All stories need conflict. Often that conflict is established through the presentation, whether explicit or not, of certain rules. Rules imply an inherent conflict. When the audience knows these rules, they are already, unconsciously or not, imagining the consequences of breaking them, imagining the transgression, which will create the conflict. Story resolution is then not about fixing or reverting the transgression. It is about fusing the two opposing sides (within the rules and outside of the rules) and creating something new out of it. Stories where the status quo are in fact restored are either very shallow or purposely do so as an element of dystopia and/or horror. The audience craves the transformation that arises from transgression and conflict, which is why it is unsettling and uncomfortable in dystopian and horror stories when this doesn't occur. The audience wants to at once place themselves in the position of the enforcer of power and authority and also the one to make the transgression. Through the story, the audience explores the supposedly conflicting elements present in themselves, in the end being able to reckon with and comprehend their inner complexity. Another reason why stories that revert back to the status quo or are too adamant about there being a right or wrong side can also be seen as very shallow, undeveloped, or perhaps in most cases moralizing and propagandist. However, as we often see here, there is then the problem of certain people within the audience taking a story trying to express such complexities and then oversimplifying them, trying to establish a right and wrong or trying to determine their very own "rules" and "status quo." These people I think are either of an upbringing that only offered them such limited viewpoints in story-telling or they are simply afraid of or unwilling to face the complexity of the human condition. Surprisingly, it is sometimes those who profess to rebel against binaries who end up very rigidly creating a distinction of The Other (seen here as bad) and rejecting the transgression taking place in the story because, without even realizing it, they have created their own set of rules that were never actually inherent to the story in the first place.
Okay I'm reblogging this on my dead blog so as not to bother my beloved followers with this shit but *Obama voice* uuhh let me be clear.
This post was meant to be directed toward the so-called "Aziraphale haters" (haters? Come on guys is this middle school?) or whatever it is that is making so many of you get your knickers in a twist.
Firstly, Good Omens is a story. Stories have characters (fictional and not real I might add) and plot devices and such. In order to advance a story, certain actions (usually kind of extreme ones) need to be taken. Aziraphale was the one to take this necessary step because he is the only one that can. His chess piece was moved in such and such way to keep the damn plot moving.
Secondly, Good Omens is a COMEDY. It is in the comedy genre. It is ridiculous at times. It is not meant to be taken that seriously. Also, it is a "feel-good" genre (reference: end of season 1). The point of having tension and heartbreaking things happen in this genre is to build up to the release the audience will feel once the issue is resolved. The audience (at least most of you I hope) recognize that this is a comedic feel-good story and you should therefore see the end of season 2 as exciting in that you are already anticipating the feel-good resolution in Season 3. (AKA some of you are stuck on the "heartbreak" and forgetting that there's a whole ass other story coming up. Please keep up.)
As such. Aziraphale did what he did because he has to (not in a duty way, but in a "plot needs to get a move on" kind of way. Sorry this is not a slice of life genre.) Also, Crowley, being an ancient supernatural being and not a child, is going to be FINE people. In fact I think the characterization of the utterly broken and traumatized and unwilling to forgive Crowley is ridiculously demeaning and frankly super embarrassing.
And Good Lord. I'm not here to "defend characters." I'm here to enjoy story-telling that is made interesting with rich and complex characterization. The utter complexity of both Aziraphale and Crowley is what makes GO so good. However, Crowley is now being conceived as a completely flat and uninteresting character by many of you (because it makes you feel better somehow to infantilize him?) and Aziraphale is being conceived as somehow suddenly the master of the universe (also a perverse oversimplification, and really pretty funny if you think about it for two seconds). And I will tell you why. In the face of complexity, humans like to assign blame. It makes a hard to understand problem into a very simple one. It's also just lazy.
Going back to what I said in my previous post, these kinds of stories, especially the ones that touch on morality (if the whole heaven, hell, and earth dynamic didn't make it obvious) is for the audience to kind of use the different characters to examine what is inside themselves. If you wanna kin or completely identify with one single character I can't stop you but really the point of stories Iike this is to reflect on the parts of yourself that are like Aziraphale, the parts that are like Crowley, like Gabriel, like Michael, like Muriel and so on and so on and just kind of reflect and delight and come to terms with all the different facets that make up the human experience, mind, and personality. And sadly so many of you are just completely flat-charactering yourselves.
