, get spitefully polite! :)
Your personal triggers and squicks do not get to determine what kind of art other people make.
People make shit. It's what we do. We make shit to explore, to inspire, to explain, to understand, but also to cope, to process, to educate, to warn, to go, "hey, wouldn't that be fucked up? Wild, right?"
Yes, sure, there are things that should be handled with care if they are used at all. But plenty more things are subjective. Some things are just not going to be to your tastes. So go find something that is to your tastes and stop worrying so much about what other people are doing and trying to dictate universal moral precepts about art based on your personal triggers and squicks.
I find possession stories super fucking triggering if I encounter them without warning, especially if they function as a sexual abuse metaphor. I'm not over here campaigning for every horror artist to stop writing possession stories because they make me feel shaky and dissociated. I just check Does The Dog Die before watching certain genres, and I have my husband or roommate preview anything I think might upset me so they can give me more detail. And if I genuinely don't think I can't handle it, I don't watch it. It's that simple.
#this excludes writing pedo or incest.
If you look at the tags on my original post, this post was originally about hospital horror, and how it's allowed to exist even if an individual has medical trauma and doesn't like the genre. But since someone wanted to go and put some shit on my post that I disagree with:
No, actually, it doesn't exclude those things. Dark themes in fiction are allowed to exist whether you like them or not.
Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita was not a real little girl who really got brutalized. She was a fictional character. No real child was harmed. People are not reading Lolita and going out thinking, "oh, this told me to abuse children, and clearly it's morally okay now." The existence of Lolita is not responsible for the existence of CSA.
Wes Craven's New Nightmare was pretty meta, but Freddy Krueger was still never real and never hurt any real kids, either. He's a story. None of those kids ever died, none of them ever got abused, and Fred Krueger never got burned to death, because they're all fake and never existed. Murder and CSA in the real world aren't Freddy Krueger's fault.
Jaime and Cersei Lannister are not real people. They are fake. They are words on paper, and actors on a screen. Lena Headey and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau are not siblings, and did not ever have real sex in the show. It was fake, simulated, not real sex. No siblings actually fucked. Nobody is watching/reading Game of Thrones and thinking, "oh, I can totally go fuck my sibling with no repercussions now!" The existence of Game of Thrones is not responsible for real-world incest.
Guillermo del Toro's film Crimson Peak didn't kick off an epidemic of everyone deciding it's okay to fuck their sister and kill their wife. William Faulkner's "A Rose For Emily" isn't making people kill men and sleep with their corpses, and Emily never really killed Homer because neither of them actually exist in the first place.
John Wick isn't making people run out and become hitmen. The very cute doggy that infamously dies in the first movie was not actually a real dog death--the dogs in John Wick were treated very well, according to a ScreenRant article I found!
Ghostface was played by a combination of stuntmen and a very talented voice actor, and all his murder victims were actors who were filming a pretend story. It was all choreographed and nobody really died. The benind-the-scenes stuff for the Scream series is actually really cool if you're into that sort of thing like I am.
Arcane didn't put grenade launchers in people's hands and turn them into vigilante fighters juiced up on Super Drugs--and you know what, neither did any of the things the Batman franchise has churned out. The Joker and Scarecrow and Poison Ivy and Harley Quinn aren't out there terrorizing New York City, because they're fantasy supervillains who aren't real and can't hurt you.
The endless waves of bandits in Skyrim are pixels on a screen, and I'm not killing real men when I cut them down. No real people got hurt when my Sims 4 house caught fire. Playing Super Smash Brothers hasn't gotten me into underground fighting rings, and neither did watching Fight Club.
It's all fiction.
None of it is real.
The characters are fake and do not exist.
Curate your own media experience and get your head out of your ass.
[ID: a comment left by tumblr user msexcelfractal, which reads "Cool post OP, now do Birth of a Nation. End ID.]
Content warning: antiblackness, antisemitism, sinophobia, general discussion of bigotry and oppression
You really want to try and go there as if that's some kind of gotcha on the subject of dark fiction? Fine. Let's go there. I've got sources and free time.
