You will not die at the hands of quicksand. Ask me how I know this
Please, how do you know this?
quicksand does not have any hands

No title available
Cosmic Funnies
Not today Justin
todays bird
RMH
ojovivo

Love Begins
wallacepolsom
YOU ARE THE REASON

titsay
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
sheepfilms
I'd rather be in outer space đ¸
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda

â

JVL

@theartofmadeline

Product Placement
styofa doing anything
seen from Australia

seen from Australia
seen from Netherlands

seen from Spain

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom

seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States

seen from Germany
seen from Spain

seen from Germany

seen from Australia

seen from Greece

seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia

seen from United Kingdom
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Germany
seen from Poland
@starlightdreamerstar
You will not die at the hands of quicksand. Ask me how I know this
Please, how do you know this?
quicksand does not have any hands
for all the people that are struggling to come to terms with the good omens finale and what it means for the fandom (myself included), i really really want to stress that you will not lose anything you don't want to lose because of it.
here's a list of things that are still here, that you can access anytime:
the book
the radio adaptation
season 1
season 2 (grab the bits you like and ignore the rest if necessary)
the bits of season 3 you did like (ignoring the rest may feel more difficult here but it is achievable i promise)
all the fanworks that exist already, whether they were created pre-tv adaptation, post-s1, post-s2 or post-s3
all of david and michael's interviews and other promo about the show pre-s3
the fans that are currently active in the fandom
the memories you've made in the fandom
and here's a list of things we can look forward to:
more fanworks/fanwork events, because people are still creating and will continue to do so
getting to know new good omens friends, whether they're new to the fandom or just new to you
in that vein, welcoming new fans to the fandom (it may not seem likely but new people will continue to seek us out!)
the final ineffable con and all the craziness and content that will come from that
people continuing to discover your fanworks, old and new
the moments where you'll start to feel the finale, the show in general and/or the fandom becoming easier to engage with again
most of all, aziraphale and crowley will always be there for you. i promise. i know it may feel like they're gone, but they're not, as long as we still watch them, think about them, read about them, write about them, draw them, cosplay them, talk about them... they want to be here, on earth, with all of us, and they are, i promise they are.
The rule could have heavy impacts towards trans people across society.
Last week, the Trump administration quietly released a sweeping new federal rule that would use funding threats to force institutions across the country to reject transgender people. The 400-page proposed regulation would codify the administration's anti-trans executive orders into binding federal policy, imposing a blanket prohibition on federal funds going toward "gender ideology"
The proposed rule, formally titled "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance," rewrites the government-wide framework governing all federal grants across every agency. Among its most consequential provisions, it requires that before a federal grant recipient can receive money, the award must pass a "pre-issuance review" conducted by a political appointeeânot a career expert or peer reviewerâto ensure it is "consistent with applicable law, Federal agency priorities, and the national interest." The regulation explicitly instructs these appointees to screen for "denial by the recipient of the sex binary in humans or the notion that sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic." [...] An institution that acknowledges transgender people existâthrough its policies, its training, its healthcare, its bathroom access, its HR procedures, its name-change processesâcould be deemed to "deny the sex binary" or to âsupport the notion that sex is mutableâ and have its federal funding blocked.
Importantly, the gender ideology prohibition has no age limitationâhospitals could be targeted not just for providing care to minors but for providing gender-affirming care to adults, because prescribing hormone therapy to a transgender patient of any age could be deemed promoting the belief that "sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic."
THIS IS OPEN TO COMMENT UNTIL JULY 13, 2026
This is all very bad and horrible, but I want to be clear that itâs worse and more sweeping than just eliminating trans research.
This torches everything. And I do mean everything.
A very abbreviated list of its ramifications include (but are not limited to):
ending funding for ALL DEI related initiatives
allowing the government to terminate grants at any point for any reason
preventing researchers from publishing, going to conferences, and being part of academic societies
requiring that topics must support the presidentâs agenda.
What this means, and if anything Iâm under selling it, is the death of science and research in America. It allows the government to restrict any topic they please at a whims notice, putting officials who have no background in the topic in charge of deciding funding continuity. It controls what gets researched and if/how researchers are allowed to share their discoveries. There are no books to burn if the government never allows them to be written. This is fascism plain and simple.
Please, if you only ever write one public comment, this is the one to do.
Bringing back this guide to writing an effective public comment. This gives you the basics you need to know, what you need to include, a basic outline you can follow, etc.
Public comments are not a vote, it is a chance for you to say "here is an issue with this law I think you need to address" and provide justification for legal challenges if it goes forward:
"Comments raise the bar that agencies have to meet when making a rule; âif an agency fails to adequately respond to significant, relevant comments in a final rule, members of the public may seek to challenge the rule in court on that basis and claim it could be struck down.ËŽ"
But also, if possible, don't stop at writing a comment. Don't stop at calling your representatives. You should ideally be talking to people in your community about this and organizing resistance on-the-ground; there is a good chance people are already doing that even if you aren't hearing about it.
Youâre completely correct. Out of my way, able-bodied losers. Fuck you.
Hornblower Charm design for my Etsy shop coming soon ^_^
According to the CDC, in 10 percent of those drownings, the adult will actually watch the child do it, having no idea it is happening. Drowning does not look like drowningâDr. Pia, in an article in the Coast Guardâs On Scene magazine, described the Instinctive Drowning Response like this:
âExcept in rare circumstances, drowning people are physiologically unable to call out for help. The respiratory system was designed for breathing. Speech is the secondary or overlaid function. Breathing must be fulfilled before speech occurs.
Drowning peopleâs mouths alternately sink below and reappear above the surface of the water. The mouths of drowning people are not above the surface of the water long enough for them to exhale, inhale, and call out for help. When the drowning peopleâs mouths are above the surface, they exhale and inhale quickly as their mouths start to sink below the surface of the water.
Drowning people cannot wave for help. Nature instinctively forces them to extend their arms laterally and press down on the waterâs surface. Pressing down on the surface of the water permits drowning people to leverage their bodies so they can lift their mouths out of the water to breathe.
Throughout the Instinctive Drowning Response, drowning people cannot voluntarily control their arm movements. Physiologically, drowning people who are struggling on the surface of the water cannot stop drowning and perform voluntary movements such as waving for help, moving toward a rescuer, or reaching out for a piece of rescue equipment.
From beginning to end of the Instinctive Drowning Response peopleâs bodies remain upright in the water, with no evidence of a supporting kick. Unless rescued by a trained lifeguard, these drowning people can only struggle on the surface of the water from 20 to 60 seconds before submersion occurs.â
This doesnât mean that a person that is yelling for help and thrashing isnât in real troubleâthey are experiencing aquatic distress. Not always present before the Instinctive Drowning Response, aquatic distress doesnât last longâbut unlike true drowning, these victims can still assist in their own rescue. They can grab lifelines, throw rings, etc.
Look for these other signs of drowning when persons are in the water:
Head low in the water, mouth at water level
Head tilted back with mouth open
Eyes glassy and empty, unable to focus
Eyes closed
Hair over forehead or eyes
Not using legsâvertical
Hyperventilating or gasping
Trying to swim in a particular direction but not making headway
Trying to roll over on the back
Appear to be climbing an invisible ladder
So if a crew member falls overboard and everything looks OKâdonât be too sure. Sometimes the most common indication that someone is drowning is that they donât look like theyâre drowning. They may just look like they are treading water and looking up at the deck. One way to be sure? Ask them, âAre you all right?â If they can answer at allâthey probably are. If they return a blank stare, you may have less than 30 seconds to get to them. And parentsâchildren playing in the water make noise. When they get quiet, you get to them and find out why.
Source/article: [x]
Follow Ultrafacts for more facts!
BOOST FOR THE SUMMER. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE.
Can I just say thank you to OP for putting such a detailed description on this?
Iâve been a lifeguard for 6 years now and of all the saves Iâve done, maybe two or three had people drowning in the stereotypical thrashing style. And even those, like the save I made last weekend, it was exactly like OP describes where the personâs head is going in and out of the water but it isnât long enough to get any air. Mostly you recognize drowning by the look on someoneâs face. If someone looks wide eyed and terrified or confused, chances are theyâre drowning. That look of âoh shitâ is pretty easily recognizable. And even if you canât tell for sure: GO AFTER THEM ANYWAY. Iâve done âsavesâ where a kid was pretending to drown and I mistook it for real drowning, but thatâs preferable to a kid ACTUALLY drowning.
Also please remember that even strong swimmers can drown if they have a medical emergency, get cramps, or get too tired. If your friend knows how to swim but theyâre acting funny get them to land. And even if someone can respond when you ask them if they need help, if they say they do need help? GO HELP THEM.
However . If the victim is a stranger, I canât recommend trying to get them. Lifeguards literally train to escape âattacks,â because people who are drowning can freak the fuck out and grab you and make YOU drown as well. If you do go in after someone, take hold of them from the back and talk to them the whole time. IF YOU ARE GRABBED: duck down into the water as low as you can get. The person is panicking and wonât want to go under water and should release you. Shove up at their hands and push them away from you as you duck under. Donât die trying to save someone else.
Please guys, read and memorize this post. Not all places have lifeguards. Being able to recognize drowning is such an important skill to have and you can save someoneâs life.
Just incase!
In a water park once, I was suddenly grabbed by a child and he dragged me under the water without warning. I was going to get angry with him when I resurfaced because I thought he was being an ass, until I looked at him go back in and out hyperventilating the entire time. I grabbed him under his arms and began trying to drag him out while screaming for the lifeguard.
When the lifeguard got us both out, a woman came running down and accused me of harming him and said he had been completely fine in the water. That there was no reason to drag him out of there. The lifeguard had to explain to her that her son had been drowning, to which her response was to say that she didnât hear him call for help.
