Sandbitchin'

I would make this a Mrs. Sandwich fan account, to match my blog title (that I came up with 14 years ago), if I were physically capable of shutting up about Aziraphale for twenty seconds. Alas.

[valtsv]

time to make a post on tumblr. surely no one will interpret it to be as offensive and bad intentioned as possible.

[valtsv]

by talos this cant be happening

[loveheartsandwich]

You know, when we give Crowley and Zira new nicknames, it's things like Beautiful Moon Maiden, or Angelito, or some soft loving shit like that.

(Beautiful Moon Maiden, top bunk. Angelito, bottom bunk)

When we give Terry a new nickname, it's something like Fucknuts, or Asshole.

(Fucknuts the Asshole (affectionate))

It feels a tad misandrist/orangephobic, but to be fair, the girls have never tried to chew on our basement wiring, or rendered Mommy's phone screen unusable with their teeth. 😭😂

[the-book-of-bad-habits]

I gave this one its own post

[kalelraejepsen-deactivated20231]

sometimes i find out about 19th century “health tonics” that were pumped full of what we now consider recreational drugs and i have to stop myself from making another meme about aziraphale and cocaine. it’s not that i think the jokes are bad, but i feel like they requires you to understand my headcanons about aziraphale and hedonism as well as the landscape of victorian drug culture. it’s not drug use as DARE campaigns would depict it, as addiction that destroys your life (although it should be said that plenty of victorians did wind up with addictions that ruined their lives because of how cavalierly these drugs were sold and marketed and how little education there was about safe drug use), but drug use that i think held a similar cultural place to what marijuana is now—sometimes medical, sometimes recreational, and for a lot of people a part of both daily life and special social settings like parties. the queer scene in particular was associated with opium and absinthe, and if we think of aziraphale as someone heavily involved in the victorian queer scene then it stands to reason he would participate in that drug culture. based on his love of fine camel coats, good wine, good food, and rare books, he probably enjoyed that culture with as much gusto as he enjoys anything else

ANYWAY coca cola was invented to be a nonalcoholic alternative to vin mariani, which was literally just wine infused with cocaine. the pope literally endorsed it and was featured in advertisements for it. the inventor died in 1914 without passing the recipe on to his successors and you bet your ass aziraphale hoarded cases of the stuff when he learned it was going out of production

[ineffablelovebirds]

He still has some of the original ones, stored somewhere with other fancy stuff that has long, long, long gone out of production for good

[krakensdottir]

I’ve had this thought many times - that the total demonization of all drug culture is a rare and mostly recent thing, and almost certainly not how either of them sees it. Of course they’ve always been seen as a bit of a vice, or at least an indulgence, but Aziraphale is all about indulgence and Crowley’s all down for petty vice, so that doesn’t discourage either of them in the slightest. For Az it’s on about the same level as enjoying good food, with the same vague nagging slight shame instilled by Heaven, which he rather easily ignores when he’s having a good time. For Crowley… well, it’s all part of the rich tapestry of human experience that he can’t get enough of sampling.

I also imagine they have preferences. They both agree that marijuana is one of the best substances ever imported from the New World, and of course they both enjoy alcohol. Beyond that, their tastes diverge somewhat. Like in my head, Aziraphale likes the calm, dreamy state of opium. Crowley enjoys the rush of stimulants, but he has a real thing for hallucinogens. He’s also sampled more of the dark side of street drugs than Az has - partly because it overlaps with his job a lot, partly because his own deep-seated issues draw him to it, though he’d never admit that aloud. Still, neither of them sees it as a huge horrible thing, and they’re often baffled by this recent dramatic shift in the western mindset that’s made it all so strictly taboo.

[ymfingsteadilyon]

especially as they aren’t subject to physical addiction  (behavioral is another story and crowley’s drinking habit proves it)

Going a little bit off topic here, but: how much of a drinking habit does he actually have? Fanon certainly suggests that his meetings with Aziraphale tend to involve quite a lot of alcohol, but canonically, the only cases of him getting apostrophically drunk is A) when he’s learned that the world is ending and he’s realistically speaking about to lose everything he cares about, and then later B) when as far as he knows, he has lost everything he cares about. I don’t really get the feeling that it’s a normal occurrence?