Birth of a Nation is a horrific hate crime of a film. It is flagrantly racist and was connected to a surge in KKK membership. Nobody should watch that film for enjoyment. It's horrific. Nobody should be forced to watch it, either. You don't have to watch the film, and I don't recommend you do, unless you're actively involved in studying it for whatever reason. It's a bad, hateful movie.
I have not watched it in its entirety and I don't really ever intend to. There are Black scholars who have already broken it down and discussed it at length, and I don't feel I'm going to get anything out of the film that they haven't already covered. If I need to study Birth of a Nation in more depth for whatever reason, I'm going to defer to Black scholarship on the subject.
But if you tried to ban the film altogether? If you tried to erase it from existence? I would ask what the fuck is wrong with you. Banning Birth of a Nation does absolutely nothing to combat the racism that created it. It wouldn't stop racists from making racist art. It wouldn't erase the damage done by the film. It wouldn't go back in time and make it retroactively never made.
You know what banning it would do, though? It would strip film scholars of the ability to discuss it. It would prohibit people from talking about exactly why it was bad. It would inhibit honest conversations about what the film was and who it affected.
You know what you do with horrific bigoted art like Birth of a Nation? You have content warnings, like the one I put at the beginning of this reply. You don't spring it on people who don't want to discuss it. You don't put it on for people to watch without warning. You don't tell everyone you know to go and watch it and give it money.
You do things like what Warner Brothers did with their Tom and Jerry disclaimer:
âThese animated shorts are products of their time. Some of them may depict some of the ethnic and racial prejudices that were commonplace in American society. These depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. While the following does not represent the Warner Bros. view of todayâs society, these animated shorts are being presented as they were originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed.âÂ
You damn sure don't erase it from history and pretend that ignoring it will solve bigotry. Censorship is not the answer, because censorship is always enforced harder on marginalized artists. You ban racism in film, you ban films by Black artists who are exploring the topic from their own perspective.
When the Hays Code banned "offense to other nations," you know what happened? It didn't stop racism in film, that's for damn sure. It instead gave bigoted censors a perfectly legal and easy way to shut down art by marginalized people, which they did gladly.
The rise of the Nazi Party in Germany resulted in the Reichsfilmkammer demanding the removal of all Jewish workers from Hollywood's European locations. American films began receiving heavy censorship and bans in Germany, and so American studios complied with the Reichsfilmkammer's demands in order to avoid legal trouble in Germany.
Despite the Nazi party's outright hostility toward Hollywood, the MPPDA office discouraged any negative depiction of Germany or the Nazi party. Germany had been such a huge market for American cinema that the Reichsfilmkammer's censorship codes for German films began impacting American-made cinema. Jewish representation in cinema all but disappeared overnight. Joseph Breen, the head of the censor board, was an open antisemite, going on open tirades against Jewish people. His censorship policies were flagrantly bigoted and only served to reinforce that bigotry on a systemic level.
In 1933, Herman J. Mankiewicz and Sam Jaffe tried and failed to make an anti-Hitler film titled "The Mad Dog of Europe." The Hays Code was used to deny the film's production. On July 17, 1933, Will Hays himself ordered the filmmakers to cease and desist, all in the name of "not offending Germany."
Said Joseph Breen, "It is to be remembered that there is strong pro-German and anti-Semitic feeling in this country, and, while those who are likely to approve of an anti-Hitler picture may think well of such an enterprise, they should keep in mind that millions of Americans might think otherwise.â
Variety said about the subject, âAmerican attitude on the matter is that American companies cannot afford to lose the German market no matter what the inconvenience of personnel shifts."
Anna May Wong, a Chinese-American actress, lost out on a leading role in the film "The Good Earth," due to the Code's explicit ban on interracial relationships. The leading man had already been cast with a white man wearing yellowface, meaning that Wong was unable to be cast as the leading lady and love interest, even though the characters were supposed to both be Chinese. The role instead went to a German-American actress wearing yellowface, who went on to win an Oscar for the role.
Censorship doesn't help anyone. Censorship does not protect anyone. Censorship does not prevent bigotry, and in fact only serves to reinforce it.