People seriously need to learn the signs.
Summer (northern hemisphere) PSA
I can't tell anyone what to like or not like, but as far as the season 3 "finale" being something Sir Terry would have written or endorsed -- a position I've actually seen expressed more than once -- I offer the last paragraphs of Good Omens, The Book.
If you want to imagine the future, imagine a boy and his dog and his friends. And a summer that never ends. And if you want to imagine the future, imagine a boot... no, imagine a sneaker, laces trailing, kicking a pebble; imagine a stick, to poke at interesting things, and throw for a dog that may or may not decide to retrieve it; imagine a tuneless whistle, pounding some luckless popular song into insensibility; imagine a figure, half angel, half devil, all human... Slouching hopefully towards Tadfield. ...for ever.
I submit humbly that that ending is not the voice of a writer (the interview in the illustrated tie-in edition specifies that "the kids mostly originated with Terry") who would ultimately be down with annihilation as the Only Solution To The Problems Of The World.
Bonus reminder: I'm betting this passage is Terry's ("vanload of hippies on a blotterful of Owsley's Old Original" has that ring to it). I ask you, does it describe a character who would only a few years later in story time -- after sixty centuries of ups and downs -- (1) wallow indefinitely in a drunken sulk, and then (2) tell God to finish erasing the world, including himself and his best friend, and start over?
Because, underneath it all, Crowley was an optimist. If there was one rock-hard certainty that had sustained him through the bad times -- he thought briefly of the fourteenth century -- then it was utter surety that he would come out on top; that the universe would look after him. Okay, so Hell was down on him. So the world was ending. So the Cold War was over and the Great War was starting for real. So the odds against him were higher than a vanload of hippies on a blotterful of Owsley's Old Original. There was still a chance.
That is all.
I see you and raise you some statements by Marc Burrows, who wrote the biography "The Magic of Terry Pratchett":
It's been a few days and I'm curious. The fandom is divided. My dash is obviously biased, so let's see the numbers.
Did you like Good Omens 3?
I love it
I like it
I don't like it
I hate it
idk/idc see results
Please, reblog to maximize sample, the whole fandom should wage in. Thank you!
I hope itâs ok to add to your post but i am curious to see if thereâs a difference:
Do you like the last fifteen minutes of Good Omens 3?
I love it
I like it
I donât like it
I hate it
Idk/idc see results
Adding onâŚ
Did the last 15 minutes of Good Omens Season 2 make sense to you?
No
Yes, after watching season 3
Yes, before watching season 3
Y'all if you're American please email your politicians and senators against the parents decide act. I'm fucking begging because we're reaching a tipping point.
Quick and easy link to both find your congressmen/women and giving you a quick and easy way to copy / paste the message into it. You want to oppose. It's an act that will demand that all major OS makers integrate a direct forced age verification control into all OS.
I received a comment on this that I figured would be very helpful- it's a template for communicating with your representatives. Be sure to use it for reference
Dear Representative [Name],
I am writing to express my strong opposition to H.R. 8250 (The "Parents Decide Act"). As your constituent and a concerned citizen, I believe this bill introduces unprecedented risks to digital privacy and security.
Specifically, I am alarmed by:
SEC. 2(a)(1)(B): Requiring age verification to even use an operating system creates a mandatory "hardware lockout" that ends anonymous computing and forces users to hand over sensitive identification data to major corporations just to power on their devices.
SEC. 2(a)(3): Mandating that OS providers create a system for all app developers to access verification data is a massive security vulnerability. This effectively creates a centralized API of user identities accessible to thousands of third-party developers, many of whom may lack adequate data protection.
This bill does not protect children; it creates a centralized surveillance infrastructure at the OS level. I urge you to protect the privacy of your constituents and vote NO on H.R. 8250.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Zip Code]
This is a hell that us down under in Australia are already living in, and itâs not even effective at what it claims to do in protecting children.
Given that, in the wake of this mandatory identification policy, my country seems to be moving to hand over its citizens biometric data, like fingerprints, Face ID files, and identification documents, over to the USA and to ICE to maintain the visa free travel (ESTA) we have, I strongly urge any US resident to send these emails, or make calls.
But if you canât do that, the most powerful thing you can do is spread the word. Tell your friends, family, coworkers, anyone who can help.
My reach will likely be small, and so I donât know if this will mean very much in the grand scheme of things, but I cannot stand to see this tracking happen to another population as it did to mine.
And if you think it wonât affect you, it will. All anonymity goes out the window when your accounts can be linked via your personal ID
I wish you all luck in preventing this act from going through.
I called my representative and left a voice message!
Hereâs the 5calls script to make it easy! https://5calls.org/issue/age-verification-internet-privacy/
The more I think about that ending, the more reasons it bugs me.
The newest one popped into my head as I was waking up, this morning.
