I only just made a post about how I wouldn’t be posting more about good omens but one more thing won’t quit nagging at me and I saw some other people pointing out similar issues very well, so I wanted to have a go.
In my opinion, the whole point of good omens is that people (in the real world, and the book), are not black and white, a notion that is compounded by the characters of Crowley and Aziraphale and their own moral complexity. While the show demonstrates this complexity in some respects, it’s undermined by the imbalance in their relationship and, more specifically, the “softening,” of Aziraphale’s character.
Aziraphale in the book is not an entirely different character. He’s still scatty, neurotic, generally kind and generally disapproving of evil. And he is soft, which isn’t necessarily a “good,” trait for an angel but isn’t necessarily “bad.”
In terms of typically angelic sensibilities it means he’s polite to a fault, willing to patch up Anathema and her bike, enjoys hot cocoa, and dislikes watching ducks sink and die - although that last point might not be as rock-solid a representation of his morals as some people think. On the other hand, it means he’s slothful, a little gluttonous when it comes to food, and too endeared to the human race to really want to go along with the apocalypse in the end (as much as sloth and gluttony are also deciding factors there).
Where he differs, in the book, is in the way his more “angelic,” traits are characterised.
Crowley, as a demon, enjoys causing mischief and low-level strife, while still being kind at heart. On the surface level you would imagine the inverse of this characterisation to be a character who is superficially kind but more callous at heart.
This works well in line with Heaven and Hell functioning as two opposing forces that could be used to represent any conflict of your choosing on Earth (literally or more metaphorically), but in a way the book subverts your expectation of the subversion too.
According to Crowley, Aziraphale is, at heart, “just enough of a bastard to be worth knowing.”
On the point of the duck - while he admonishes Crowley for sinking it, Aziraphale himself does not seem overly concerned with the pigeon he kills at Warlock’s party. It’s not that he’s totally ambivalent - he’s just too distracted at the time to give it much thought. Similarly - although he tries to convince Crowley to do it for him, as it isn’t the “Heavenly thing to do,” Aziraphale is the one to suggest killing the antichrist.
I don’t think these are representative of him being, “just enough of a bastard,” however - I think that his attitude towards Adam and his attitude towards life in general at certain stages of the book are moreso representative of him being an *angel.*
Despite what he says about it not being appropriate for an angel to murder a child, he’s very enthusiastic about getting it done, and about doing it through a demon. That’s Heaven all over in the book-verse, death and pain is justified if it is carried out in the name of righteous fury… by other people who can shoulder the responsibility of that righteous fury, that is.
Hell might be more “evil,” in terms of torture - but it also has young demons who skate down lovely lanes of frozen dead bodies. Nothing is black and white. The angels are not meant to be, “nice,” they are simply “right,” (to their own minds). You can’t quite claim to understand life if you are not living it.
Azirphale’s genuine kindness is what sets him apart from the rest of the angels as much as it sets Crowley apart from other demons. His choice to stay and fight against Satan for humanity is one born of an idea to also fight against Heaven! Not simply out of angelic duty, but out of duty to the Earth. In fact, his very first act in the book (and show) is also one of defiance against Heaven when he gives Adam and Eve his sword to keep them warm.
In the book, he seems at least somewhat aware of Heaven’s “good” not being so totally unquestionable - although is still lead by his faith to a degree that gets him unwittingly discorporated.
He specifically points out the destruction of Gomorrah as an example of Heaven’s “mercy,” not always prevailing (and as of his fear of being “found out,” while influencing Warlock). He also holds open disdain for the apocalypse - which he expresses to Metatron, twice, openly.
But… he is also a bit of a bastard. Again, a direct quote (that several other people have also pointed out), is that an exposure to humanity is affecting Aziraphale as much as Crowley, just “in the opposite direction.” He’s rude to customers, very eager to politely tear apart a bigoted evangelical on live TV (although he doesn’t quite realise he’s on TV at first), and he is more than willing to check Crowley in an argument. This is where that classic subversion of a typical “angel-demon” pairing comes from, and it balances their relationship, but more than anything it’s (pared with the subversion-ception) what makes them a great representation of the theme of the book writ large: people are what make the world interesting.
