It would have been so easy for Crowley to not declare his love after Aziraphale interrupts and drops his bombshell. It’s so often the trope that someone finally works up the courage to confess something but is then interrupted and when asked, ‘what were you going to say?’ they respond with ‘Oh it wasn’t important’ or something along those lines.
That would have been the easy choice. There still could have been a fight, it still would have been devastating and all of that subtext and all of those unspoken feelings would still have been there but no, they decided to pull out every.single.stop. on the heartbreak front.
I think that was absolutely the right (and brave) decision for the level of drama needed and for that scene. And for their relationship.
But also, I just can’t stop thinking about WHAT IT MUST HAVE TAKEN for Crowley to do that.
He worked up the courage, was interrupted, was given horrendous, shattering news and then STILL DECLARED HIS LOVE ANYWAY
And yes he had to try and he had to make Aziraphale understand but THINK WHAT IT MUST HAVE COST HIM
And then even after the confession not working out and his heart being stomped on again HE STILL WENT FOR A KISS
HE PUT HIS WHOLE ENTIRE HEART ON THE LINE
FUCKING EVERYTHING HE HAD
Imagine what that would take for anyone, LET ALONE CROWLEY
I keep seeing a post that's like "it's so sweet that Crowley cleaned up the bookshop while Aziraphale was in Edinburgh" and I'm like listen, I get what you mean but that is not what's happening here, Aziraphale keeps his shop a mess on purpose to ward off customers and Crowley tries to alphabetize his CD collection to take his mind off the impending apocalypse but is thwarted by them already being alphabetized. That was stress cleaning and it was for Crowley's benefit.
Thinking about the ball again and I'm starting to think Aziraphale is exerting just a terrifying amount of control there. Like beyond just the dancing and, as Nina put it, everyone talking like they've just escaped from Pride and Prejudice. Because it seems almost like everyone who crosses the threshold is playing the role that he sets for them based on how he thinks they should act.
Some of them barely change at all. Like how Nina and Maggie are still basically acting like themselves aside from the dancing. But with some of them it's more pronounced, like how the lady from the French restaurant suddenly barely speaks English. And I wonder if maybe the reason Mrs Sandwich can't say what she actually does is because... Aziraphale doesn't know what she actually does, so it's not incorporated into the role he's set for her.
The scariest thing to me is I don’t think he realizes how much he’s controlling them. He’s only exerting a teeny bit of influence, in his view. But the truth is he’s getting completely lost in the fantasy.
Yes I agree. I think if it was genuinely just about Maggie and Nina it would have been specific and discrete. But the changing of everyone’s clothes and conversation? The total Austenification of everything? That’s pure unconscious expectation on his part and is driven by I am going to ask Crowley to dance.
I wonder if it’s because it’s imagination. The book really talks about how Crowley does what he can do because he has a fertile imagination. Perhaps power is enhanced by emotion and imagination, not just rank. So in this case, aziraphale’s imagination is in high gear and therefore he’s perhaps subconsciously controlling all this stuff
That’s not bravery. Bravery is something you have to summon in the face of something you are afraid of. In these moments, Crowley is not afraid - HE IS ANGRY.
You ever been that angry? Ever watched the person you would die for threatened? You ever have love so unconditional for someone that your love for them is far above any concept of survival or morality?
Crowley is fully aware that he could die with the actions he is taking to protect Aziraphale. But that isn’t bravery - he just doesn’t care about the consequences.
That is how clear his love for Aziraphale truly is.
I agree with this. I think people really like to dismiss that Crowley can get angry. And it’s righteous anger. He is Angry and protective here.
His bravery emerges when he’s soft; that’s brave for him. Saving the girl when he should be damning her. Making hot cocoa for Gabriel. Admitting feelings for aziraphale to another being and then actually showing his hand to him later. Standing up to satan. That is brave for Crowley
I have pondered on this many a time before and came to the conclusion that the whole Find-the-Lady game that happened with the babies was God's misdirection to drop off the Messiah when no one was expecting it, with all eyes on the Antichrist. After all "of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." (Matthew 24:36)
Let me lay out my brain logic:
Johnson is a name that comes from Son of John. John means "God is gracious". God-is-gracious-son. ("What was it he said that got everyone so upset?" "Be kind to one another")
The Christ part of Jesus Christ comes from the Greek word Christos which literally translates to anointed one. Anointing is generally done with oil. Grease is "a thick oily substance". So we have Anointed God-is-Gracious-son.
Jesus was famous for hoarding fishermen who became fishers of men and also for doing fishy miracles. Also Ichthus, a symbol still used in the church today, is a fish. Greasy Johnson won prizes for his fish.
The Antichrist was prophesied to be a rival to Christ - Greasy Johnson and the Johnsonites were rivals to the Antichrist and the Them.