Anyone who read this far and learned something: being an independent media censorship researcher doesn't exactly pay the bills, so check out my Ko-Fi or Patreon if you learned something and feel generous.
My main sources for this post are:
Pre-Code Hollywood: Sex, Immorality, and Insurrection in American Cinema, 1930-1934, by Thomas Doherty
The Dame in the Kimono: Hollywood, Censorship, and the Production Code, by Leonard J. Leff and Jerold L. Simmons
The Encyclopedia of Censorship, by Jonathon Green & Nicholas J. Karolides
Morality and Entertainment: The Origins of the Motion Picture Production Code - Stephen Vaughn
Sin in Soft Focus: Pre-Code Hollywood, by Mark A. Vieira
Forbidden Hollywood: The Pre-Code Era (1930-1934), When Sin Ruled the Movies, by Mark A. Vieira
Hollywood's Censor: Joseph I. Breen & the Production Code Administration, by Thomas Doherty
And since you made me talk about Birth of a fucking Nation, here are some additional resources for people who are actually interested in Black media history:
Birth of an Industry: Blackface Minstrelsy and the Rise of American Animation, by Nicholas Sammond
Archival Rediscovery and the Production of History: Solving the Mystery of Something Good - Negro Kiss (1898), by Allyson Nadia Field
Humor and Ethnic Stereotypes in Vaudeville and Burlesque, by Lawrence E. Mintz
The Original Blues: The Emergence of the blues in African American Vaudeville, by Lynn Abbott and Doug Seroff
Waltzing in the Dark: African American Vaudeville and Race Politics in the Swing Era, by Brenda Dixon Gottschild
Darkest America: Black Minstrelsy from Slavery to Hip-Hop, by Yuval Taylor and Jake Austen
Love & Theft: Blackface Minstrelsy and the American Working Class, by Eric Lott
The Prettiest Girl on Stage is a Man: Race and Gender Benders in American Vaudeville, by Prof. Kathleen B. Casey
Dancing Down the Barricades: Sammy Davis, Jr. And the Long Civil Rights Era, by Matthew Frye Jacobson
Blackface, Whiteface, Insult and Imitation in American Popular Culture, by John Strausbaugh
A Change in the Weather: Modernist Imagination, African American Imaginary, by Geoffrey Jacques
Hollywood Black: The Stars, The Films, The Filmmakers by Donald Bogle
The Blackface Minstrel Show in Mass Media: 20th Century Performances on Radio, Records, Film, and Television, by Tim Brooks
Oscar Micheaux and His Circle: African-American Filmmaking and Race Cinema of the Silent Era, by Pearl Bowser, Jane Gaines, and Charles Musser
America on Film: Representing Race, Class, Gender and Sexuality at the Movies, by Harry M. Benshoff and Sean Griffin
White: Essays on Race and culture, by Richard Dyer
Black American Cinema, edited by Manthia Diawara
Colorization: One Hundred Years of Black Films in a White World, by Wil Haygood
Framing Blackness: The African American Image in Film, by Ed Guerrero
Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies, & Bucks: An Interpretive History of Blacks in American Films, by Donald Bogle
White Screens, Black Images: Hollywood From the Dark Side, by James Snead
Reel Inequality: Hollywood Actors and Racism, by Nancy Wang Yuen
The Hollywood Jim Crow: the Racial Politics of the Movie Industry, by Maryann Erigha
Standing ovation for this post.
I have a feeling that beneath the little halo on your noble head There lies a thought or two the devil might be interested to know You're like the finish of a novel that I'll finally have to take to bed You fascinate me so
You Fascinate Me So, Blossom Dearie
...And a reblog with a couple detail shots, as a treat. đ€
Well this is just scrumptious
will you ever come back, or is this an indefinite hiatus/straight up dipping?
i don't know
all the i miss yous are making me want to come back but ik i would just be terrified and motionless as soon as i do
Vent-ish Rant downstairs
CW: Pedophilia, Antisemitism, Suicide, Ableism, Harassment, Bullying, all the important words except for murder basically
Bullies drove a wonderful fan artist off social media
SIDE EFFECTS MAY INCLUDE STAMMERING BLUSHING KISSING WALL SLAMMING GOING TOO FASTâ I didnât catch them all but i am DYING
Reblogging again because I took a screenshot of the side effects...