The running theme of GO has always been to embrace who you are (Aziraphale's embracing of his love of creature comforts, and of a certain demon... Crowley's constant assertions that he's a demon who has no use for Hell, but still embraces minor acts of mischief... Adam's determination to stay in Tadfield, even when offered the entire world to rule... Maggie's love of a record shop that's essentially failing... And I could go on, but you get the point). But in the end, in that pub scene, what GO ended up saying, was "you can only get a happy ending if you become someone you're not." NONE of those people were actually the selves they'd been the whole series. Not one of them. Instead of finding happiness and peace as themselves, they had to become completely new people, to be happy??
I think that's why so many of us were so instantly bothered by it. The GO fandom has always been largely made up of queer and/or misfit people. Those society has deemed mostly "outside" the norm, at various points. GO told us we were accepted and lovable just as we are. It gave us the safety to explore who we actually were, through the lense of characters who were, themselves, unusual or outsiders. And then, in the end, it ripped away everything that provided safety and community for us, and said "you can only be happy if you conform to the status quo."
Excuse the fuck out of me?? Not just no, but HELL, no.
This is yet one more reason for me to ignore the existence of S3.
All of this. But not just misfits. I think many of us are trauma survivors. I think many of us saw our own broken pieces reflected in Crowley and Aziraphale. Being able to love them tricked us into loving ourselves. Seeing them devoted to each other gave us hope of a brighter future. Something about the ending said to me at least, some things, some people, are too broken to be fixed or loved so we better chuck it all out and start over. And that was heartbreaking.
The more I think about that ending, the more reasons it bugs me.
The newest one popped into my head as I was waking up, this morning.
The running theme of GO has always been to embrace who you are (Aziraphale's embracing of his love of creature comforts, and of a certain demon... Crowley's constant assertions that he's a demon who has no use for Hell, but still embraces minor acts of mischief... Adam's determination to stay in Tadfield, even when offered the entire world to rule... Maggie's love of a record shop that's essentially failing... And I could go on, but you get the point). But in the end, in that pub scene, what GO ended up saying, was "you can only get a happy ending if you become someone you're not." NONE of those people were actually the selves they'd been the whole series. Not one of them. Instead of finding happiness and peace as themselves, they had to become completely new people, to be happy??
I think that's why so many of us were so instantly bothered by it. The GO fandom has always been largely made up of queer and/or misfit people. Those society has deemed mostly "outside" the norm, at various points. GO told us we were accepted and lovable just as we are. It gave us the safety to explore who we actually were, through the lense of characters who were, themselves, unusual or outsiders. And then, in the end, it ripped away everything that provided safety and community for us, and said "you can only be happy if you conform to the status quo."
Excuse the fuck out of me?? Not just no, but HELL, no.
This is yet one more reason for me to ignore the existence of S3.
Oooo this is perfect
It's usually Aziraphale that does the writing. Books. Words. That his thing, y'know. When someone is able to set stars in the sky, you don't stand between them and their work, just let them get to it.
Hope, though. That's always been mine. Finding the silver linings.
Hell of a flaw for a demon to have.
In time, Aziraphale will write a full recounting. He'll have beautiful prose and a full summary. I'll be sure he doesn't start in Eden so we can finish it inside a human life span. In the mean time, here is a short message from a demon to tide you over.
The world was gone. The universe I so loved. And yet we stood in a bookshop that was nowhere and everywhere. Aziraphale took my hand and somehow I had everything. The books were blank, yes.
But we both remembered them and they weren't fading. We were the repository for the world that we loved. At one point, we started bickering over wine and Aziraphale was holding a copy of the Canterbury Tales morosely.
Geoffrey was a character.
We both spent many a night at a tavern with him as he wrote and even I knew those stories, I think by heart. I wanted Aziraphale to be happy. So, I started writing. The Clerk, the Miller, the Squire.
It spilled from me and I realised Aziraphale's hand was on my shoulder. A miracle pouring into a book. That's how it started. There's more story here and a discussion with God that I think I'll leave to his story telling.
You all have an idea how I feel about our Creatorand her decisions.
And in the end, we are here. Still an angel (now retired) and demon (former). The bookshop is in Soho, where it belongs with Muriel behind the till. And maybe you'll hear more of our cottage now that we're not afraid to spoil an ending for you.
There's no apple tree at its heart, but there is one in the garden that's a bit unique. And in our home universe there are some angels and demons on earth now, too. Not all of them made that choice but some decided retirement was the best option.
There isn't only us of course. You've seen Asa and Anthony (well, one version of them). Each stroke of your pen or click of a keyboard is another. The universes weave in unique and wonderful ways.
As a former star maker, I am proud of you all for making more stars.
Each contained in a story. That's always been what amazes me about humans, you don't understand that within each of you there are universes untold. You only need see them. And once you do, maybe share it with each other.
Aziraphale and I are here. And we'll always be here. He has another challenge planned soon for you lot and I'm considering adding one as well, if you would like.
Anyway, Aziraphale will write something more poignant I'm sure. I'll be sure to help.
GOS3 Thoughts
Nope. Nope - even if I laughed at moments, and found the ending scene sweet, because how could David and Michael not be? I enjoy an AU as much as anybody, but if anyone deserves their love confession, their kiss, their happy ever after, itâs the canon characters who've been through so much together, not a pair of stand-ins.
