I post about everything that interests me, especially societal and philoso-
phical topics, mainly through the lens of my favourite pieces of media.
But there's also room for lighthearted stuff.
One of the saddest things is that, for the first time after a season/movie release, I’m seeing so many unhappy people. People who are losing faith, strength and being overwhelmed by sadness. I’ve seen so many posts from people who no longer want to create their fanart. Not because they’re angry, but because they have no strength left and simply lost hope. Was it worth it?
I’m sending you all hugs. It’s gonna be okay. We have lovely fanfiction and this fandom. Please, don’t give up.
Plus, fans are attacking each other for having different opinions, and some even went so far as to harass the creators who put their hard work into the project and didn't even have anything to do with the script.
You could say that the finale of Good Omens is exactly the kind of thing Crowley would create. Spreading low-grade evil. And this is not funny at all.
But let's remember that even if the ending wants to convince us otherwise, people have always had free will. Crowley didn't force them to do anything. It was their choice how to react to the annoyances he confronted them with, whether they would take their anger out on each other or not.
The same is true for us. We decide whether we will destroy the positivity the original novel, season 1 and 2 brought by lashing out against each other, or whether we will stick together as a fandom and support each other and thus keep the spirit of Good Omens alive.
From what I have seen so far, people either love or hate how Good Omens ended, but it's not clear to me which opinion is more popular. So I'm doing a little poll again to find it out.
Do you like the ending of Good Omens 3?
I love it
I'm okay with it / neutral about it
I hate it
Voting ended onMay 24
For those who haven't seen the finale yet, I would suggest not to open the comment section as I guess fans will be discussing their views there.
And for those who have seen it: express your opinion and share your arguments for why you liked it or not, but please, please respect those who have a different perspective, too. The ending of Good Omens is already sparking a division in the fandom that is ten times worse than the controversy about the interpretation of the Final Fifteen of season 2, and I would hate to watch the fandom fall apart like that.
Over the course of almost two years, I've been making predictions about what will happen in the Good Omens finale. One of them - Jesus landing in an airplane and then getting lost - has already been debunked by the trailer, but the others still stand. So here's a list of my predictions:
We will learn that Crowley did indeed do something bad to cause his fall (cf. this post)
We will see Jesus and Adam together (cf. this post)
Michael will turn out to be an agent of hell (cf. this post)
Saraqael will be an ally to Crowley and Aziraphale (cf. this post)
Resurrection will play a role in the finale, but it won't be a positive one (cf. this post)
Death as a character will return (see 5)
Crowley's abilty to stop and start time will be brought up again (cf. this post)
The main confrontation in the finale will be between heaven and hell on one side and humanity on the other (cf. this post)
We will see the Last Judgment (see 8)
Someone will erase or at least try to erase Aziraphale and/or Crowley from the Book of Life (cf. this post)
Heaven and hell will cease to exist (see 8)
Humans won't go to heaven or hell anymore (see 5)
Jesus will play a role when it comes to averting the Apocalypse, but the main agency will still come from other characters (see 2)
Love/unity will save the day (cf. this post)
Many of these predictions are ones I would actually bet money on. But there are also some questions I don't have an answer to:
Can the Metatron be redeemed? (cf. this post)
What will happen to Satan? (cf. this post)
Which side will Uriel and Dagon choose? (cf. this post)
I'm excited to see how many of my ideas will turn out to be correct!
I was happy to read the article, since it gave us some more information about what to expect for the finale.
First of all, it tells us about the parts that were lost due to the time restrictions: "Now, I love those random things, but we didn't have space for that. So it became a very much a cohesive story. [...] Yes, I would have liked to have done the random bits and pieces of comedy. It's really random bits and pieces of comedy that dropped out for a story that concentrates on [...] a really good, strong mystery, the Second Coming, and Aziraphale and Crowley."
I believe Rachel Talalay's statement that it was mostly "random bits and pieces of comedy" that were cut from the script is a bit of an exaggeration, but if you compare the Good Omens novel with season 1 of the TV series, then you will notice that there are indeed scenes that were left out, but it did not in any way affect the story as a whole. The parts with the Four Other Horsemen or with Marvin the televangelist are fun in the book and would have been cool on screen, too, yet the series did not take damage from not having them included. The same goes for many scenes that did make it in the final TV version, such as the one in which the Them play Spanish Inquisition, or the one in which R. P. Tyler talks to Crowley in the burning Bentley. They are not relevant to the actual plot, and people who haven't read the novel wouldn't have missed them if they had not been in the series. And since there is no one who knows how the planned sequel would have gone, for the most part we probably won't even notice that something has been left out.
As long as the core parts of the story remain untouched, we can still expect a satisfying conclusion. Editing can also do a lot here; just look at how little cuts there are in some scenes in season 1 (e.g. the ending at the Ritz) or how long the pauses between two lines of dialogue sometimes become (e.g. in the scene in which Aziraphale is interrogated by the Archangels about the missing Antichrist). This slows the scenes down, and you can avoid that effect and save screen time by simply proceeding quicker.
Rachel Talalay also points out what the things she considered important for the finale are: "[T]his version is very much tilted toward pleasing the fandom from the standpoint of keeping it concentrated on Aziraphale and Crowley. Then allowing there to be a mystery, along with everything that's brilliant about the Good Omens book and mythology, which is Heaven and Hell, and religious concepts."
As someone who really likes the religious stuff in Good Omens, I'm glad that the creators agree with me that it is one of the key elements of the story and should not be cut short. But it sounds as if many of the character arcs of side characters were left out in favour of focussing on Crowley and Aziraphale (and a more recent article confirmed this, adding that "a whole storyline" was sacrificed). And yes, they are fan favourites, but they didn't hold the same importance in the book as they do in the series, so I suspect that the story we will get to see will not be exactly the one Terry Pratchett envisioned, because it concentrates on an aspect that did in this form not exist in the novel, but was added or at least vastly expanded for the TV version instead.
Then we reach the most intriguing part of the interview, in my opinion: "It was probably the thing we discussed the most: how to do the opening sequence, which is expansive and a different world. It takes you into the history of their relationship... of when they met and different places that they met."
Note how Rachel Talalay talks about "a different world" (singular), but "different places" (plural). This makes me suspect that the flashbacks from their relationship we will see will all play in heaven before the fall. And that they won't take up too much screentime; Rachel Talalay mentions "the first three pages" of the script, so I expect the opening to be a montage of scenes quite similar to that we saw with Gabriel and Beelzebub in season 2, one that will not take longer than five minutes. After all, we have to get to the main story.
Rachel Talalay also got asked about Michael Sheen's post on X: "There'll be bits you absolutely love and there'll be things you'll argue about." That statement alone is not particularly unsettling; we all know very well that the Good Omens fandom can argue about the tiniest details. What strikes me, though, is that Rachel Talalay immediately knew "exactly what he's talking about". What aspect of the finale might be so controversial that multiple people recognize it as a possible source of disagreement in the fandom?
I'm a bit sad to read that the smaller budget affected the set design; I initially thought that they were only saving money by taking the original six episodes down to 90 minutes, but it seems like the set department suffered from the financial cut, too. Rachel Talalay also mentions the redesign for the Soho set; what could have caused the Whickber Street to change that drastically? Have the London gangsters we have read about in the plot summary (cf. this post) forced the shop owners to abandon their property in order to realize some larger construction projects?
But the most cryptic part of the interview, in my opinion, is this quote: "Michael, as Aziraphale, has a showcase scene that's a different type of showcase scene that is an absolute joy. He gets to really just eat it up. I'm really looking forward to, um, showing that off."
I don't have the slightest idea what Rachel Talalay could be refering to here, but I understand that she finds it very enjoyable. If I could wish for something, I would ask for a scene in which Aziraphale goes to the casino and wins against some professional gamblers because he cheats like there's no tomorrow.
Anyway, next week, we will all be smarter. In the meantime, what are your thoughts on the bits Rachel Talalay revealed?
Now that the finale of Good Omens is near, I wanted to hear the fandom's opinion on a question that I have had for a long time.