Based on the Nativity stuff, Jesus was born via a human the first time around so it makes sense for the same to happen second time around (unlike Adam, as far as we know - Sister Mary asked and we never got an answer to it and he turned up in a basket)
From what I remember, when Neil and Terry mentioned the potential sequel, it was going to involve America. In the Nativity, Jesus and his family had to go back to the place where his human parents came from. If Greasy Johnson does a DNA test, it will lead him back to America and to Harriet Dowling.
Look I feel a bit like I'm throwing soup at a dart board and calling it analysis, but I have some thoughts about Aziraphale's magic words in episode 4, and it's going to kill me if I don't share.
The thing is, these words have been nagging at me since I heard them. They sounded familiar, and I've been trying to figure out why. Today, it finally clicked.
Banana. Fish. Gorilla.
Those initial three words are all key words from Crowley and Aziraphale's drunken conversation about Armageddon. It's right at the start of things, when Crowley convinces Aziraphale to help him stop the world from ending.
We'll start with the fish, because they come up first.
"The point I'm trying to make," [Crowley] said, brightening, "is the dolphins. That's my point."
"Kind of fish," said Aziraphale.
Their entire exchange here is hilarious and iconic but I'll try to keep this to the point. After some banter about the difference between fish and mammals, Crowley argues that dolphins don't deserve to be caught in the crossfire when the kraken rises and the seas boil. Which conveniently brings us to:
"Same with gorillas. Whoops, they say, sky gone all red, stars
crashing to ground, what they putting in the bananas these days?"
Banana. Fish. Gorilla. It got me curious, so I searched for other places these words show up in the book. There's nothing I think is really significant: a couple of things are described as banana flavoured, fish show up in rains that herald the impending doomsday, gorillas aren't ever mentioned again. If I'm on the right track at all, I think this part is here to signpost a connection between this string of words from the show and the specific moments in the book.
If that's true, it must be pointing to something. What's left? Shoe lace and nutmeg.
Shoe lace.
The word "shoelace" isn't actually in Good Omens. Neither is "shoe lace" with a space in between. There's a couple of unremarkable descriptions involving shoes, and one miraculously conjured lace handkerchief, and then - and then. Right at the very end of the story, we have Adam, grounded by his parents, being described as "a scruffy Napoleon with his laces trailing, exiled to a rose-trellissed Elba". It's tenuous. I could dismiss that as nothing. Except Adam's laces show up again, and it's the very last passage of the book.
If you want to imagine the future, imagine a boy and his dog and his friends. And a summer that never ends.
And if you want to imagine the future, imagine a boot . . . no, imagine a sneaker, laces trailing, kicking a pebble; imagine a stick, to poke at interesting things, and throw for a dog that may or may not decide to retrieve it; imagine a tuneless whistle, pounding some luckless popular song into insensibility; imagine a figure, half angel, half devil, all human . . .
Slouching hopefully towards Tadfield . . .
. . . forever.
I'm not ready to say much about what I think the significance of this passage might be. But an allusion to the book's ending does feel significant, doesn't it?
The one thing I will say, for people who may not know, is that this passage is riffing on a line from Orwell's 1984. The line it's playing on is a lot darker: "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – for ever." I think it's probably relevant that this is referencing a book about a totalitarian regime. I also think it's probably relevant that it's taking that reference and twisting it into something much sweeter, more optimistic and empowered.
I'm still thinking through all the connections and implications, though.
Nutmeg.
And that brings us to "nutmeg". I have to be honest, I wasn't hopeful. I didn't remember any references to it and if I were betting, I wouldn't have put money on it appearing in the book at all. But the word does show up, and it shows up exactly once. Crowley is reminiscing about a cocktail he had once, made out of fermented date-palms. It's part of a conversation with Aziraphale, where they discuss losing the Antichrist. And here's the really interesting part:
"You said it was him!" moaned Aziraphale, abstractedly picking the final lump of cream-cake from his lapel. He licked his fingers clean.
"It was him," said Crowley. "I mean, I should know, shouldn't I?"
"Then someone else must be interfering."
"There isn't anyone else! There's just us, right? Good and Evil. One side or the other."
He thumped the steering wheel.
"You'll be amazed at the kind of things they can do to you, down there," he said.
"I imagine they're very similar to the sort of things they can do to one up there," said Aziraphale.
"Come off it. Your lot get ineffable mercy," said Crowley sourly.
"Yes? Did you ever visit Gomorrah?"
"Sure," said the demon. "There was this great little tavern where you could get these terrific fermented date-palm cocktails with nutmeg and crushed lemongrass-"
"I meant afterwards."
"Oh."
Book Aziraphale differs from his characterisation in the show in a few ways, and this is the big one. In the book, Aziraphale is much more cynical about his own side, and much more aware of heaven's flaws. Here, he's convincing Crowley that the threat heaven poses is just as serious as any threat from hell.
If I'm right about any of this, if these nonsense words mean anything at all, I think they are saying that heaven and hell are two sides of the same very nasty coin, and more to the point, that maybe Aziraphale is more aware of it than he seems.
I need to think about this more, still. I'm not sure if I really think this connection is something, and if it is, I'm still figuring out what sorts of conclusions we might draw from it. But if the script is trying to point us to these three sections of the book, maybe there's a deeper analysis to be had here.