[krakensdottir]

Actually, that’s exactly what I meant by drinking habit. He seems to be a social drinker where Aziraphale’s concerned (admittedly taking it to an excess leading up to Armageddon), but solitary heavy drinking is confined to Very Bad Times. Something is Too Much, he retreats into a bottle. It’s not habitual drinking that’s the problem, it’s the fact that that’s a go-to escape route. If I’m not mistaken, that still counts as a behavioral dependency. At the very least, it’s a not-so-healthy coping mechanism. Kind of like his tendency to scream at plants.

But yeah, my broader thinking is that psychologically they’re quite close to human in most respects, so they’re probably just as subject to forming habits, destructive or otherwise. Their body chemistry is another matter, being apparently just a passing nod to real-world biology, and given the fact that they can insta-sober themselves at will. This gives them license to dabble in things that are risky for humans.

[flameraven]

Yeah, I don’t think either of them can become chemically dependent on drugs or alcohol, since they don’t have to obey physics or, presumably, biology. But as a comfort or a coping mechanism, absolutely. Crowley seems to favor habits– binge drinking and sleep– that will turn his brain OFF for awhile. Not surprising for someone who is constantly (and justifiably) terrified of Hell’s punishments. I imagine he would want to be careful to avoid anything that would make him too vulnerable, just in case Hell makes a surprise appearance, but something that takes the edge off that constant anxiety? I think he’d use that in a heartbeat. Aziraphale, on the other hand, just seems to enjoy experiencing all the different things that humans have invented. He loves food, he loves good wine, he likes well-made clothes, even if he doesn’t understand fashion. Drugs are just another novel thing humans made that does some interesting things to a corporation. If you don’t have to worry about addiction… there’s no reason not to take them and enjoy those feelings. I don’t imagine he indulges much in the modern day, as he does seem to want to maintain a respectable human-sona, but, well. He does have that collection of antique snuff-boxes. Quite possibly some still have snuff in them. And I don’t imagine he’d object if Crowley showed up with something or other to enjoy on late nights at the bookshop.

[biblicalbuddycomedy]

My Hot Take is that I don’t think pre-fall Crowley was an archangel or seraphim or ANYBODY of any rank in Heaven.

Angel Crowley has big Office Tech Guy ™ energy.

This would also explain why he knows all the Heavenly computer passwords and file locations.

[constance-mcentee-deactivated20]

Without naming your job, tell me something you say over and over again at work.

"I can note your interest in that feature for future development."

[twilightofthesandwiches]

…And, actually, like, why is Asa characterized as being so insecure about asking Anthony out? To the point that he had to have Derek point out to him that Anthony was interested and that he should ask him out? (when it actually really weakens the thematic point about Free Will to not just let Asa choose Anthony of his own volition) To the point that he starts preemptively rejecting himself when he does ask him out? (when it mostly just makes Anthony ‘cute’ little fake-out rejection come off as kinda unnecessarily mean)

This kind of insecurity was… not really a huge part of Aziraphale’s character. Like there were hints of it very occasionally, he is Not Immune to Heavenly Body Shaming, and there is the fact that he apparently didn’t realize that “I lost my best friend” was about him. But it was also balanced out by his much more common expressions of confidence and open friendliness. Like, God literally tried to shame Aziraphale for being ‘Prideful’ just about fifteen minutes before we get this ‘Meet-Cute’ scene.

And, like, the biggest thematic flaw in the entire Asa and Anthony concept, basically the first thing I starting ragging about when it comes to GO3’s Ending, is that Anthony and Asa are so happy and well-adjusted and their lives are only ‘flawed and human’ in very superficial ways, that they come off as far more Inhumanly Perfect then the Demon and the Angel did. And the narrative so far has focused on the personal and interpersonal problems that were hurting their relationship and then it basically ‘solved’ them all in such a Magical way…. In an ending that’s supposed to be about the power of Mundanity.

And… I don’t think these hints of Asa’s insecurities really act as a meaningful counter to that central complaints. It's not really given enough narrative weight, nor do we really have the time to see Asa actually overcome these problems , and these weren’t the character flaws relevant to Aziraphale’s Arc, much less to the not-really-resolved issues in his relationship with Crowley. So instead it just comes off as weird. So much of this ending just shows them as Happy People in a Happy Relationship with all of Aziraphale and Crowley’s actual flaws and difficulties scrubbed out, why are you then adding an 'issue' that wasn’t there before by making Asa so insecure?