Does Crowley still have faith in God?
Yes
No
I'm undecided
Voting ended onMay 11
Tell me whether you think that Crowley still has some faith left, or whether you believe that he has completely turned his back on God. Feel free to explain how you came to your conclusions in the comment section.
I have my own theory on the matter, but I would love to hear your thoughts!
The trailer for the finale is out for over a week now, and I assume that almost everyone has seen it by now, so I'm going to share some of my thoughts about it. The official plot summary for Good Omens 3 can be found here.
After the short recap of where we left off at the end of season 2, we see Aziraphale and other angels preparing the Second Coming. Jesus himself is present, too, but curiously not Saraqael. It appears as if Aziraphale is still willing to go along with heaven's plans to establish their reign on earth and bring "universal happiness". It's just clear that his version of what it will look like is very much different from that of the other angels.
Next up, we see the Metatron in head office. He shouts at someone who enters the room and, according to him, is not allowed to be there. At first I thought it was either Jesus, who is denied the right to talk to his own father, or Crowley or Aziraphale, who want access to certain documents or something similar. But @ineffablegoodomens pointed out in this post that the scene could take place before the fall, and I added the idea that this might be the moment "Lucifer and the guys" enter the holiest of heaven to start their rebellion. There's a shadow on the floor, you can see it coming in in the middle and then moving to the left. What if Lucifer steps in first and suddenly all his fellows are coming out behind him?
In the present day, it is mentioned that things "keep disappearing", and we do indeed see whole buildings vanish from the cityscape. Paired with Muriel's investigation about the whereabouts of the Book of Life, I assume that people are getting erased from it, and all their achievements - houses they built, inventions they made - disappear because their creators have now never existed.
If this is true, it begs the question who is removing people from the Book of Life, and what are the criteria to select those who get erased. I don't expect a single individual to be responsible for it. I rather suspect a conspiracy, probably with both angels and demons involved. My hot candidate for a secret cooperation with hell is still Michael (see this post).
We then see how Jesus sneaks away from heaven, and I wonder why he does this. Is he already aware about the ongoing disappearance of things and wants to see whether he can do something about it? Or does he feel trapped in heaven and is tired of being told what to do, so he decides to visit the earth unsupervised instead, doing the Second Coming his own way? In any case, the demons are delighted that heaven has lost him and deduce that their time has come now. What are they planning to do? Kidnap Jesus? Enact some other long-held scheme? I also wonder why they have brought Crowley to hell to tell him all of this. Are they expecting him to help? Does he agree to help? Will he actually be playing his own game and doing what he thinks is best while he pretends to go along with Aziraphale's plans? I don't think this is very likely, but I wouldn't completely rule the possibility out, either.
Meanwhile, Aziraphale returns to his bookshop, where a menacing looking stranger awaits him. He's probably the head of the London gangsters the plot summary mentions, but his motives are unclear. He might be one of hell's (or heaven's) human agents, or he might be playing his own game. In any case, his appearance certainly means nothing good for Aziraphale and Crowley.
Speaking of Crowley, the view of him unkempt and hopeless, sleeping in a dirty alley, surprised even those who had predicted that we would see him depressed. Like other fans, I ask myself why he does not sleep in the Bentley like in season 2. Maybe there's a reason why his car isn't there at the moment, but I wouldn't be surprised if they included this scene purely for the drama. I also heavily wonder whether his state of depression is caused by Aziraphale's departure, the world around him decaying or a much larger personal problem he is facing. It seems to me that Aziraphale's offer to help him does not simply refer to his homelessness. On the other hand, the new promo photos that were released alongside with an interview with director Rachel Talalay (see this post) show him being summoned to hell with his sleeping bag, so perhaps he really has been living in the streets since Aziraphale left.
The conversations between Crowley and Aziraphale take up a big part of the trailer. Plotwise, they do not give away to much, but they confirm that the Final Fifteen are pretty much to be taken at face value. There was no open threat by the Metatron, no secret communication, just an angel and a demon having two different standpoints. Aziraphale wanted to change heaven for the better, Crowley thought that was pointless and prefered running away. Neither of them was completely wrong or completely right; Aziraphale's plan to reform heaven didn't work out, just as Crowley predicted, but they cannot simply run away and leave humanity on its own either. Aziraphale offers Crowley an apology, but his voice indicates that he does so only to appease Crowley and be able to move on. I guess it will take more than one conversation for them to fully reconciliate.
Many people talk about Crowley's outfit in heaven, but from what I have seen, nearly everyone assumes that it is a disguise again. But given that Crowley has already been caught running around heaven once and that he is with Aziraphale, who is known to be his best friend, now, I'm not sure whether this trick would work a second time. Moreover, @fellshish pointed out the difference between Crowley's angel outfit in season 2 and in the finale (cf. this post). The first one was him mocking heaven's style by exaggerating it with a metallic leisure suit, a glittery tie, gold teeth, golden nail polish, a headband and slippers. The second is much more in line with his own style, almost a lighter coloured version of his usual outfit. He even wears snakeskin boots, and the white streaks in his hair that resemble a demon's horns are a not very subtle allusion to his true identity. No, I believe that this is his serious take on an angelic outfit, and that his cooperation with heaven is an official (if only temporary) one.
Then of course we have the shot of Crowley crying. Many have pointed out that it's certainly happy tears we see, and @mimisempai even provided a slowed-down version that seems to prove it (cf. this post). Fans have imagined that this is very likely the scene in which Crowley and Aziraphale get together. I have nothing to add to this, except that I fully agree.
Last but not least, we see Crowley and Aziraphale in the Bentley again, going up straight into the sky. That is either a very creative new way to get to heaven, or they are disappearing into space. If you look at the captions that are sprinkled throughout the trailer, and focus on the background, you will spot fragments of asteroids. This indicates that there might indeed be scenes that take place in space. Speaking of the captions, you can also notice one shot in which giant spiders crawl around. Are hell's horrors released to earth?
Finally, many fans have expressed disappointment about the absence of Nina, Maggie, Shax and FurFur from the trailer. But the fact that they weren't included in it does not have to mean something; after all, people like Mrs Sandwich or Mr Arnold weren't included, either. And Dagon and Eric cannot be the only demons that appear in Good Omens 3. Just look at how many angels we see in heaven. Nina, Maggie, Shax and FurFur could all be featured in scenes that were purposefully left out of the trailer because they give away to much of the plot.
The voiceovers we hear are also very likely misleading, put in places where they don't belong to create a certain impression of what's going to happen. The same goes for the way the snippets were put together. Good Omens 3 is only 90 minutes long, so those responsible for creating the trailer had to carefully select which scenes to include in order to give potential viewers (many of them casual viewers, not die-hard fans) an idea of what's to come without spoiling too much of the plot (see also the comments by @htmllost and @idonthaveany below this post).
Anyway, these are my thoughts about the trailer. I will do another post in which I discuss the recent interview with Rachel Talalay. Feel free to add your opinions about what will happen in the finale!
Good Omens Movie predictions: why resurrection might not be a good thing
As many people before me have pointed out, resurrection is a recurring theme in Good Omens season 2. We witness the Nazis being sent back to earth as zombies, get to meet resurrectionists - a historical term for people who used stolen bodies for medical studies - , see an image of Jesus resurrecting Lazarus and hear Gabriel's prophecy about dead people that "will rise from their graves and walk the earth once more". The use of the musical piece Danse Macabre also fits into this (cf. this post by @metatronhateblog).
This has lead many to believe that resurrection will play an important role in the finale as well. And usually, people imagine it to be in a positive context: that Crowley and Aziraphale will resurrect someone or that one of them will die and then be saved through the power of love (cf., for example, this post by @celestialholz). But what if it is something negative? And I don't mean that Good Omens will have a sad ending, just that the particular plot point of resurrection will not be a good one for our protagonists.