âSide effects may include: stuttering, stammering, blushing, kissing, hugging, hissing, going too fast, wall slamming, drunken confessions, crying to Hozier, being the little spoon, banter, involuntary snake transformations, and marriage.
Please call your doctor if snake transformation lasts longer than 24 hours
Medication for demonic use only. Use on humans without adequate millennia of preparation may induce seizures, coma, religious conversion, hallucinations, and hiccupsâ
@good-omens-heritage-posts
good omens heritage post
"Ask YOUR doctor if Aziraphale is right for you!"
People seem to have forgotten that "proship" was the Fandom norm for the longest time.
Only, it wasn't called proship. It was called ship and let ship. Or minding your own buisness.
If someone had a ship you didn't like or thought was gross, you would avoid them. If they drew art or wrote stories you didn't agree with or like, you would ignore them.
There were tags like smut, whump, and angst to tell people about things they might not want to read. And then dead dove: do not eat for taboo subjects and especially gritty fic.
Then people started to ignore that. Younger fans started to bully people because they disagreed with shipping certain characters. Whether it be because it "wasn't canon", they thought it was gross, or they just didn't like it.
These people began calling themselves "anti-ship"
Pro-ship became a label to show that someone was against anti-ship.
Eventually, the anti-ship movement began to die down. So do you know what they did? They started accusing people. Of being pedophiles, groomers, rape supporters, and more. All because they wrote or drew things that these people didn't like.
They began claiming that THEY were the Fandom norm, and that these "proshippers" were the bad people. They started claiming that proship stood for "problematic shipping"
Due to this, the term "pro-ship" is often misconstrued as to what it means. Many people don't even KNOW what it means.
It means "anti-censorship".
It means that we support someone's right to produce art, no matter how gross, no matter how taboo, no matter how "problematic"
Because it's not hurting anyone.
If it's something you don't want to see? Block the person. Block the tag. Say in your bio that you don't like it. That's what they're FOR!
This was discussed in earlier days of fandom.
"I wonder why people would read a story in a genre they don't care for, then take the time to let the writer know that sure enough, they didn't care for it. That would be like me going to a restaurant, ordering a slice of cherry pie, then asking that the chef be brought out so I can say "I don't like cherry pie, and I didn't like yours either." To continue this analogy into its usual fannish outcome, the chef would say "Well gee, lady, why did you order it?" And I'd say, "Are you questioning my right to order cherry pie?"
-Unknown 2002
Except now, it would be like the person who didn't like the cherry pie and ordered it anyways then demanded that no restaurant serve cherry pie because it was poison. Not only is it a ridiculous request, it's blatantly untrue.
... They're gonna start an "angelic exes" knitting club
(Don't repost; reblogs are fine)
-->If you like my work, leave me a tip! :D
About the Bleating Crows
In Good Omens Season 2 Episode 2, when Crowley looks Aziraphale in the eye and tells him he killed Job's goats and now does indeed want to kill the children, Aziraphale is understandably heartbroken and probably a microsecond away from bawling (How about Michael Sheen's acting here? Masterful slow progression from shocked to sad, wobbling lip and teary eyes--I started crying myself!).
And then, of course, as both demon and angel turn away, Aziraphale hears the crows bleating and he discovers Crowley's deception. The crows are the goats, still alive and well.
Aha! His demon is still the softie Aziraphale thought he was.
My take is that Crowley deliberately let Aziraphale "discover" his trick. Crowley absolutely could have kept up the illusion of the crows if heâd wanted to. I mean, heâs powerful enough to stop time. Certainly keeping this deception going, even in front of an angel, would have been a piece of cake for him.
But, besides not wanting to see his angel cry, Crowley sees how hurt and devastated Aziraphale is when Crowley convinces him that he's a cold hearted killer.
He doesn't want to lose his angel, but he also has to save face. So, he subtly allows a crack to appear in the illusion, enough for Aziraphale to be the one to "discover" the trick.