I know the line forms to the left. Here we go anyway.
What I got from the original book â and specifically the parts that Pratchett obviously put into it, the underlying theme, the humane perspective â is that the worldâs not saved by grand heroics, by the procurement of a McGuffin like the Book of Life or the killing of an Antichrist. Itâs saved, little piece by little piece, through the compounding effect of small, good things, of kindnesses performed by imperfect beings and the love of random beauty and the cherishing of the day-to-day. Aziraphale and Crowley thwart the Apocalypse not because they feel the call to be heroes, but because theyâve gotten used to humanity with all its flaws; because they love a bookshop and a car and gravlax and bebop and little restaurants where they know your name. The things that multiply and intertwine in our lives, that hold us and our world together the way roots fix the soil. The shared meals and the do-you-remembers, the problems muddled through, the arguments made up; the love of a child for his home and his friends, for a familiar wood and apples stolen from a neighborâs tree. How does it save the world if you destroy the world?
(Iâm old; I was born in the Fifities, and oh, I remember the heavy irony of âwe had to destroy the village In order to save it.â But thatâs just what this story did.)
Saying âthis is all broken and wrong, and the only thing to do is wipe it all out and start over from the beginningâ: thatâs been the recipe for some of the worst horrors of the world. That was the entire fucking message of the original book. The world is flawed, the systems we live under imperfect and even cruel in their origins, but it can be healed, bit by bit, if you love enough â even if you love in seemingly trivial ways. Good Omens is about mending â mending the consequences of folly, mending friendships, mending the damage people inflict on one another, like an angel mending the spine of a beloved old book. Mending the error in the assumption that sides mean more than individuals, leaving two beings like Aziraphale and Crowley free to treasure all the small things about each other, as friends or lovers or however you choose to see them. The meet-cute of their human counterparts in the remade, blind-watchmaker universe is, well, cute, but it doesn't reward the characters we came to love, who evolved along with humanity, became who they are by outgrowing the artificial opposition imposed on them, and bonded through rising above it. (And neither couple ever gets a tender kiss to cancel out the angry one that left us all ravaged in 2023; more articulate voices than mine have gone to town on the way that narrative choice dilutes the queer representation that stunned us with its promise in the original TV adaptation).
So I see the whole progress of the sequel series as misbegotten â most likely, for all the usual reasons of cupidity and vanity â leaving us with a couple of pieces of tone-deaf fan fiction that literally lost the plot. Good moments here and there, clever bits of banter and comic turns; two lead actors with dazzling chemistry that most of us would pay to hear read the phone book for ninety minutes; but all in all a disjointed story compounded of fan tropes, that did not seem to love its characters or have a point beyond churning them around for ninety minutes.
Where in this story are characters comparable to everybody that made the original so rich and endearing to begin with? The bumbling, sincere romances (Anathema and Newt, Tracy and Shadwell, even the wholesome marital bond of Lesley and Maud)? The tweenage energy and candor provided by the Them? Eleven-year-old Adam Young faced a choice and protected the world because its simple joys were enough for him; twinky Jesus Mark II goes down an elevator and survives just long enough to learn a card trick, distribute pizza, and be disintegrated without addressing any of the events unfolding around him. And where the entire hell is Agnes Nutter, and her tart wisdom?
(....Remember Agnes? Are we to accept that she wrote two books of prophecy, guiding the angel and demon who were fated to thwart Armageddon â and that her descendant burnt the second, in order to start her new life without a roadmap â only for everything to go up a few years later, not in a ball of flaming goo, but in a corny Avengers Endgame series of sfx dust devils? This story seems to be happening in an entirely different universe to the one that was built between book covers or the opening and closing credits of Season One, and it's not because God rebooted it.)
I'll leave you with a bit of shameless self-promo: an imagining of Agnesâ take on the sequels, and a version of what Aziraphale and Crowley themselves might have thought of the narrative malfeasance, as I view it, of season 2 (both written before any of the uglier reports about NG surfaced). I don't know if this was a case of an author deliberately jerking around his fandom, a case of "too many cooks spoil the broth" when the project had to be retooled for a briefer air time, or just lazy reliance on a wealth of incident and fan service as a substitute for a story worth telling. All I'm sure of is that we, as fan creators, should feel completely free to ignore anything that violates the promise, the message, and the perspective of the story we fell in love with. To mend what went wrong, piece by piece.
6 DAYS!!!
Aziraphale loves his lil' snakey boo!đđ¤đ¤
The Shuttered Garden: How the Good Omens Finale Betrayed its Humanistic Roots
Text: Aivelin Illustration: a-ida
The series finale of Good Omens dropped this Wednesday, leaving the fandom shaken and in absolute distress. The audience reaction was immediate, driving the Rotten Tomatoes score for Season 3 down to a disappointing 36%. The online debate grew so heated and overwhelmed with grief that numerous fan accounts faced 24-hour social media bans for their highly emotional confessions.
Viewers are highly divided. While a fraction accepts the heavy ending as a necessary evil, the overwhelming sentiment across platforms is utter bewilderment and heartbreak: "These characters do not feel like the ones we grew to love in previous seasons!"