Like I said in a previous post, our time with Asa and Anthony is very limited, and their main narrative role is just supposed to be to convince us that they’re close enough to being Crowley and Aziraphale and that they’re happy and we should be happy for them. Why are we spending the few hundred words that Asa even gets to say on establishing that he thinks Anthony is way out of his league? I…Well...

Well, I want to say that I just don’t understand the narrative decision to characterize him like that, but to be quite honest, I can think of a few hypothetical reasons why they wrote him like that. It’s just that none of these would be particularly charitable towards the writers of GO3...

[masnadies]

This is so annoying. Yes, I like that Aziraphale is anxious and has clearly put up with millions of years of family/workplace abuse. It's so relatable!

However, just as New universe Anthony is supposedly far less traumatised than Our universe Crowley (to the delight of some and the dismay of others) due to not having Fallen but lived in a free world with a reasonably good life, we would hope that Aziraphale would similarly not have that anxiousness to his personality, because he was brought up in a loving family, did a decent stint of teaching, and is now working in a lovely bookshop. And yet we do not see him any different. As OP says, we don't even have the confidence that Our universe Aziraphale had in many/most things not involving Heaven. Meaning that new Universe Asa likely still grew up/lived in less-than-ideal circumstances. Agreed the reasons for these decisions don't look good.

[twilightofthesandwiches]

… I mean, I dunno if I'm overthinking this, but the thing is just that we have such limited time with Asa and Anthony (and that's not even because of the Great Condensing as much as it is basic narrative structure, I doubt we would've gotten much more from them even with a full 6 Episodes), and the main thing they are meant to convey is "Aziraphale and Anthony's happy ending is living on (literally and/or figuratively) through these two having a Happily Ever After", so the things the creative team chose to include in this very limited time feels like they are very Purposeful (or at least it should've been Purposeful) and it should be analyzed as such…

All of this to say, man, this feels like kind of a Mean thing to do to a total stranger, right?

A total stranger that the one thing you do know about him is that he's clearly very insecure about asking you out and already readying himself for a rejection?

Like, the most good-faith interpretation for why choose to include this moment here (when, again, our time with these characters is inherently limited and the story is minutes from concluding), is that it's trying to both be 'Cute' and show us Anthony shares Crowley's trait of being 'mischievous'. But, like, Anthony is otherwise such a Nice washed-up stale white bread slice of a character + Crowley hasn't had many opportunities to indulge in his own mischievousness in GO2 and ESPACIALLY in GO3, that it totally falls flat if that was the intention.

It’s not a huge dealbreaker when it comes to finding these two ‘cute’ or whatever, but when we have so little time to spend with them, and pretty much every line needs to support the ideas that they’re at least kinda like our Aziraphale and Crowley and that they’re happy, it just feels like such a weird creative decision… Was the ‘cuteness’ of that little fake-out really worth it that this is what we spent our time on?

[rookmerchant]

So, predictions for Paddington 4. I’m thinking Paddington moves into a bedsit in Lewisham, gets stabbed by a drug dealer, then gets taxidermied and ends up in The Horniman, and spends eternity being shuffled past by mildly interested school children. It’s the only way a story like that could end really. Quite beautiful.

[ladybracknellssherry]

I feel sorry for people who won't get anything out of such a stunning story. You'd expect a higher degree of media literacy from the Paddington fandom, but apparently some Paddington fans will get their brains melted by anything but fluff. Paddington was always going to end up in The Horniman. The signs were there from the beginning. To be taxidermied is to rise from the ashes. It's profound. I say this as someone who has known death. If you don't like Paddington 4, don't ruin the joy for the rest of us by constantly rage posting about it on social media. Try playing Tetris™️ instead.

[ladybracknellssherry]

I'm just genuinely curious. Please share around for a larger sample group, I'd like accurate results!

What's your neurotype and how do you feel about Good Omens 3?

I'm autistic and I loved GO3

I'm autistic and I am neutral/conflicted about GO3

I'm autistic and I hated GO3

I have ADHD and I loved GO3

I have ADHD and I am neutral/conflicted about GO3

I have ADHD and I hated GO3

I have both Autism and ADHD and I loved GO3

I have both Autism and ADHD and I am neutral/coflicted about GO3

I have both Autism and ADHD and I hated GO3

I am neurotypical and I loved GO3

I am neurotypical and I am neutral/confliced about GO3

I am neurotypical and I hated GO3

Remaining time: 6 days 8 hours

[undertheinktree]

My new hobby is badly photoshopping Jon Hamm’s face on Annunciation paintings

Leonardo

Tiziano

Pozzoserrato

Beato Angelico

And my personal favorites:

Savinio

and Tissot

“Ecce ancilla Domini, I’m the archangel fucking Gabriel.”