It would be in line with what we have seen so far. None of the examples of resurrection in season 2 seems very pleasant (except the one with Lazarus, maybe). Gabriel mentions "great lamentations" in his prophecy about the dead rising. The people who were 'resurrected' by Elspeth got chopped into pieces for medical studies. The Nazis were not made "into living humans" again, but got "unrevocal eternal life on earth - as zombies" instead, including rotting body parts. Yes, Lesley, the International Express man from season 1, came back from the dead, too, and seemed to be fine, but this does not really count as an instance of resurrection since Adam simply changed reality in a way that Lesley never died in the first place.
Prediction No. 1: Resurrection will play a role in the finale, but it won't be a positive one.
The belief in resurrection is one of the core beliefs of Christianity. St. Paul writes in his first letter to the Corinthians, an important book of the New Testament: "The last enemy to be destroyed is death" (1 Cor 15:26). But what does Death say in season 1? "I am creation's shadow. You cannot destroy me, for it would destroy the world." And what is resurrection if not an annihilation of death?
Although seeing him is said to mean bad luck, the overall depiction of Death in Good Omens is a positive one. He is not an enemy to be feared, but just an integral part of life (for more about the depiction of Death and the other Horsemen, see this post). In the cosmic battle for dominance and for souls, he appears as a neutral force: "I'm neither of hell nor heaven". Considering that Death is also an important recurring character in Terry Pratchett's Discworld books, I wouldn't be surprised at all if he made an appearance in the finale of Good Omens again.
Prediction No. 2: Death as a character will return.
So, if Death returned, and if it is clear that his defeat would have negative consequences, how could the resurrection thing play out in the finale? I'm all on board with the theory that Crowley's and/or Aziraphale's existence will be threatened, but by erasure from the Book of Life, which would technically not count as dying (for more about the Book of Life, see this post).
In this post, I've predicted that we will see the Last Judgment. That would require deceased people to rise from their graves, like Gabriel prophesied. We know that technically, Crowley's and Aziraphale's combined power is strong enough to rise people from the dead. But why would they want to resurrect people for judgment? It is more likely that resurrection will be enacted by Jesus as the son of God, like depicted in the image with Lazarus. Judgment in the Bible does indeed include Death being thrown into a lake of fire (cf. Rev 20:14) and mark the end of the world as we know it (cf. Rev 21:1), so it would neatly fit into the established universe of Good Omens.
@idiotssincebeforetime, on the other hand, took a more positive approach and suggested in this post that the resurrection part in the finale might be constrained to a symbolic rebirth without a literal death.
But in both cases, this leaves us with the question why the power of love/unity (see this post) we witnessed with Crowley's and Aziraphale's joint miracle was so clearly emphasized if it is not for actually resurrecting someone.
You see, I don't really have a clear theory on what role resurrection might play in the finale, and I would love to hear yours. What I do have a theory about is the fate of the deceased after the climax of Good Omens 3. In my post about the Last Judgment, I also predicted that heaven and hell will be destroyed. But what would that mean for the people who have gone to either of these places? What would it mean for the people who die in the future? The concept of heaven and hell in Good Omens is very rigid, it sorts people into binaries. Christian belief does at least know the Purgatory for those people who are not good enough to immediately go to heaven, but also not bad enough to be damned forever. Good Omens leaves no room for shades of grey.
Fans have also remarked on the fact that we've already seen the damned in hell, but never the saved in heaven, and wondered whether this is a clue that no human ever actually made it to heaven. But there are at least two people who have died and don't seem to have gone to hell. The first is Ron Ormerod, whom Aziraphale contacts during Madam Tracy's seance. Since Aziraphale is able to reach him, we can definetely say that Ron is not in hell, so he must either be in heaven or in some realm where souls are wandering around. When talking to his wife, he complains that it is cold. It does not sound as if he is in a very pleasant place, but that description could fit heaven. No torture for the deceased here, but no earthly joys either. Lesley, the International Express man, disappeared into what looked like a sky full of stars when he died. His question to Aziraphale whether he believes in life after death could allude to the fact that he died and is now alive again, or to an afterlife he briefly got a glimpse of (for an interesting connection between afterlife and the memories of a person in Good Omens, see this post by @shipaholic).
Moreover, in the book Crowley mentions two musicians - Elgar and Liszt - who are in heaven (cf. Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 55; cited below). So I think we can assume that the possibilty for humans to go to heaven is just as real as the chance to go to hell. But that would stop if these places ceased to exist, so what would be the alternatives?
Well, the dead could simply be erased from existence or go to another, unknown place like it already seems to be the case for angels and demons. Youtuber Danny Motta commented on this in his reaction to episode 6 of season 1: "If you die, you go to what Christians believe. But if you die there, you go to what atheists believe".
But there's also another option, one that I hadn't considered first, because it clashes with my assumption that the finale will continue to depict death as an essential part of life. @idonthaveany brought up the idea that humans might be granted eternal life on earth (cf. this post). @youryurigoddess goes in a similar direction in this post (the post contains lots of potential spoilers, so be careful), suggesting that eternity might be granted by the Tree of Life as it is the case in the book of Revelations - the canon ending of the Bible (cf. Rev 22:1-5).
These concepts are interesting because in the novel, Adam has a similar idea: "If I was in charge, I'd try makin' people live a lot longer, like ole Methuselah. It'd be a lot more interestin' and they might start thinkin' about the sort of things they're doing to all the enviroment and ecology, because they'll still be around in a hundred years' time" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 367; emphasis in the original; cited below).
He believes that it would be better for the world if humans actually had to face the direct consequences of their actions instead of getting some only loosely related reward/punishment in heaven or hell: "Anyway, if you stopped tellin' people it's all sorted out after they're dead, they might try sorting it all out while they're alive" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 367; cited below).
The possibilty of eternal life becomes even more probable when you take into consideration an observation made by Frankel (cited below). She compares the depiction of Death in Good Omens to those in Terry Pratchett's Discworld and Neil Gaiman's Sandman series and comes to the conclusion that Death in Good Omens does not show the compassion that the two other iterations of the character have or develop over time (cf. Frankel, p. 173: cited below). He is solely focused on fulfilling his duty and does not understand why people, especially Adam, refuse to do what they are supposed to (cf. Frankel, p. 173; cited below). Could that possibly change? Could Death start questioning his role in the universe, too?
On the other hand, eternal life on earth would cause new problems, since the earth would become overpopulated if people didn't die anymore. That's why I still think that Good Omens will subvert the Christian expectations and not have Death be defied. Character development from him could also manifest in a single instance in which he spares someone. But the clues we've been provided with would definetely allow for the story to take both directions. In any case, my guess is that the circumstances for the deceased will change.
Prediction No. 3: Humans won't go to heaven or hell anymore.
Do you agree with me that we will see Death again? If so, do believe that he will go through some character development? What role will resurrection play for the plot of the finale? Will Good Omens continue to emphasize the importance of people dying or stick with the biblical canon where humans get an eternal existence on earth?
Works cited:
Pratchett, Terry and Gaiman, Neil: Good Omens. The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch. London 2011.
Frankel, Valerie Estelle: Gaiman's Death, Pratchett's Death, or the classic Four Horsemen. Considering compassion and free will. In: Cuntz-Leng, Vera (Ed.): Heaven, Hell, and everything in-between. Critical Perspectives on Good Omens, pp. 172-193.
I sometimes forget that Tumblr is its own bubble, but after scrolling the tag for Iran, I feel the need to say something very clearly: The gouvernment of Iran is not one to be mourned.
It is one of the cruelest dictatorships in the world. It imprisons, tortures, executes anyone who opposes it. It ignores the fundamental needs of its own people. It is loathed by the majority of Iranians. It funds terrorism. It is spitting out threats against other states, especially the USA and Israel, day by day.
We can have different opinions about whether attacking Iran was a good decision by the USA and Israel. There are many reasons not to think so; first, there are already civilian casualties, including girls in an Iranian school that was located near a gouvernment facility (cf. this article). During the war in Gaza, it has become apparent that Israel does not care if civilians are killed in its air strikes as long as they hit the desired targets. Second, it is unclear if the end of the current regime in Iran will automatically lead to a better future for the Iranian people or if the state will suffer from the instabilty that comes with it. Third, the attacks are widely considered to be a breach of international law. And, of course, the US and Israel's primary motivation for the attacks is not saving the Iranians, they have their own interests in seeing the gouvernment fall.