Oh, and notice how unsurprised he looks when Aziraphale puts his hands on his hips and smiles and does his cute âI figured it outâ thing
Michael Sheen: I got to do it one more time with him [David] thinking we were doing another take but it was just so I could hold up score cards at the end and go, "SEVEEEEEEN!". (x)
(Bloopers, deleted and extended scenes dropped on Prime! :) (you have to go to the episode and then to the 'Bonus Content' Wahoo! :D â€)
Rather a big thing, by the way, that many of us are probably re-evaluating right now is Crowley consistently not wanting to be called kind or nice. Especially not by Aziraphale.
In S1, that was what triggered the wall slam. âBit of an overreaction, if you ask meââbut in S2 we see more about how strong Crowleyâs feelings are on the topic.
In the Job minisode, Crowley vehemently insists that he is a demon. He is so angry at God. When Aziraphale tells him that he is certain Crowley does not want to destroy Jobâs children, Crowley takes his glasses off to expose full-demon irises and looks Aziraphale in the eye as requested and says, âI want toâ.
Aziraphale is heartbroken over that. His shoulders slump, he exhales shakily, his faith in Crowley has indeed cracked. Look at him:
And then, of course, he figures out the trick, and it turns out that he is exactly right about Crowley. âWell,â he says, and looks vindicated, triumphant, amused.
He was right. He knew Crowley would resist atrocity with everything he has. He knew Crowley would understand itâs an atrocity in a way Gabriel and Michael did not seem to (and neither did those two care). What Aziraphale sees is that, for all of Crowleyâs demonic posturing, Crowley came through.
(He remembers the angel that Crowley used to be. So joyful. So happy. So unlike Gabriel and Michael, too: the angel Crowley would never have gone along with killing Jobâs children.)
At the end of this minisode, Aziraphale is ready to go to Hell. He thinks he must: he lied, he thwarted the will of God. Crowley, of course, tells him that he is simply an angel who goes along with Heaven as far as he can.
Aziraphale will process this in some way later, but⊠he wonât process it in the same way as Crowley. Aziraphale wonât reject the idea of Heavenly goodnessâHeaven is supposed to be good, thatâs the whole pointâbut he will take note of how, time and time again, Crowley exemplifies this idea when the actual Heavenly angels do not.
Across history, Aziraphale sees Crowley do things that are good. And then disclaim them, reject them, call them something else. A demon could get into a lot of trouble for doing the right thing, Crowley had warned him a long time ago.
Aziraphale will remember this.
Donât say thank you, Crowley hisses in the Bastille. My lot do not send rude notes.
And the Victorian minisode?
Off my head on laudanum, not responsible for my actions, Crowley tells Aziraphale vehemently after saving Elspeth from suicide. (In Christianity, certainly in the 19th century, suicide condemns a soul; one who died by suicide does not even get a Christian burial. So Crowley has actively diverted a soul from Hell by drinking the laudanum.)
Andâlook at how indulgently Aziraphale is looking at Crowley as Crowley insists he is not responsible for his actions.
Of course you arenât, my dear, he seems to think. We both know you did it on purpose, to have a plausible excuse for Hell. But of course we both know that you are in fact responsible for your actions, and that, at great personal risk and cost, you have once again chosen to do good.
So by the end, from Aziraphaleâs point of view, Crowley has a much better idea of Good than Heaven itself. Andâoh joy!âin the finale, Metatron, the voice of God, finally acknowledges that fact and validates it. Your demon recognized me when nobody else did, Metatron essentially says.
(I just cannot with the ominous dramatic music that plays as Metatron leads Aziraphale out of the shop. Get the FUCK OUT David Arnold, this is so pointed and disturbing. In this season and in the last, the music is narration, it tells us so much without a single word.)
Anyway! Yes! In the finale, Aziraphale is being manipulated, and part of why it works is that he still does not understand Crowleyâs motives in insisting he is not nice or good. He has been interpreting Crowleyâs insistence solely as protective, which makes a lot of sense from what he has seen. A demon doing good deeds must hide to avoid punishment and pain. Crowley has hid for six thousand years, has gotten used to hiding. Sure, the last four years were different, but even in these years the danger hasnât gone away, and six thousand years is a long time to set a pattern.