This raises painful, critical questions: Is this sudden shift in characterization a narrative misstep? Is the tragic, suicidal ending a harsh subversion of the original book, which famously promised a comforting happily ever after?
To find the answer, one must look closely at who held the creative reins for the scripts of Seasons 2 and 3. By analyzing the writing credits, clear and undeniable patterns emerge, linking these distressing plot choices directly to Neil Gaimanâs broader, often dark and subversive, body of work.
The Solitary Vision and the Realigned Mold
While the first season captured the shared spirit of Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaimanâs 1990 novel, the subsequent seasons belong to Gaimanâs solitary vision. When viewed alongside his wider world of storytelling, such as The Sandman, American Gods, and Stardust, the tragic fractures in Aziraphale and Crowleyâs bond lose their surprise. Gaimanâs worlds are populated by immortal beings who are deeply fractured at best and cruel at worst. In these narratives, it is almost a rule that celestial entities will take advantage of the hearts that love them, turning devotion into a tool before abandoning those souls to a devastating fate.
Crucially, Gaiman always veils this emotional cruelty behind high-minded dilemmas. The act of abandonment is never framed as simple coldness; instead, it is masked as a profound moral crisis ("We cannot be together because I am a god and you are human"), a sacrifice of monumental importance ("I must leave our future to save my kingdom"), or an unyielding divine necessity. Even when Gaimanâs romances lack outward malice, they are consistently denied peace. In Stardust, the mortal husband passes away, leaving his immortal, celestial wife to endure eternity in silent, isolated grief. By transforming Aziraphale into a colder, more emotionally distant figure who abruptly leaves Crowley for a heavenly promotion, Gaiman is merely reshaping Good Omens to fit his favorite creative blueprint.
Deeply Pessimistic Parallels
Ultimately, the ending of Good Omens Season 3 and the conclusion of The Sandman reveal deeply pessimistic parallels. The Sandman closes with its protagonist suffering the consequences of his own rigid nature, forced by higher powers into self-destruction so that his kingdom might survive. In the wake of this death, the universe offers a surrogate replacement - a new entity stripped of the originalâs memories, whom the remaining characters are forced to accept despite their lingering grief.Â
Aziraphaleâs sudden, illogical decision to leap at Heavenâs offer mirrors this exact brand of narrative cruelty. Neither Aziraphale nor Crowley deserved to have their hard-won autonomy stripped away for the sake of a grandiose self-sacrifice.Â
A Profound Departure from Terry Pratchett
This shift represents a profound departure from the late Terry Pratchettâs fundamental worldview. Pratchett harbored a deep-seated aversion to suicide tropes and grand, sacrificial violence in fiction. His works respected the dignity of both life and death. In his narrative, the Apocalypse is defeated not through self-sacrifice or bloodshed, but by the quiet resilience and stubborn pragmatism of ordinary people. The first season beautifully honored this philosophy, as the Antichrist and a group of children stopped the Apocalypse through sheer, down-to-earth humanity.
The subsequent seasons discard this logic entirely, altering the very cosmology of the universe. In Season 1, God was an infallible, detached observer whose ineffable plan quietly empowered the right people at the right moment to prevent ruin. By Season 3, God is reframed as a petulant, semi-malicious entity capable of erasing existence on a whim.
Furthermore, while Pratchett and Gaiman likely brainstormed the concepts of the South Downs cottage and the conflict between Heaven, Hell and Earth together, Pratchett would never have designed an intentionally suicidal and destructive endgame. In his philosophy, survival is achieved through an attachment to mundane, earthly joys. In the first season, Crowley is saved from hellfire by his love for his car and his human-like imagination, while Aziraphale survives because of his eccentric, earthly devotion to collecting rare books.
Conclusion: Fanfiction or Harsh Reality
A true thematic continuation of both authors' visions would look radically different. It would find Aziraphale and Crowley left alone in a quiet bookshop for eternity, weaving their magical memories and shared love for humanity together to rewrite every lost book back into a brand-new universe. If that choice ultimately stripped them of their divinity and left them mortal, it would be a logical, bittersweet happily-ever-after within the sanctuary of a beautiful, earthly garden.
Instead, Gaiman has opted for character regression and profound emotional devastation. To pretend that Aziraphale's betrayal of Crowley and their martyrdom makes narrative sense within the established logic of Season 1 is an exercise in denial. Audiences are left with a stark choice: either view everything past the first season as high-budget, angst-driven fanfiction, or accept a harsher reality. The original, humanistic spirit of Good Omens died with Terry Pratchett, leaving behind a cold universe engineered for heartbreak.
^what they said.
S2 felt like a weird tangent rather than a true sequel. S3/finale felt like a disjointed fanfic pastiche.
Politically bleak omens
Since Wednesday, Iâve been approached by more people than I can count with a variation of the same question, âHow are you feeling now?â. Some of you have noticed that Iâve been keeping myself busy offline over the last few days. Experiencing and processing Good Omens 3 as a part of in-person, physical community was a conscious decision which I donât regret â on the contrary, Iâm deeply grateful to each person whoâs been a part of that journey so far and happy to meet even more of you tomorrow. But I think that the rest deserves some kind of answer as well.