[theonlybezo]

Happy threest birthday to Crowley aka The Fat Princess of Night. She looks so charming in her too-small tuxedo.

[twilightofthesandwiches]

Another seemingly-tiny but infuriating detail about, not just what Crowley and Aziraphale asked from God, but how they asked it, is that Aziraphale puts their request like that…

…Did whoever wrote that line even know what the word ‘Ineffable’ means? Like, both in the context of ‘Good Omens’ and the meaning of the word in general. Because it doesn’t mean ‘divine’ or ‘supernatural’ or ‘godlike’, it’s not just the Iconic Good Omens Word that reminds us that we’re watching Good Omens, it is an actual word with an actual definition.

The word does have religious connotations, it can mean something is a taboo in a religious sense, it is often used to describe God and Their wisdom and Their plan. The reason it is so thematically important to the original Good Omens narrative is because there’s this whole through-line of Aziraphale using ‘its ineffable’ as his go-to excuse to not question Heaven’s doctrine. God’s wisdom is Ineffable, so if it seems to contradict Basic Logic and Morality, that’s clearly just because it’s too grand for him to understand.

But as he go through his disillusionment-with-Heaven Arc, it’s… you know, it’s in large part about accepting that deep down he always knew this is bullshit. Armageddon doesn’t have to happen because of ‘Ineffable Wisdom’, it’s because Heaven is full of warmongering petty assholes, which is actually quite Effable. And then his arc culminates when he uses that exact kind of Bullshitting against Heaven. Well, if God’s Will is Ineffable and it is not for us to understand, how can you say that this isn’t God’s Will? If the Ineffable Plan really is Ineffable, then you can just whatever the hell you want and say that you’re following the plan.

And then the final punchline of this entire through-line is that Crowley has stumbled on something truly Ineffable about the way God operates….

How They seem to want Humans to disobey them and have Free Will and claim their destiny from Heaven and Hell but they were still also kinda manipulating or at least nudging things along in an incomprehensibly complex and subtle manner in what is for Them a ‘very complicated game of Solitaire', and even the Great War in Heaven only happened because they allowed it to happen...

And the whole thing is presented in a tone that’s maybe not wholly positive, but I don’t personally think it was 100% negative either (I really like calling it ‘jovially ambivalent’) and it is still a far cry from GO3’s repurposing of this idea and these lines as to being, like, ‘if you believe you have any sort of Free Will with the Ineffable Plan and God existing, that’s like believing you can win a rigged game in an exploitative casino. And this is such an existential nightmare it justifies our Husbands sacrificing themselves and resetting the entire damn universe.'

So, like, was ‘Ineffability’ ever the actual problem, rather than Heaven using the word as an excuse to shut down critical thinking about things that were very much Effable? Because if the New Universe is indeed our world, then obviously the word and the concept of using ‘it is beyond your understanding’ as a way to try and stop people from Asking Questions absolutely still exists. (And I don’t think you can have a Universe with a guarantee that no one ever invents the word or concept of Ineffability without seriously nullifying Free Will).

And I guess I can see the argument that the existence of an Ineffable God and an Ineffable Plan fucked up the concept of Free Will in the GO Universe (…although, isn’t the problem with God more related to Them being Omnipotent and Omniscient? Different words, not inherently synonymous with Ineffability). But… Crowley and Aziraphale already asked for no God and no Plan. And then they added (specified?) that they also want nothing to be Ineffable.

And God's Plan, and the idea that everything anyone does is always part of the Plan ultimately has been called 'Ineffable'....

But so was the existence of Free Will...

Like, Crowley and Aziraphale are really taking God in good faith here, they are exercising less caution and forethought with the wording of their request then the average Children Cartoon Character does when dealing with a Genie. Again, ‘Ineffability’ has some religious connotations, but it’s not an inherently religious concept, the word is used in secular contexts plenty….

What Crowley and Aziraphale literally asked from God here is a Universe where there is nothing that is too vast and grand and awe-inspiring for words. 'Nothing Ineffable' should logically, literally mean no Ineffably beautiful view, or an ineffably deep grief or an ineffable feeling of yearning or an ineffable feeling of love.