But I've seen people here basically repeat Iranian propaganda about Iran being an oh so peaceful state that has now become the victim of evil forces and is only defending itself. Guys, during the last two days, Iran has launched multiple air strikes against other states in the Middle East who had stated before that they do not want to get involved in this conflict. But now, they're making clear that they will not tolerate any further attacks on their territory. Saudi-Arabia and Qatar, for example, have warned Iran that they are prepared to strike back should the aggression not stop (cf. this article). Because yes, believe it or not, Iran is not an ally of them.
So instead of taking this situation as an excuse to voice your hate against the USA and Israel, you maybe should look at the reality and complexity of it. Care for and listen to the people who are affected by the war and who themselves have differing opinions about it.
And please, check official sources for facts and do not blindly believe everything someone says on social media, just because it fits your idea of who is good and who is bad.
The Discourse on The Twit App About The Tourette's Outburst of the N-Word is ASS....
Thank goodness, we don't have a character limit here.
No one Black should be subjected to an n-word slur if it can be prevented.
And this situation is especially heinous because it was a multifold preventable violation...
For those who don't know, a nominee with Tourette's had an outburst stemming from that condition while both MBJ and Delroy Lindo were presenting.
He yelled out the n-word loudly. Alan Cumming later did an absolutely terrible but sadly common variety of apology wherein he used the phrase "if anyone was offended" and thanked the audience for being patient and understanding about this condition.
So, here we are at a two-fold teachable moment.
Please, watch this video explaining Tourette's first (because TBH I ended up down a rabbit hole of hyperfixation learning about it) :
I think the key part of this video is her explaining that it is neurons misfiring.
In other words, that man could not stop that from happening any more than you could just choose to stop blinking or breathing.
The condition is literally about blurting out the worst things at the worst possible situations. Like call of the void without the choice to steer you vocal cords away.
There was an anecdote about a Black person with this condition terrified of yelling "I have a gun!" around cops, which would make it more likely for those neurons to fire that way....It is socially debilitating and dangerous.
ALL THAT SAID...
As a disabled person who has worked with disabled people for a good chunk of my life... I KNOW both alternative accommodations and assistive devices exist.
BAFTA did not provide either.
For example, if you are a deaf person who is trying to watch Bad Bunny's halftime show, you can/should have easy access to...
ASL interpreter, Celimar Rivera:
Because Tourette's outbursts harms in multiple ways, (both the person with it and those unwittingly harmed by the words blurted out...)
...An alternative sound-proof space option for him to remain on the premises, free from fear of his tics coming at the expense of his and others' sense of safety and humanity, and *still be present for the show*, -should have been provided (they procure them easily for pageants, for example).
Since it happened, BAFTA should have had a script prepared just in case, with a proper apology DIRECTLY at those affected, Black people who were present and especially Jordan and Lindo, with zero waffling and a proper scrolling card explaining both the condition and where to read up/donate.
And finally, there is NO REASON it should have aired on TV with a two-hour delay.
I have mentioned the discourse being horrific...
The aspects that are most disgusting to me are those touting ableism, while using this incident to basically puppeteer a disabled man's expression of that to be racist and silence Black people hurt by that (the way outright nazis are piggybacking off people shouting "ABLEIST!" so they can attach their "YEAH SHUT UP!! YOU FUCKING! [insert racist slur here]...")
Also, the wilful ignorance about the condition stubbornly pushing intent, even when explained that that is NOT what is happening.
Again.
The entire nature of the condition is that you blurt out the absolutely worst possible thing and it is NEURONS misfiring, meaning you don't get to hold it in or choose not to say it.
In the end, both BAFTA and the BBC failed spectacularly for both racism and ableism (in not being prepared nor having accommodations and compounding it by re airing it).
But, like I said teachable moment. *smh*
If Nazis have your back? STOP and ask yourself if you're the baddies, instead of the savior from ableism.
If you're insisting that a named neurological condition is voluntary?? Again ask yourself, if you're the baddies.
I hope we all learned something today.
P.S.
I chose not to name the person with Tourettes, though he is tagged because the mob is already forming and I wanted the attention centered on the fact that the condition is not about who he is.
I wanted it to be 100% about Tourettes being a condition all kinds of people can have and centering the need for ALL SPACES to have disability accommodations.
My brother has* Tourettes. While his vocal tics were almost all noises rather than words, he still frequently got criticized for not controlling them despite the fact that it just doesn't work that way. If he could have controlled them, he wouldn't have injured himself so often by flinging his arm out so hard that he put holes in the walls and strained his muscles.
I've heard some comments like "doesn't it seem suspicious that he said the N word while two black people were on stage?" and no, not even a tiny bit. That makes it more likely. It's like telling someone not to think about an elephant.
There were times that my brother could temporarily resist a tic, but all that did was make it worse a second later. Imagine inhaling something by mistake and then trying not to cough; your body is going to insist on it, so even if you hold it back for a moment you're just going to cough louder the second you stop holding your breath.
And that's the best case scenario, obviously. More often stuff slips out before you have any idea that it's happening.
*kind of "had" at this point, it can get better or worse as you go through puberty and in my brother's case it went from very bad to virtually nonexistent which is very uncommon. More often I've heard of the opposite, where someone went from having no signs of Tourettes to suddenly having a pretty bad case.
I became only aware through Tumblr of this incident, but I was absolutely shocked about the reactions it sparked.
Of course it was a really, really horrible moment for Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo when the slur was shouted at them during their speech, especially since they had no clue about the reason for it at this moment. And I absolutely don't understand the BBC's motivation not to cut it out when they apparently cut out other verbal tics of John Davidson. According to Davidson, they had promised him to remove all of his tics from the broadcast (cf. this article).
But it was also horrible for Davidson himself. Imagine what it is like to involuntarily shout the worst possible slur at two black actors during their big speech. And not only do you know that you hurt them, but now you get also called a racist by some Internet warriors who don't even take five minutes to do some research about your condition before they unleash their hate against you.
"I know he has tics, but he should control them" is the same as saying "I know he's deaf, but he should listen more closely".
I also see people who keep suggesting, well, maybe he really can't control his tics, but then he shouldn't have been in the audience. And I couldn't agree less. Tourette's isn't limited to huge public events like this, where the TV presenter can come on stage and explain the situation to everyone. These tics also happen when the person affected goes to work, to the supermarket etc. You cannot protect black people (or really, any people) from being confronted with them. And most of the time, the one who will be in the biggest trouble when tics occur is the person with Tourette's syndrom, because many show no understanding for their disability (see the discourse around Davidson). They will get reported or sometimes even physically attacked for it.
That's why we need to spread awareness about Tourette's and its unpleasant effects on the people who have it and on those who are confronted with it. Davidson has apologized to Jordan and Lindo (cf. the article quoted above), and once you have learned about the nature of tics you will probably (hopefully) not take them personally if they occur again, even if they cause great discomfort in you.
The solution is certainly not to prevent people with Tourette's from ever entering a public space again. In case you really think that any person's right not to be offended by slurs involuntarily coming out of the mouth of someone whose condition can be perfectly explained to them is more important than the right of a disabled person to exist in public, I would kindly ask to you to sort out your priorities.
Am I the only one who thinks that spending their future as a couple completely isolated from the other angels and demons wouldn't be the ideal ending for Crowley and Aziraphale? To be clear, there's nothing wrong with wanting to spend your life just with this one special person. But it makes a difference if this is a conscious choice or if it's literally your only option. For millenia, Crowley and Aziraphale had no one except each other. They are different from the other angels and demons, and that made them feel lonely, like they both admitted in the Job minisode. In the book, where their relationship is arguably less emotional than in the series, a big part of the reason why Crowley and Aziraphale hang out with each other is that "you grew accustomed to the only other face that had been around more or less consistently for six millenia" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 52f.; cited below).