Thereâs a plethora of elements that I enjoy and genuinely love about the Finale, to the point where Iâm called overtly optimistic or deep in the denial. I donât mind either of those labels, and Iâm sure that I will continue writing about those specific topics and other things that spark joy for a good while. But there are also some aspects of the production as well as the discourse around it that arenât a matter of preference and need to be addressed in a broader context â not as a witch hunt or a morality contest, but a sign of the challenges we face on personal and societal level at the very moment and have to be more conscious about. And Iâm sure that we can do it in a mature, nonviolent way, with kindness and compassion to everyone involved, no matter their circumstances and interpretations. But first, we have to establish some common ground for this discussion, which is why I will start by quoting Rachel Talalayâs TV Insider interview that has fuelled the initial fandom response into the blazing inferno it seems to be at the moment:
I mean, there was conversations throughout, quite specific in the script about that, there wasnât another huge kiss. And the main conversation with Michael and David was, what could we do that means more than what was in Season 2? And the answer is the plot line is greater than what happened in Season 2, but another kiss would be â and I know that I say this with great love for the fandom because I know they desperately want, and they can write their whole sex scenes in fanfic, but definitely the whole group together felt like another kiss would be the same or less, and therefore really heading toward the emotion of it.
This is not meant to be criticism on a personal or professional level. I am deeply aware that Rachel â who joined the Good Omens 3 production team when the original six episodes were already scripted and in development, and yet tried to bargain for the best possible outcome with the fans in mind throughout her time as a director on this challenging in more than one way show â is slightly older than my own mother and possesses a set of life experiences that I, as a young demisexual lesbian, am unable to fully relate to. And vice versa, which is a completely normal and expected occurrence in itself. Unfortunately, even the most well-meant and delicately selected phrases sometimes fall flat, or, as itâs the case here, tone deaf, and I firmly believe that addressing those instances directly and deliberately is the only way to achieve some level of understanding and to move forward as better individuals and communities. I also believe that we should start the conversation by calling this kind of phenomenon by its name, unconscious bias.
Unconscious bias or implicit associations are a set of associations we hold outside our conscious awareness and control as a result of background, personal experiences, societal stereotypes and cultural context. It is not just about gender, ethnicity or other visible diversity characteristics â height, body weight, names, and many other things can also trigger unconscious bias. They affect absolutely everyone to some degree as a quick workaround enabling our overwhelmed brains quick judgement and assessment, but once identified and acknowledged, they can be absolutely managed. Unconscious bias are also the reason why the current discussion is so heated on the fandomâs part. After years and years of on-hands experience with all shades of queerphobia in the film and TV industry as much as in their personal lives, people quickly jump to conclusions that the director must be homophobic, the ending changed, and the charactersâ identities maliciously erased. Which would be straightforward prejudice.
Let me reiterate with all of my gentleness and love: Good Omens, including its divisive Finale, is not about sex. Never has been, and seeing the wonderful kaleidoscope of fandom only through this particular lens seems not even disrespectful, as some have phrased it, but boringly predictable. After all, sexualising and even fetishising same-sex presenting couples has been an ongoing struggle both in the media and in the real world for far longer than either of us has been alive. Leaning in some way on those objectively toxic cultural norms when struggling for intellectual and emotional stability while raw from exposure to the press is not the worst thing a 67-year-old grieving widow can do, nor something she can feel particularly proud of when sheâs more conscious of her actions. A woman that is openly a fan of the Good Omens novel herself and who publicly supported the fans on multiple occasions, including this interview:
I want them to feel that theyâre in the hands of somebody who cared â and cares.
Attacking Rachel on a personal level is not the way to move forward, just a temporary solution for understandably vulnerable individuals wanting to redirect their disappointment and anger at someone even more vulnerable and at the same time more approachable than the unclear Forces That Be. Because the problem weâre all dealing with seems more political and in major part systemic, and needs to be addressed as such. Luckily Good Omens is a story about systems of oppression as well.
Humans are social animals. In academic terms, face-to-face interactions are often described by the famous 55/38/7 rule: 55% body language (facial expressions, gestures, and posture), 38% tone of voice (pitch, volume, and the rhythm of speech), and 7% spoken words (the literal vocabulary used). Now think about losing a person important to you â not necessarily a romantic or sexual partner, but a parent, a child, a dear friend. When saying goodbye to someone you love and consider your entire world, you automatically engage social and personal intimacy scripts as a way to reassure them about you still being there for them, especially when itâs impossible to tell whether they can fully hear or see you at that point anymore. Depending on your circumstances and cultural background, it can be achieved in many ways â through holding or kissing their hands, face, hair, even a full-body hug â but what matters is that on a visceral level, you simply want to be close to them and not let go until itâs really truly over.