Aziraphale wants to see Crowley happy. He wants to see himâboth of themâsafe. And here, finally, is an official Metatron-offered way. Heaven is finally admitting and working on its mistakes. Surely Crowley will forgive them? Surely Crowley and Aziraphale can make Heaven better, together? Make into what it should be? (And they would be safe, they would be safe, they would be safe.)
They still havenât talked. Aziraphale still does not understand Crowleyâs choices. In the past, it might have been too dangerous for Aziraphale to know exactly why Crowley Fell, while for Crowley, it might have been too vulnerable a thing to discuss. So they havenât talked, and Aziraphale does not know the exact questions Crowley had asked, does not know the exact reasons. He assumes.
And his assumptions, oh so well-meant, are going to be catastrophic.
A spot-on analysis which I must reblog, because this blog is all about reblogging đ
Reblog if youâre 30 or older
This is an experiment to see if there really are as few of us as people think.You can also use this to freak out your followers who think youâre 25 or something. Yay!
âŠOlder. :)
Are there any clues for season 3 in the s2 title sequence?
Yes.
Okay, everyone. Please rev up the Mystery Machine, grab some Scooby snacks and letâs get to work. We need answers!
Aziraphale is a victim of abuse
Oh boy let me talk about how clearly Aziraphale mirrors a victim of abuse. Warning for spoilers obviously.
Throughout season 1 and 2, we are shown clear examples of Aziraphale being ridiculed and abused by the Archangels. They tore down Aziraphale's confidence and made him believe he was "soft" and "useless". The things they said to Aziraphale sound a lot like the comments Nina received by her abusive partner Lindsay.
And, like Nina, he needs to realize how to heal from that trauma. Because unlike Nina, Aziraphale once again fell for abusive and manipulative tactics, namely Metatron's love bombing.
Metatron came and told him that this time, things will be different because Aziraphale will be the one in charge, subsequently validating Aziraphale's belief that the problem isn't Heaven and Hell as institutions, it's the people running those institutions that are the real issue. This is a very clever way to manipulate Aziraphale and it's also very realistic, as victim's of abuse often go back to their abuser. Why?
Abusers manipulate their victims into thinking that 1. they NEED to stay because they would be nothing without their abuser and 2. that this time it will be different and that they love them (see. Metatron offering that Aziraphale run Heaven and finally saying what Aziraphale's always wanted to hear: "You did the right thing"), also known as love bombing. It's what makes leaving a destructive relationship so hard, because deep down victims cling onto the hope that things will get better eventually.
Abusers also destroy their victim's other relationship, leaving them without a support network and no one to turn to once the abuse inevitably starts again. Metatron did just that, he KNEW Crowley would be upset, and as soon as he was able to he belittled Crowley ("He always wanted to do things his own way" and "He asked too many questions"), subtly discouraging Aziraphale from doing the same. By doing what he did he effectively cut off Aziraphale from the one person who could change his mind. It also means he has an easier time getting Aziraphale to do his bidding, because now, Aziraphale feels like he has nowhere to go to if he wants to leave Heaven.
Metatron, as an extension of Heaven, is the abuser, and Aziraphale is the victim. Crowley already knows Heaven and Hell are toxic, but Aziraphale hasn't realized that yet. I believe that season 3 (pray we get one), will focus heavily on how that abuse and manipulation will continue until Aziraphale learns to stand up for himself, and finally leave the relationship which has hurt him for so long.
Reminding myself that this isnât the end of the story
hi this is your daily writing reminder that I am so proud for opening that document and adding a line to it, or for thinking about those characters, and reminiscing about that plot twist.
Stuff I need to hear.
Could you acknowledge my existence with a reply?
When I'm down I'll think "but Mr Gaimen knows I exist! Maybe just as a random username on Tumblr (which I'm still quite new to), but he knows!"
And then I'll think about how there are Good things like my favorite author in the world, even though maybe my pigeon pooped on my bed or I'm dying of a brain worm(fictional example as of right now)
You definitely exist!