Crowley and Aziraphale cling to each other because they love each other, but also because they have no alternative if they don't want to be completely on their own. And I don't think that this form of emotional dependency is a healthy basis for a romantic relationship in the long term. So in my opinion, they need friendships with others as well.
Fans have suggested the people from Whickber Street as potential friends for Crowley and Aziraphale. But if having friendships with humans were a solution to their problem, then they could have had that before. We know that both of them have interacted positively with humans throughout history, but I don't believe that real friendships with them are possible. Crowley and Aziraphale are immortal, and humans only have short lifespan, so, as Crowley puts it, "you can't let yourself get to attached to them". Moreover, there's a huge gap both in power and in knowledge between them. I mean, what common ground do a being who had a part in creating the universe and witnessed the evolution of mankind since the beginning and a regular human have?
Plus, Crowley and Aziraphale still regularly exploit said power gap. @ineffable-sideburns illustrated this masterfully in this post, quoting Granny Weatherwax from Terry Pratchett's Discworld series: "And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things". Treating people like things is definetely what heaven and hell do; they view them as nothing but pieces in their cosmic game of chess. But even Crowley and Aziraphale, being so vastly different from their fellows, have not yet completely moved beyond that way of thinking.
Our angel and demon still believe it's okay to manipulate humans to serve their own interests. They want a bus to drive to London instead of Oxford? They do a miracle so the driver takes a different direction, even if he "won't know why". They want to sit at a table that is occupied? They make the people who sit there get up. The most extreme example of this is probably Aziraphale's ball, were he makes everyone "talk like they've escaped from Pride and Prejudice" and Mrs Sandwich isn't able to pronounce the name of her profession, in order to fit the atmosphere (cf. the post cited above).
Crowley and Aziraphale even try to mess around with Nina's and Maggie's love life, utterly ignoring the fact that Nina already has a partner. Their main motivation is to cover up what their 25-lazarii miracle really was used for. And although they both state that they also want to help Nina and Maggie, that does not diminish the fact that the way they go about it completely disregards the two women's freedom of choice. Nina and Maggie directly address this issue: "We're not a game, we're real people! You cannot just pair us up for your amusement" (cf. the post cited above). In short, Crowley and Aziraphale prove they still regard humans partly as their toys. They mostly play nicely with them instead of destroying them like heaven and hell do, but they still do play with them.
And they might - hopefully - overcome that attitude, but it is one of the reasons why I don't think deep friendships with humans would work very well. So when I say they need friends, I think they should find them within their own species - and by species, I mean angels, fallen or not. We have already seen three possible candidates for a friendship with Crowley and Aziraphale, and I will go through them one after another.
The first and most obvious one is Muriel. They're kind and cheerful and they don't seem obsessed with heaven's ideology. They show no problem with interacting with Crowley and Aziraphale, even if the two of them are "the traitor and the demon", and are even interested in spending more time with them.
However, the problem is that neither Crowley nor Aziraphale take them seriously. The duo makes fun of "Inspector Constable" and their poor attempts to pass as human. Granted, Aziraphale is more supportive, prompting Muriel to give appropriate answers. But Crowley intentionally asks questions that he knows Muriel can't answer, like the one about which "human settlement" they come from, just for entertainment. There really is no reason for that, especially if you are the one who, after 6,000 years on earth, still thinks that humans fall in love by looking into each other's eyes. Yes, Muriel was sent as a spy, but that's not their fault and no excuse to make them the butt of the joke.
And in the last episode, when Muriel thinks that they will be included in Crowley's and Aziraphale's "us time", too, Crowley rids them of their illusions in a not very gentle way. It is understandable that he likes to go to the Ritz with Aziraphale alone, but he could have suggested that Muriel can accompany them in the future. Instead, he sends them off very quickly and makes clear that he does not want to further socialize with them, even though they just massively helped him in heaven (for a more thorough analysis of the relationship between Crowley and Muriel, I suggest reasing this post by @snek-eyes). To sum it up, Aziraphale does not get to spend much time with Muriel, and Crowley dismisses any possibility of a friendship with them right from the beginning.
Next up, we have Shax. To be honest, she would probably be more of a friend for Crowley, since she seems to find Aziraphale kind of ridiculous and does not understand what Crowley sees in him. However, she accepts that he means very much to the demon and is hesitant to hurt him even during the attack on the bookshop, using threats and insults and giving him multiple chances to surrender Gabriel rather than going full violent.
I've already mentioned in my post about Shax and FurFur that for someone who has been stuck in hell's toxic environment for millenia, she appears to be a pretty decent person. She even adopts Crowley's strategy of presenting herself in front of hell far more evil than she actually is. And I've yet explored her relationship with Crowley a bit, how she seems to like him, offers him a deal to their mutual benefit and warns him that he and Aziraphale will be in big trouble if they are found hiding Gabriel.
And Crowley is not opposed to hanging out with Shax, either. He teaches her how to properly navigate life on earth and answers her questions (well, we know that Crowley does not like it when people get upset about questions anyway). He even opens up to her a little bit about his feelings. Certainly, he is not fond of Shax threatening Aziraphale and himself. But he is probably also aware that her job requires her to do these things, because he's been living under hell's rule himself. And yet, he seems to look down on Shax for being incompetent, calling her "an idiot" and "stupid" in front of Aziraphale and others and making fun of her every time she does not get whether he is being sarcastic to her or not. Crowley is more willing to interact with Shax than with Muriel, probably because they're both demons and share the experience of hell's cruel regime, but he doesn't take her serious enough or trusts her enough to truly consider her a friend.
The third and last candidate for a friendship with Crowley and Aziraphale is Saraqael. Her motives are still unclear, but there have been hints that she might be a possible ally for the two of them in the finale (for more about Saraqael, see this post). Once again, it is Crowley who gets to interact more with her; when she visits Aziraphale, she is accompanied by the other Archangels and behaves accordingly, without any display of solidarity. But in her conversation with Crowley, she reminds him of how they used to work together. Yet, Crowley brushes her attempts to build a common ground aside. To be clear, I believe that Crowley truly doesn't remember her, but when she clarified who she was, he could have simply said "Sorry, I didn't recognize you" or something alike. Instead, he makes clear that she is simply not important enough for him to remember her. "I meet a lot of people" said with a laugh is, in my opinion, definetely meant as an insult, and is perceived by Saraqael as such.
So, in conclusion, there are several (fallen) angels who could become friends with Crowley and Aziraphale, and Aziraphale would probably not be opposed to it. After all, he is generally more open towards people and was willing to give even someone like Gabriel a second chance. However, Crowley turns down everyone who tries to get close to him immediately. He is not overly hostile to them, but he regularly mocks them to maintain the distance between him and them. Initially, he even tried to do the same with Aziraphale. In Eden, Crowley attempted to make fun of him for losing his sword. It was only Aziraphale's confession that he gave it away that completely changed Crowley's perception of the angel and encouraged him to get to know him better.
A big part of that attitude probably stems from bad experiences in the past. As Nina says, he's "the hard-bitten one, the 'can't trust anybody ever again'". But another reason is that he considers himself and Aziraphale as somewhat superior to the other angels and demons. In the Final Fifteen, when Aziraphale suggests going back to heaven, Crowley replies "we're better than that". Heaven and hell might be fit for others, but not for them. In my opinion, that's a very arrogant mindset, and also one that fails to acknowledge the fact that Crowley and Aziraphale are quite privileged compared to their fellows. Yes, they have always been acting more moral than all the other angels and demons, but the circumstances for them have also been different.
While they were both still technically under the surveillance of their respective superiors, they got to spend the biggest parts of their lives far away from them, enjoying earthly pleasures and doing mostly what they liked. Compare that to the reality of the demon Josh, for example, who says: "Every day that I don't have my tongue ripped out is a good day". People like him could not afford to disobey orders even if they wanted to, they would be punished instantly. So Crowley should not act as if all the other angels and demons were fundamentally different from them. It's a difference in experience and living conditions rather than in nature.