I do think it's interesting that the last two words each only show up in one section of the book. It's not like I'm skipping around trying to decide which passage involving shoe laces is most relevant - it shows up twice, only in the last few pages of the book and only in relation to Adam (and in particular, humanising Adam. He's Napoleon in exile, but he's a kid with trailing laces. His future isn't a boot stamping on a human face, it's a sneaker with those same trailing laces - and a stick that his dog can choose whether or not to chase).
I could talk myself in circles on this point, so I guess I've got to open it up to the floor. Am I making something out of nothing with this? Or do you think there could be something here?
They put the soft little flashback of Aziraphale and Crowley as angels at the very beginning of the season, and it was such a cute way to start the story that you don't think much of it, it almost feels like fanservice, but it's actually the set up for the final heartbreak, because Aziraphale wants to bring them back there, to go full circle, in the narrative and in their lives. Crowley, on the other hand, wants to break free (ha! this post has been left in the Bentley for more than a forthnight) from heaven, from hell, and from this circular narrative.
You know what Good Omens season two is? It is a barrel of herrings. Red herrings.
And hidden within all those herrings there are clues.
Real legitimate clues to what is going on and what season three has in store. But they are buried in the damn herrings.
Because is going on. Something big.
But what? We all agree that the Metatron is a manipulative shit and Crowley was a high ranking angel. So much so good. But beyond that it is a mess of herrings and clues.
There’s—
-weirdly emphasised coffee with a hefty jigger of almond syrup
-Crowley’s memory lapses with Saraquel and Furfur
-Constant references to resurrection
-Chekhov’s Book of Life will it be used in season three? Or is it being used already?
-An angel and a demon running off together but the wrong angel and demon
-Bizarre double mirroring with Maggie and Nina- here’s an Aziraphale mirror no whoops she’s Crowley. Haha!
-Maggie misspelling an easy word to spell just like a demon (but not Crowley- Crowley can spell)
-Crowley sneaking into Heaven and opening secret documents like he does that every other day and already knows they haven’t changed their passwords
-Enormous focus on the Book of Job
-A magic trick in which Crowley aims for Aziraphale’s mouth and shoots past Crowley’s ear
-Aziraphale’s manic grin in the final frame
And there’s lots more besides. This is just off the top of my head. Clues. Absolutely. But herrings too. Is it a bluff or a double bluff? Is it the trick or is it the misdirection?
One thing is for sure Neil has given us plenty to occupy ourselves with during the wait for season three (very deliberately I think). This is not easy to unpick.
And thing is, some of these probably DO come down to overthinking. The lull between seasons of a popular show always causes this. (The Sherlock fandom was a cautionary tale that I have not forgotten.) It’s easy to overanalyze, especially with a story that does include a lot of deliberately placed hints.
The mentions of Resurrection are probably a leadup to the Second Coming, so that might be the explanation for that bit already.
Maggie’s misspelling - almost certainly a red herring, people misspell all the time, especially when they’re upset. It’s not restricted to demons. Could be significant, but I’m not putting a lot of weight on it by itself.
The relationship mirroring with Maggie and Nina, and the contrast with Gabriel and Beelzebub, are highly symbolically significant, but not necessarily plot-relevant beyond s2. There’s a good chance we won’t see them again (though I certainly hope we will).
The Book of Job - only really referenced on the matchbox, iirc. Again, an in-season reference that might or might not still be significant later.
The Book of Life - will almost certainly come into further play, but we know WAY too little to figure out how yet. We have wild speculations that would be great fodder for fanfic, but not enough evidence to make actual predictions.
Crowley’s memory lapses and access to Heaven’s database - also almost certainly have a deeper meaning, and likely to play a part in s3. Whether it’s a big or small plot point remains to be seen.
The coffee - that’s a BIG mystery, isn’t it. I like the Omelas reference theory and the almond symbolism, I think they might both be deliberate, but is there more? That, I’m curious about.
The smile in the elevator - buddy I have so many questions about that, I don’t know where to begin. We have nothing to go on there. That’s a big ol’ Wait And See.
Bottom line, most things are deliberate in this show, but sometimes they’re plot relevant and sometimes they’re just fun references. And it’s not always easy to tell which. And sometimes we are making shit up out of thin air, and that’s going to be the next 3-4 years for this fandom. Gonna be a ride, folks.
Don’t think we are at the overthinking stage yet. Lol. But yes the fandom could lose its mind a bit.
Mostly what I’m seeing so far is people grabbing one thing and running with it, dismissing everything that doesn’t fit that one thing and becoming way too certain of it.
I think all of these are either clues or red herrings. Telling the two apart is the tricky thing. Personally, I think following any and all of these up and theorising around them is fine. As long as we hold it all lightly and remember we could have just built a beautiful theory from a herring.
That’s what I’m aiming to do anyway. To craft as many theories as I like and hold them all lightly and keep an open mind.