Like, the ship name ‘Ineffable Husbands’ mostly hangs on that same ‘well this is the Iconic Good Omens Word’ logic that I am considerably more forgiving towards when it’s just the Fandom trying to make a cute tag for our OTP and not the Actual Official Creators trying to make a Very Serious Philosophical Argument as to why they just have to take our Blorbos out back and shoot them like Old Yeller. Crowley and Aziraphale are supernatural but extremely Effable beings. But one argument I have heard as to why that name does make Thematic Sense is that these two might be Effable individuals, but the 6000 year old love they hold for each other is so powerful and beautiful that can be said to be Ineffable.

And like, that’s basically the only logic on which Crowley and Aziraphale being reborn as Anthony and Asa and getting something vaguely resembling a Thematically Coherent Happy Ending out of this Mess works, right? Their love is such an Ineffable Force that it was able to break through God’s hardline ‘You Will Not Exist’ rules? I mean, sure, I can fuck with that on a ‘There Is No Lore, There is Only Meaning’ level… but doesn’t it kinda hamper your Meaning when you have your characters speak as if Ineffability itself is an inherently Anti-Free-Will thing like God and the Plan are? (Also it seriously hampers your Meaning to be absolutely garbage at selling the GO3 version of Aziracrow as that kind of ineffably everlasting love… but I am trying to stay on-topic in this rant and not to veer off to all the other avenues in which GO3 failed).

And, y’know, what about the ineffable vastness of the Universe? The ineffability of human nature? The ineffability of Free Will being a ‘real thing’ and consciousness existing despite the fact that everything we know and love is reducible to the absurd acts of chemicals?

I… I am definitely putting more thought and effort into this than the person who actually wrote down this line did. This isn’t arguing that the Ineffability of any of these things is Bad or that they don’t exist in the Real World or that you shouldn’t ever call them Ineffable because that’s inherently an Anti-Free-Will or Anti-Critical-Thinking or Anti-Humanist concept. It’s just a carelessly, thoughtlessly written line right in the middle of what’s supposed to be the emotional and philosophical center-point of this entire “”Movie””. It is literally just here because it’s the Iconic Good Omens word and you have to put it in somewhere to remind us that we’re watching Good Omens, no matter what the actual meaning of the word and what’s the implication of what the characters actually said.

[twilightofthesandwiches]

Aziracrow ask for a universe with ‘nothing ineffable’ and are shocked to find themselves in a world that seems totally indistinguishable from the previous one, before they realize the only thing they actually removed were the True Names of Cats.

[elliequill]

Season 1 & 3 of Good Omens both contain a dilemma for Aziraphale & Crowley to decide whether it is worth sacrificing one (or two) lives for the greater good of the many. The choice made by the characters in both seasons is the same (yes it is), but there is a world of difference in how these stories were executed.

The Antichrist Dilemma

In season 1, Aziraphale and Crowley are faced with the choice of whether to kill Adam in order to save the world.

Crowley has to face this very early on -  he could kill the baby in the basket rather than deliver it to the Satanic nuns. Instead, he calls Aziraphale and together they work on a plan that doesn’t involve them having to kill anybody.

The closer they get to Armageddon, the more nervous they are and Crowley suggests to Aziraphale that he could kill the antichrist if it all goes wrong. Crowley believes in his argument that it is “one life, against the universe”, but knows he is too cowardly to go through with it himself. Aziraphale is braver, and Crowley therefore thinks he might do it (and that isn’t, to Crowley, a bad thing) so he attempts to persuade him. 

But Aziraphale doesn’t want to think about having to kill the antichrist and it isn’t until he discovers Adam's location that he has no choice but to confront what saving the world might mean.

And Aziraphale is torn. He already knows what both of his ‘sides’ want: Heaven wants the War, and Crowley wants Aziraphale to kill a child. Aziraphale isn’t ready to accept either of those plans, and instead is hopeful that one of them might suggest something better.

Heaven. 

People often criticise Aziraphale for going to Heaven first, rather than to Crowley. But, to me, this was the smarter move. Heaven is powerful and it is far more likely they could successfully eliminate the antichrist. It also means that Aziraphale wouldn't have to have another conversation with Crowley about which one of them should become a murderer.

Yes, this is passing the buck along but Aziraphale has seen Heaven kill children before. He knows they don’t care, and that they would just justify it as part of the Great Plan (which is not different to Crowley’s “one life against the universe”).

He approaches this conversation shrewdly. He doesn't trust Heaven, so only reveals enough about the antichrist to draw out their intentions. As soon as they confirm they still want the War, he stops trying.