If Crowley manages to stop regarding everyone as their enemy and give people a chance, he (and by extension, Aziraphale) might be able to form new bonds and maybe even gain new allies for what's to come, and that will have a positive impact on their own relationship, too.
Work cited:
Pratchett, Terry and Gaiman, Neil: Good Omens. The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch. London 2011.
This post was inspired by a discussion on Reddit about whether heaven or hell is actually worse in Good Omens. I find the question very interesting and will try to answer it by comparing the two places (@dalliancekay did kind of the same thing in this post, but with a different focus). But first, let's have a look at what Crowley in the book has to say about it:
"Well, Hell was worse, of course, by definition. But Crowley remembered what Heaven was like, and it had quite a few things in common with Hell. You couldn't get a decent drink in either of them, for a start. And the boredom you got in Heaven was almost as bad as the excitement you got in Hell" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 32; emphasis in the original; cited below).
So Crowley points towards the similarities between heaven and hell, why also acknowledging that, technically, hell is still worse. We will come to see how he really hits the nail on the head with this.
In many ways, heaven and hell are opposites. The creators imagined them as offices, with heaven being the best and hell being the worst (cf. this article). In heaven, everything is well organized; the angels are rarely seen working. The modern aesthetic, with the latest technology, wide, clean and tidy white rooms and large windows that flood them with light highlights its outward perfection.
Hell, on the other hand, is dark, filthy, crowded and stuffed with clutter. The demons are working without a pause. They use outdated technology and there is always something broken. When Shax and her 175th of a legion go to earth to attack Aziraphale's bookshop, they have to take the stairs because the lift is out of order, and Hastur famously has to delay his trip to Megiddo because he is busy catching water from a leaking pipe (for more about the working conditions in both places, see also this post by @im-the-j-in-anthony-j-crowley).
There have been discussions as to why this is the case. The official character description for Beelzebub on Prime Video mentions that there is "more processive work to do in hell than in heaven", which could be an allusion to either more people going to hell, or, more likely in my opinion, to the demons having to torture the damned, while the saved can just be left alone. But on top of that, it is implied that the demons just have poor organization skills. After all, there must be a reason why heaven won the war and has been "in charge", as Crowley puts it, for the last six thousand years.
Moreover, malevolence and mistrust reign in hell. Torture is perceived as something normal, and threats of violence a legitimate means to get what you want. Instead of showing solidarity in the face of their miserable living conditions, the demons make every effort to have their fellows suffer even more. Josh, the demon who stands guard at Beelzebub's door, regularly gets his tongue ripped out for simply talking too much. Yet he does not take this as a call to treat others better than he is treated, but mirrors the abusive behaviour and uses his position as guard to play power games with people like Shax and deny her access. FurFur has learned that dedication to your job won't get you anywhere, but that you can only climb the corporate ladder at the expense of others.
The angels in heaven, however, trust each other so much that they can't even imagine that one of them would lie and that they don't consider it necessary to ever change their passwords (I made a whole post about the dangerous amount of trust in heaven; you can read it here). Yes, there is bullying and infighting in heaven, too, especially between the Archangels. But the bigger problem in heaven is that most of the angels get just completely ignored. Muriel sees other people only "every few hundred years", and they are well aware that to their superiors, they are just "you know, nobody". @wistfulnightingale illustrated this lack of recognition very well in her post on Gabriel.
Furthermore, as mentioned in the above quote from the book, the angels are just endlessly bored. You only have to watch Michael's envy when he learns that Gabriel has a desk, and his contentment when he finally gets his hands on it. @drconstellation has mentioned in this post how the desk clearly is a status symbol here, but given the sterile environment in heaven, an angel with a new desk must feel like a child with a new toy.
The demons, on the other hand, seem to have more fun in their lifes, at least if you leave the workload and the torture aside. They know music and do dance.
But despite their differences, heaven and hell also have a lot of commonalities. They both are totalitarian institutions that demand utter obedience from their members. The series shows how even Gabriel and Beelzebub as leaders are still prisoners of the system and can't act freely. Gabriel gets a trial for announcing his choice to refrain from a second Armageddon. Beelzebub's reaction after Crowley's failed execution shows how they live in constant fear of a rebellion. Both of them are held accountable for the failure of the first attempt at the Apocalypse.
Plus, neither the angels nor the demons know much about the humans whose souls they're constantly trying to win for their respective sides. Neither of them indulge in earthly things like food and drinks.
People in the cited Reddit discussion, like user Addled_Mongoose, who suggested that heaven was worse than hell mentioned its hypocrisy as an argument. Both heaven and hell do cruel things, like killing people to achieve their goals, but hell at least does not pretend that they're the good guys. Heaven, on the other hand, proves multiple times that they do not practice what they preach. They might not torture disobedient angels themselves, but there is always the threat of being sent to hell. Essentially, heaven outsources the punishment of supernatural beings as well as humans and lets hell do the dirty work in order to still be able to claim moral purity (cf. this post by @fuckyeahisawthat). And when heaven really does something that you would consider evil, it is labelled as justified (for more about the concept of justified violence in Good Omens, see also this post by @wistfulnightingale). Even the erasure of Gabriel's whole identity is framed "as a kindness" by the Metatron.
But hell is hypocritical, too. Hell's values are different than heaven's, but they're not any better at living up to them than the opposite side. For example, hell considers disobedience and rebellion something positive, and yet Crowley tells Aziraphale in the book: "'But my people are only in favour of disobedience in general terms. It's specific obedience they come down on heavily.' 'Such as disobedience to themselves?' 'You've got it'" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 56; emphasis in the original; cited below). This can be seen in Satan's reaction to Adam's refusal to destroy the world as I illustrated in this post, but it also becomes manifest in the fate of Sister Theresa, one of the satanic nuns. Contrary to Christian nuns, who take a vow of silence, they are obliged to speak out everything that comes to their mind. When Hastur tells them that their convent is dissolved, Sister Theresa explicitly refers to this vow, stating: "We are a chattering order. We say what is on our minds, and right now, what's on my mind is that you can't treat us like that!" And Hastur kills her instantly for it. So much for free speech.
Or consider Hastur's behaviour during Crowley's trial. He points out the outrageousness of Crowley's crime of killing a fellow demon and how that calls for a punishment. Then, only minutes later, he himself throws a demon into the tub with holy water to test it, and when asked by the terrified creature what justifies that action, he simply answers "wrong place, wrong time". If that isn't hypocrisy, then I don't know what is.
So are heaven and hell both equally bad? No, not exactly. Yes, they're both totalitarian institutions, represent extremes that aren't healthy, and neither of them lives up to its values. But while heaven's values are positive, hell's are cruel. @im-the-j-in-anthony-j-crowley writes in this post that hell is only bad because heaven made it so, but I have to disagree. It was the demons who started the war, and who, after being cast out, made hell the place it is now. Even Crowley calls them "the wrong people". Not the average demon who only does their job without thinking about it much, maybe, but definetely the ones who lead the rebellion against God and love evil, like Lucifer/Satan.
Shipley makes an interesting remark about heaven and hell having different concepts of good: "What is good for God is not good for Satan, and vice versa" (107; cited below). Ironically, most of the time hell still uses the word 'good' in the traditional sense, namely for the things heaven does. That is because heaven and hell both believe in the inevitability of God's Great Plan (cf. Goldfarb Styrt, p. 123; cited below). The two different meanings of the word 'good' in hell can lead to some confusal, as seen in this funny piece of dialogue:
Hastur: "So, Crowley. What's Mr. Slick done now?" - Ligur: "I'm not sure. But I know it's nothing good." - Hastur: "Oh. Well, that's alright then. He's not meant to do good." - Ligur: "Figure of speech. Nothing bad, then."
