GO3: Breaking the author-reader(viewer) pact
I know the theme has been talked about at length but well, what's one more? I have thoughts that I have expressed here and there but have not put them all together, so here we are.
(and yes, although I have tried to look for more of Terry's words, there will be references to NG's interviews or blogs because whether we like it or not, he made the TV show, that's just facts)
The book ending ruined the TV show
One of the first things I said after watching GO3 was "this is a Terry Pratchett" ending, the getting rid of the supernatural that is, taking down the oppressive institutions so humans could be humans. I still believe that. However, TV Good Omens was no longer a Terry Pratchett story. The ending was set in stone, we knew that, but the road to get there diverged so much from the original road that it no longer fit.
The book is satire, it is comedy, it is social commentary. The book was never a romance. The show however, was purposedly written as a romance all the way back to Season 1.
It was going to take skill to bring it back to its roots, to solve the romance satisfactorily and then bring the social, supernatural and human themes of the book to the forefront again so the ending would feel natural, earned. Skill that evidently the writers didn't have.
In addition to the writing, we have the the added issue of the creator and the promotion fanning the flames of the fandom, encouraging and teasing that the romance would be solved the way the fandom has been expecting for years; the way a romantic comedy is expected to end, with Crowley and Aziraphale finally being together and living happily in the South Downs. Crowley and Aziraphale, the characters that went through the hurdles, the ones with the shared history, the ones that fought Heaven and Hell for humanity and their own freedom. Those characters are the ones that needed the resolution and the reward. The show did none of that.
Ultimately GO3 broke the author-reader pact and delivered an ending that did not fit the story it was telling anymore. It forced a humanistic fantasy satire ending onto a fantasy romance. The noble sacrifice of a heroic epic instead of the happily ever after of a romance.
The change from satire to romance
Back in 1988 two guys wrote a book about the end of the world (published in 1990). In that book an angel and a demon formed one team in favor of averting said apocalypse. One team among three others; the witch/junior witchfinder, the jezebel/senior witchfinder and the children, all of them, human.
And that's the thing, Crowley and Aziraphale were never the main characters, this wasn't their story. Their only inadvertent real contribution was keeping the eyes of Heaven and Hell (including themselves) distracted for 11 years, because not even the mix-up at the birthing hospital was Crowley's doing.
The cold open of Episode 3 of Season 1 exists because Crowley and Aziraphale are not in a good chunk of the book and that space had to be filled somehow. The body swap does not exist in the book, neither does the bandstand or the conversation outside the bookshop ("I forgive you"), and there aren't mentions of Alpha Centauri. All of that was added to their love story.
As far back as Eden, the metaphorical butterfly started fluttering its wings (more like a metaphorical dragon). That first scene was changed from a random conversation between two onlookers to a meet-cute. From Aziraphale shading only himself to shading Crowley.
The sequel and the South Downs
Ok. Back to the novel. In Halloween of 1989, while promoting the book, they came up with the idea, the title, and the plot of a sequel. The Second Coming, Jesus on a plane, a road trip across the US, "668, the Neighbour of the Beast," all of that was imagined back then. But it never got written.
And then in June of 2005 they met at the Audie awards and talked a little more about it. That's when the South Downs bit came about.
That September at two different events -one Terry's, one Neil's- they talked about that meeting and the sequel and we learned about the cottage.
The authors, however, did not see them as a couple at the time. Good Omens still wasn't a love story, neither was the hypothetical "Good Omens 2".
Entries in NG's journal June 5th, 2005 and May 8th, 2006. The URL in the second one is a link to the first. And a summary of two events a fan (Irisbleufic) attended in 2005
Fandom's gotta fandom and fandom had been shipping these two for 15 years already. And whether you saw the book boys as a couple or not, this was still the end point the fandom looked forward to for 21 years. TWENTY ONE YEARS!
Retiring together in a cottage in the South Downs was a glimpse into a happy ending nobody had expected, but now it was there, within reach. This didn't outright spell "romance" but it did spell "peaceful rest after everything is said and done"
Yes, both book and show warn of "the big one" but in the book even the discussion about the big one was about humanity itself. The show mentioned it but it really didn't go into a discussion about it, instead it left us with a sense of peace and of triumph for our ineffables.
This is why I can see the seeds of a Terry Pratchett ending; still pursuing the meaning of humanity, of good and evil, and of Heaven and Hell as the oppressing institutions that represent it. And ultimately the abolishment of said institutions even if that means removing all the supernatural presence.
This is why I can see Aziraphale and Crowley walking away if that means humans get to be free of ineffable plans and tests, if that means they really get to walk their own path. I can see this making sense with a plot that, as the first book, focuses on humans and is not, you know, a love story.
On Terry's ideas about fiction and stories
In June of 1989, at Iconoclasm, a convention held in Leeds, Terry gave an interview to Octarine, Science Fiction & Fantasy Humour Appreciation Society where he talked a bit about his writing. This was barely four months before plotting the sequel in Seattle.
Have you always written humour?
Not intentionally. It’s just a style that I tend to gravitate to. I tend to write in a fairly lightweight style, partly because I cannot handle the quantum’s and orbital mechanics and partly because fiction as a whole relies on the suspension of disbelief, that million-to-one chances can work. In an awful lot of writing you have to believe that there is a moral force on the side of your main protagonist which will see to it that he can win. There is a lot you have to take seriously but when you do you realise that it is actually quite funny, so you tend to subvert the thing. I find that whatever I start out by doing, it tends to wind back to humour in the end.
So maybe Terry did have Crowley and Aziraphale give up their ethereal/occult natures somehow, but if he did, he also would have given them and us something that made it worth it and fair. Even if that something was turning human and living their last years like that in their cottage in the South Downs, it would have felt fitting and fair.
Ok. I think that's it. If you got all the way to the end, I hope it made some sort of sense even if you don't agree with me :)