Crowley. 

Aziraphale meets Crowley at the bandstand, and asks what the plan would be if the antichrist is found. You can see from his face that he doesn’t want the answer to “And then what? We eliminate him?” to be yes.

Crowley responds “Someone does. I’m not personally up for killing kids”, with the implication that Aziraphale should be up for it instead. 

Heaven has always wanted Aziraphale to be cold and dispassionately watch on as people die. Crowley's phrasing is a call back to exactly this situation, where he says ‘you can't kill kids’ while they’re standing beside the Ark. I believe that Aziraphale interprets this as Crowley hinting that because Aziraphale is an angel, he must be able to kill kids.

Aziraphale is hurt by this and responds defensively by falling back into old thought patterns (“You’re the demon, I’m the nice one”), which is hurtful to Crowley for exactly the same reason, and the conversation spirals from there.

“Heaven does not have blood on its hands” is similar. Aziraphale was literally just up in Heaven trying to persuade the archangels to do exactly that (his practice speeches all mention eliminating the antichrist). What he means is he doesn’t want the blood to be on his hands. But Crowley doesn’t know that, and so isn't going to hear this as anything other than Aziraphale being “holier than thou”.

I think what Crowley really means to say is “I'm sorry, I'm scared of what Hell will do and I can't kill the antichrist, it has to be you” and Aziraphale means “how could you ask this of me? You know I want to be soft” , but neither of them says that. 

Ultimately though, Aziraphale doesn’t want either of them to kill the antichrist and he calls Crowley back because he wants them to work together. But Crowley then offers up ‘flee’ as the new option, which Aziraphale can’t agree to either.

God

After both Heaven and Crowley have stuck to their original positions (or wants to run away), Aziraphale still doesn’t give up. He wants another way, and so he decides to speak to God. This goes just as badly as the first two.

Now, I've personally never seen this sequence of events as Aziraphale choosing Heaven over Crowley and then coming to his senses later. To me, Aziraphale is exploring what the options are - and then with them all laid out, he picks Crowley.

He calls Crowley to tell him where the antichrist is, gets discorporated and events follow on from there. By the end, Aziraphale & Crowley both agree they should kill Adam, and with Crowley's encouragement Aziraphale pulls the trigger. Luckily, Good Omens is (or was) a story about hope winning over fear -  Madame Tracey stops him from doing it, and Adam saves the world.

The Free Will Sacrifice

Season 3 spends no time showing us why Aziraphale and Crowley would sacrifice themselves for free will, we are supposed to accept this as the inevitable and correct conclusion. There are 75 minutes of the Second Coming and arguments about reforming Heaven, 10 minutes of ranting at God/Lucifer about philosophy, and then 2 minutes from Crowley on why death is the answer.

Aziraphale becomes an entirely different character in those 15 minutes. He doesn’t ask God any questions relevant to the current situation, wasting it instead to ask about Crowley, and then agrees blindly with exactly what Crowley wants without exploring any alternatives at all. Season 1 shows us why a character as hopeful as Aziraphale would try to shoot Adam, whereas in Season 3 Aziraphale has lost any autonomy of his own and now only cares what Crowley would do.

It’s like the writers looked at the bandstand scene and instead of seeing it for all of the complexity and emotional depth that it has - they just went ‘well, Crowley was obviously right, and Aziraphale was mean. Aziraphale must have learnt that lesson by now’.

Character motivation aside though - the reason this wasn’t a thematically appropriate ending to Good Omens is that in season 1, Aziraphale and Crowley were wrong. They didn’t need to sacrifice Adam. Why in s3 is there no Madame Tracey equivalent, and no Adam equivalent, for them to learn something from?

The ending with Asa/Anthony is then so jarring because it is the equivalent of Aziraphale killing Adam and still going to dine at the Ritz with Crowley. In that version of the story there is no bookshop, there is no Bentley, and Aziraphale is going to be haunted forever because he murdered a child. There can’t be a ‘to the world’ for an ending like that, but Good Omens 3 tries to have it anyway.

[firelikestars]

“the fandom is torn apart!” is it? then write something. make some art. post your headcanons. hold a needle and thread between you and your mutual’s hand and stitch the fandom back together with art, and feeling, and passion. get up!!! world to save!!!!

[momsspaghetti39]

sketchy comic its really messy but i dont have the energy to clean it up rn and i liked the idea