Hell "defies divine authority but remains crucial to the theological framework, operates within the boundaries of the cosmic order they seek to subvert" (Rudolf, p. 38; cited below). Just as heaven needs hell to outsource things that they consider negative, hell needs heaven to rebel against. They can only define themselves in relation to each other. This proves how they are really just two halves of one big system (cf. the post by @fuckyeahisawthat cited above). And this poses a big problem to them. Since destroying the other side is their only purpose - they "live for Armageddon" - the achievement of said goal would render their existence meaningless. Adam directly addresses this issue in the book: "But even if you win, you can't really beat the other side, because you don't really want to. I mean, not for good. You'll just start all over again" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 366; cited below).
So the only sensible thing for heaven and hell to do would be to admit that they need each other. And more than that: they should acknowledge that there are more things that unite them than things that separate them, give up their opposition and allow all angels and demons to explore both their good and bad sides. The demons have to learn to trust others, the angels to mistrust them. Both sides have to accept that the world isn't just black and white, but consists of shades of grey.
And my prediction is that this is exactly what will happen at the end of the finale.
Works cited:
Pratchett, Terry and Gaiman, Neil: Good Omens. The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch. London 2011.
Goldfarb Styrt, Philip: Sola Fide. Ineffability, Good Omens, and the Reformation. In: Giannini, Erin and Taylor, Amanda (Eds.): Deciphering Good Omens. Nice and Accurate Essays on the Novel and Television Series, pp. 120-132.
Rudolf, Veronika: And everything in-between. Tricksterism, Gender Play and celestial Authority in Good Omens. In: Cuntz-Leng, Vera (Ed.): Heaven, Hell, and everything in-between. Critical Perspectives on Good Omens, pp. 26-43.
Shipley, Morgan: Eschatological Ambiguity in Good Omens. How Concerns for Survival blur the Lines between good and evil. In: Giannini, Erin and Taylor, Amanda (Eds.): Deciphering Good Omens. Nice and Accurate Essays on the Novel and Television Series, pp. 104-119.
"at least venezuela lost a dictator" "the good thing about trump's invasion" "maduro deserved it" oh my god some of you are dangerously susceptible to fascist propaganda.
unfriendly and honestly hostile reminder that trump isn't invading venezuela because maduro is a dictator, or because of drug cartels. he's doing it only and exclusively because they have desirable oil reserves and no other reason. reminder that venezuela is a comparatively poor country that will never financially recover from this. reminder that venezuelans are suffering with the bombing and the air strikes. reminder that trump did it to steal from them and no one did anything. reminder that this sets a dangerous precedent and now all trump has to do to invade another country is claim they're in a dictatorship. reminder that trump is a fascist dictator.
this will only be bad, for venezuelans and for all of latin america (and possibly the whole world) in the long run. trump did this not to help the venezuelans or their country, but to steal their petrol and get away with it. and he will. because that's what dictators do.
Yes, Venezuela's president Maduro was a dictator. But so are many other presidents in the world. Putin, for example, for whom Trump laid out the red carpet last August (and who should better shut up about the current situation and the USA invading other countries when he is doing exactly the same in Ukraine).
But the thing with sovereign nations is that they're sovereign. An other country cannot just invade them because they dislike the government. Dealing with a dictator is the business of the actual citizens of the nation in question, and no one else's.
And about Trump saying that he wants to hold Maduro accountable for crimes: Did Maduro live under US jurisdiction? No. Is Trump the International Criminal Court? No. There is no legal basis on which he can arrest Maduro.
This is why I really don't understand how people, let alone exiled Venezuelans, can cheer about the current situation. It's alarming to people in Latin America, and it should be alarming to people in Europe, too. I mean, Trump did repeatedly state that he is very much interested in Greenland (cf. this article). And J.D. Vance has already accused the EU of "destroying democracy" (this article). What, then, will keep Trump from invading Greenland, too? To save the people there from the influence of the evil Danish state (and, how practical, be able to exploit their resources)?
I do certainly not want to live in a world where a country can take over another's government and seize their territory, and I do not care if said country is called USA, Russia or China. Imperialism does not belong in the 21st century.
A new collection of essays on Good Omens has just dropped: Heaven, Hell, and everything in-between. Critical Perspectives on Good Omens by Vera Cuntz-Leng (ed.)!
Obviously, I haven't read it yet, but the table of contents promises topics related to queer media, fandom, intertextuality and morality. It also includes an interview with @sendarya, known for her video analysis of the series.
And the best part: the book is open access, so you can simply download it from the website of Büchner Verlag. It is a reputable German publisher, so you don't need to be worried about the source. And no, I'm not in any way associated with them, the authors or the editor; I'm just a Good Omens fan who has been anticipating the release of this book for months now.
So take a look at it if you're interested, and maybe we can discuss some of the contents!
I knew from the trivia section on Prime Video that the minisode was referencing The Ten Commandments, but it's nice to see a side-by-side comparison. I especially like the picture of Crowley and Aziraphale sitting on the rock and looking at the sea as an allusion to Moses and his future wife Sephora looking at the mountain where God is said to appear.
Regarding the comparison between the Good Omens version of the story of Job and the biblical original, I will definetely make an extra post about it sometime in the future. I really ike it that the series does not simply parody the Book of Job, but actually engages with its religious and philosophical themes. It's certainly worth an analysis.
***Completed Version. (I'd goofed and queued up a draft!)
To be totally honest, I don't particularly like Gabriel in Season 1. Even before the "Shut your stupid mouth and die already."
He's the pompous middle management guy in the expensive suit who's been left in charge of the main office without proper supervision while the CEO goes golfing. He's super into the "glory days," and he eats, drinks, & sleeps (metaphorically, of course! No gross matter here!) corporate success. Teamwork makes the dream work, after all!
In S1, he greets Aziraphale with all the sincerity and warmth of a high-class car salesman. Acts "chummy" with the obvious classism/elitism of a billionaire heiress flying commercial. Measures Aziraphale's abilities with the disguised narrow-eyed scrutiny of a pickpocket evaluating weaknesses to choose his mark.
He's a conglomeration of clichès and stereotypes. He's not particularly nice. He's a package of tropes bundled up in a box.
Literally.
He IS, however, earnest. And underappreciated. And maybe, probably, doing the best he knows how to do, given how crummy his own next-level-up boss is and how his support staff is more than happy to see him fail.
We find out later (S2) that all in all, he's actually a Very Lonely Being, longing for genuine connection.
There's a statue of his likeness that he stares for hours. All by himself. No one in heaven recognizes his efforts. No one praises Gabe for a job well done. No one reassures him that he's doing the right thing. No one has ever even given him anything. Not one. Single. Thing. Ever.
Even when you're constantly around people, you can still be very alone.
Good Omens is very good at exploring how loneliness impacts and forms beings, and the Supreme Archangel is no exception.
Gabriel has a weird and abrupt character progression, at least from our (and Our Ineffables') limited pov. At the end of S1, he seems cruelly happy to destroy Aziraphale. Then we jump into S2, and he's a total cinnamon roll. Through flashbacks, trial records, and Beez's empathy, we get a crash course on his growth arc. We learn that Gabriel wholeheartedly believes he is doing God's Will. He's proud, sometimes arrogant and patronizing, but he's also alone in an abusive system that doesn't care for any of the cogs that make the machinery turn. He was formed within an absence of compassion.
Suddenly, we're given a more sympathetic perspective of Gabriel himself, not just the adorable "empty house" that is Jim.
We learn, through the fly's memory journey, how quickly Gabriel bonded with Beelzebub in their meetings. It's poignant and sweet. The literal Prince of Hell, a consummate Fallen Enemy, is an intriguing equal, who understands and accepts him. They're not waiting for Gabriel to misstep or say something foolish. They see who he is, and they apparently remember enough about how heaven works to understand WHY he is. They know heaven's demands and expectations. Beelzebub, unlike heaven, doesn't judge him. They merely challenge him to think outside the box.
Teasing, honest little nudges to consider if maybe the rules aren't the full reality. We won't see each other again -- will we? Human music is quite nice, isn't it? Should we really destroy the world? It has music and crisps and funny little things called gifts. Are we actually enemies, just because someone says we should be?