Aziraphale and Crowley are both complex creatures - and in Aziraphale we see this both in the more “superficial,” or at the very least emotionally detached “good,” of Heaven he represents, as well as his genuine kindness AND his character of the of long-suffering book keeper. This is all possible because he has a bit of free will that exposure to humanity has bled into him over the years - he has agency. Aziraphale’s kindness is his own. It’s not from Heaven, and it’s not from Crowley.
That’s what the show misses. While there is definitely still a subtle shaping of the classic subversion of “demon actually good! Angel actually bad!” In Azirapahale’s more overt softness that Heaven is also overtly against, it almost hammers it home too hard. He’s not only soft and slightly nervous, torn between his greed for humanity’s accomplishment, his love for humanity itself (and Crowley), and his supposed faith in God - he’s almost completely naive.
Sure, Aziraphale stands out from the other angels because of his kindness, but it’s a kindness and a softness that is generally portrayed as either misplaced or entirely dependent on Crowley’s actions. Somebody else on here pointed out that Crowley ignited Aziraphale’s love for food in the show, that he made him question his morals with Morag and Elspeth, that in each case Aziraphale was never acting on his own. Even in season 1 - Aziraphale’s attempt to save the airbase is heavily reliant on Crowley (“or I’ll never speak to you again!”).
The show portrays his angelic nature as a lack of understanding of the true impact of his role as an angel on Earth, and points out (through Crowley) how hypocritical this is several times. Aziraphale is at once guilty for his compliance in Heaven’s design over Earth and innocent for his own naïveté. In the books - the hypocrisy is more obvious, and also something he is *aware* of.
The difference is, in the book he learns (a least a little bit). In the show, Aziraphale’s lack of bite and lack of agency as a result make him feel less so an equal representation of humanity alongside Crowley, and moreso a way for Crowley’s humanity to develop and express itself.
It also feels less like character progression, even in s1, for him to come around “fully” to humanity’s side. Book Aziraphale could be ruthless in thought, if not entirely in nature. It might be padded with lovely witticisms and flowery language, but for a lot of the book he still holds those angelic ideals while knowing that they aren’t necessarily, “good” (if it’s not the angelic thing to do, why is the loophole you’re using to justify it that you’re doing it in Heaven’s name? Thwarting evil, “and all that.”). He might love humanity, but certainly at first he’s not willing to put it before Heaven, despite might be right or wrong. Not until sushi enters the picture.
Show Aziraphale on the other hand, never technically proposes anything outright violent - he is simply passively a part of a violent agenda, which is less interesting as it makes him seem unable to identify the hypocrisy of this of his own accord.
His eventual return to Heaven - after we are shown decades of Crowley giving him, “lessons,” speaks less to the very nature of two celestial/occult beings being shaped by the love and hate and all around humanness of humanity, and more to the fact that after everything they’d been through, humanity was so much of a second thought to Aziraphale that he believed he could save it by adhering to the same dogma he’d seen failing endlessly for centuries.
And on the topic of these lessons - book Crowley himself was, similarly to Aziraphale, only partially motivated by good intentions when he originally set out to save the world. One is not more morally correct than the other, that’s the POINT.
Would book Aziraphale have gone to Heaven if he’d thought he could change it? Perhaps. But part of me thinks he’d be too lazy, and too weary, to fully believe what was happening. Most likely he’d say yes assuming that if he didn’t he would be righteously smote alongside Crowley and, upon arriving and not being very smote, would devote all his time trying to get back to somewhere he could hide away and not have to do a lot of work.
I have a soft spot for show Aziraphale and his brilliant optimism, even if it is steeped in his own internal prejudice - these traits could have made a spectacularly interesting character, despite his differences from the book, if only he’d been allowed as much agency, and as much room to breath as TV-Crowley.
Instead, the show ultimately favours a somewhat self-reverential “good-man-stupid-man,” dynamic that a) only really emphasises the evil of Heaven (both systems are oppressive) and b) makes only one of the two leads in competent enough to defy the cosmic order, because he’s the edgy bad boy that’s a super special angel and has always been. Where’s the fun in that?
(that said Sheen does a great job with what he’s given + s1 is still a fun show despite its flaws, a lot of the much bigger issues come out in 2 and 3. one more final final thing, I saw someone say some of the events of s1 didn’t really make sense for the modern-era and I think it could have been interesting if they kept the updated theme of capitalist hegemonies over Cold War super powers but also set the show back in the 90s. Could have added a fun period-piece element.).