His contacts in heaven aren't companions. They're co-workers vying for status, circling each other (literally at times!) like piranhas. When we see the cold aggression of those other archangels -- when they beat up Aziraphale in S1 on Whickber Street -- we start to see a real contrast between their behavior and Gabriel's.
When Gabriel sentenced Aziraphale to the Hellfire, he was furious. I don't think it was a power trip, or abject cruelty. He truly believed that this renegade angel had rejected God's Divine Plan, consorted with demons, and purposely sabotaged heavenly authority. Gabriel was taught -- in an isolating cult-like system -- that these offenses deserved the worst possible consequences. He believed that Hellfire was the appropriate punishment for this deceptively soft Fallen Angel.
Much of his fury was also that he'd trusted Aziraphale. From his extremely limited perspective, Aziraphale had not only betrayed God, he had betrayed Gabriel's trust. The Supreme Archangel hadn't exactly praised Aziraphale to his co-workers. But Gabriel DID believe in Aziraphale's honesty and integrity, and continued to trust him, even when the others rolled their eyes at the (performatively?) anxious angel. When photos of Aziraphale and Crowley were dug up (to bring Aziraphale down), Gabriel remains convinced of the angel's innocence and sincerity.
After the almost-Apocalypse, he believes that Aziraphale conspired with a demon to betray Everything that Gabriel holds dear. Gabriel was misled, lied to and betrayed, by a lesser angel that the Supreme Archangel believed to be "Good".
He probably also feels that he was played for a sucker. That's where his petty mockery comes from, the barbed insults. Gabriel is the visible leader of heaven, and takes that responsibility seriously. It's not just an embarrassment -- it can call doubt on his leadership that he "allowed" this to happen. It can especially make him doubt his own abilities. Everyone, including himself, needs to be, well, Perfect. Consequences happen to anyone who isn't. It's an abuse, packaged and promoted as a value. Gabriel internalized that gaslighting. He values it to his core.
You see, Gabriel doesn't conspire with demons. He doesn't sneakily use "back channels". He also doesn't randomly threaten and beat up angels who are merely under suspicion of disobedience. Gabriel is an Archangel who plays completely by the rules he's been taught, and believes them with every fiber of his Being.
That statement, that authority, is a badge of honor to him. He is the Champion of The Faith. The Top Authority (at least, the highest who regularly shows up!) in keeping everyone on the path he's been told they should be on. If some chiding or scolding is needed to keep them perfect, well okay (so he believes). He takes his leadership seriously.
I find this moment particularly interesting. He's the antagonist in the scene, yet he instinctively tries to shield Uriel and Sandalphon with his own body from the burst of hellfire. He values them. He wants to protect them.
The Supreme Archangel, as Gabriel defines it, is not just their leader, he is their protector. That cannot be compromised. He's actually trying to be an upright, solid guy, a good person.
We sense this, and see it played out and confirmed in the information thrown at us so quickly in the last episodes of S2. It's why it was so easy for us to start seeing Gabriel as a sympathetic character. We cheer for his escape with Beelzebub because we learn that he an angel who operates out of a (misled) sense of duty and honor, and a tremendous amount of loneliness.
I wonder how long he had no one but Sandalphon giving him feedback or praise. But Sandalphon is a toady, a sycophant. His praise is fake and self-serving. Sandalphon also enjoys cruelty. He looks smugly content, perhaps even pleased, about turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for something as human as glancing back at a burning city full of people.
Sandalphon also knows far too much about humans and their vices, when other angels show extremely limited awareness of anything earthly. Like Aziraphale says, Sandalphon is a "bad angel."
But Gabriel is actually a trusting fellow, when it comes to "angels". He keeps believing in their goodness without question.
Surrounded yet alone, in an echo chamber of cruelty and dismissive devaluing, Gabriel had deteriorated into someone we don't particularly like. When a person is that isolated and unloved, it's pretty likely that he wouldn't know how to like himself much either, if he stopped to think about it.
Themselves alone and unthanked, Beelzebub recognizes Gabriel's loneliness. When he tells them how he stands for hours looking at that statue of himself, Beelzebub's compasion allows us to see him with empathy. It's not a joke anymore. We see his aloneness because they saw and understood it first.
With Beelzebub, he starts to grow and flourish. He can see beyond the rigid rules. He's willing to ask questions of himself and to challenge the norms. Gabriel bonds with the Prince of Hell. He learns, through their playful affection and openness, how to have a little fun, how to break out of the box and simply enjoy simple things like a little song, how to share genuine smiles and small but meaningful gifts.
Finally, Gabriel has someone to care about. Wherever Beez is, is his heaven...! Finally, the dismissed and isolated Supreme Archangel has someone who cares about him, so much so that wherever he is, is Beez's hell -- ie. HOME, the place where you feel you belong.
That precious and genuine connection with another being brings value and meaning to Gabriel's existance -- a far deeper kind than just rules and Divine Plans. It also brought freedom. The ability to define for himself who he is, and to choose who he wants to be. Gabriel still likes tailored suits, after all. It's not just a joke, it's a declaration of choice, of self-definition. His tailored earth-clothing was his own little rebellion, even if he didn't realize it at the time.
Like Aziraphale and Crowley, he becomes someone willing to do whatever it takes to defend and protect that relationship, and his Freedom. And he defended the world along with it!
Sometimes, when you look around and realize someone's put you in a box, you gotta say
"Nah!"
*****
Here are the other works in this series on Loneliness in Good Omens:
Facing Loneliness (Reaching Out in Courage)
Unmasking an Angel (Free to Be Who You Really Are)
If you enjoy philosophical ponderings in GO, you might also enjoy
This is a really thorough analysis of Gabriel, especially of his more positive sides, like his honesty or the fact that he does give credit to people who do a good job. That sets him apart from many real-life bosses with narcissistic tendencies, who blame mistakes on their inferiors, but claim successes all for themselves.
Gabriel wants everything in heaven to run smoothly, and gets extremely upset when this is not the case. It is certainly important for his self-perception as a competent leader. And, as mentioned above, from his limited perspective, Aziraphale really is a traitor.
But that is the problem with Gabriel: he never reflects on his own perspective, or on the things around him. He insists on everything working perfectly, but he does not want to be bothered with the details. Gabriel has no clue, for example, who summons the Four Horsemen, nor is he interested in it, simply stating "not my department". He gets annoyed when Aziraphale tries to explain the "human birth process" to him, because he is convinced that he knows better anyway. And he does not ask Aziraphale (or rather, Crowley) why he helped avert the apocalypse, and even cuts him off when he tries to explain his motives shortly before his attempted execution. Gabriel is a loyal and dedicated leader to heaven, yes, but also an incredibly ignorant one.
But of course, as summed up very well above, he himself is not free to do what he wants, either. He has to justify his decisions both to the Metatron and his fellow angels, who blame him for the failed Armageddon. That is something he has in common with Beelzebub, and the reason why these two bond in season 2.
Ironically, Gabriel again finds himself drawn to someone who is in an equal postion as him, and shares his perspective on the world. Granted, he still learns some new things, like how beautiful and important music can be. Plus, he really cares about Beelzebub, so much that he is willing to abandon heaven for them. At that point, he does not really have an attachment to his job anymore, and the question arises whether he only liked his position as Supreme Archangel because he could draw positive affirmations in an otherwise cold environment from it.
But apart from that, Gabriel pretty much remains his ignorant self. He does not even thank Aziraphale for taking him in and risking his own safety to protect him. I would have liked Gabriel to acknowledge what the fellow renegade angel did for him, or to at least apologize for his behaviour in season 1. But I admit that not doing so is very much in character for him.
That is also the reason why I would have preferred Beelzebub and him as friends rather than as a couple. Because I feel like Beelzebub would get annoyed by him pretty quickly once they're released of the pressure that hell put on them and get to live their life freely. Hanging around with Gabriel all day seems quite though to me. I mean, Beelzebub already seemed to find his obsession with the statue of himself a bit weird. But that is just my little headcanon.
snowghoul
theartofmadeline
kianamaiart
stormborns
dededos
tangentwithtanner
dailybridgerton