For Aziraphale and Crowley, the entirety of their time together spent in the shadow of the Second Coming has been a painfully prolonged goodbye â yet tragically, neither of them allowed himself or his counterpart this small mercy of universally recognised and socially accepted intimacy above friendship. Itâs obviously not like they didnât share any physical contact through the ninety minutes they were given. There were multiple instances of handholding, steering each other in the right direction or grounding in their place when needed. All full of affection, but also all with a comfortable level of deniability that in the wider context can be seen as genuinely problematic. None of those gestures follow any recognisable cultural norms or media tropes expected of this type of relationship as theirs, and neither does the dialogue, which is why the film feels like a blow to so many disappointed fans, not because of the lack of fan service in the sense of more or less explicitly sexual content. Although letâs be honest, automatically equating kisses with sex is more than a bit baffling and would have never happened in a context of a cisheteronormative couple.
Queer people are primed to look for clues and signals around them all their lives because for them itâs a matter of survival. A lifetime of denied open communication and representation leaves all kinds of marks on a person and a community, especially when reinforced by the conservative-leaning media exposure. It makes the option of a fantasy world where queer love isnât worse or different and truly conquers it all, in bold, all capital letters and Disney-like gestures, ever so appealing. This is why finding a fandom like Good Omens, which seemed not only unapologetically, beautifully open to all kinds of outsiders, but actively subverting their typical role of background comic relief and making them main romantic leads in the story â their story â has been so life-altering for multiple people Iâve talked to over the years. It was a transformative safe space and a centre of excellence for all kinds of creative activities, a source of joy, inspiration, and human connection that was unfairly unattainable for so many of fans throughout their lives so far. And I hope that amongst the current chaos, it will remain as such, even if irrevocably changed in so many ways now. Unfortunately as it often happens, removing that openness as the one particular element that felt so significant in this community building exercise had started a domino effect of truly Biblical proportions.
On a painfully personal level, I used to have a Crowley in my life as well, someone who was by my side through my formative years, inspired me in thousands of little ways and, for better or worse, helped me grow into who I am today. Ironically, someone I met shortly after reading Good Omens for the first time, even though the parallel became apparent to me only years afterwards, when it was already too late for us to laugh about it together. It took us not six millennia, but six years to get properly together, and waiting this long had never seemed like a big issue. When she requested the same thing as Crowley did, I still said categorically and unequivocally no, with the full knowledge of the price I would pay for it. And I never regretted it. Because I believe that living in a world actively denying your very existence is the act of ultimate rebellion and ultimate sacrifice at the same time. Being queer is the real adventure of a million lifetimes â the incessant weight of expectations, the nagging what-ifs of family members or authority figures, the responsibility of being seen and acknowledged not only as a person, but an entire community you might feel more or less connected to.
Thereâs a saying that each openly queer person is an ambassador of their entire minority group for the majority and a role model for those in-groups who need one. Itâs a never-ending performance for the sake of others, even if you choose to just live as yourself, because just by embracing your queerness and otherness you become a walking source of hope and will to live in times and places painfully deprived of it. When youâre young, youâre the promise of a better future your elders fought for. When youâre older, youâre a living, breathing proof that life doesnât have to end with each badly accepted coming out, unrequited love, or even personal loss â a statement that so many children and teenagers still need and deserve to believe in. Itâs a lot of responsibility when youâre just a regular person. When youâre a main character of a beloved story, you become more than a symbol â a living legend. And legends have the power to shape the world on levels completely unattainable to even very powerful individuals. Which is why all of this seemingly irrelevant fandom discourse is actually incredibly important in a broader context.
Donât get me wrong here, Good Omens has always been a love letter to humanity first and foremost and the idea of Aziraphale and Crowley choosing what amounts to double suicide for the good of mankind is still in line with that sentiment, especially when leading to a much better outcome than intended. The fact that we didnât learn the path to this decision through Terry Pratchettâs own lines is something that steals a lot of value from it, but cannot be helped â itâs enough that we know that this is the ending that he wanted and his estate fought for. This particular approach would have worked well as an adaptation of that planned sequel over thirty years ago, with the limitations of both their roles as side characters in the story and the real worldâs political and social treatment of queer people and couples at that exact point in time. The thing is, itâs 2026 now, Aziraphale and Crowleyâs romance grew to become the focal point of the Good Omens universe, and the current combination of recent world events and a series of creative choices transformed the original ending into an unnecessarily bleak political statement that takes away the attention from its intended moral of love transcending Godâs ineffable plans as well as how the real miracles can be found in the perfect chaos of an entirely godless, mundane universe. In the context of queer people and their media representation, similar sacrifice storylines will always be seen in a vastly different light. And that surplus layer of meaning has tremendous negative consequences on the active part of fandom as well as the general queer community outside of its circles.
Itâs not about the sex, not even the stolen and baited by Amazon Prime in the worst way possible kisses. There are so many ways to physically express romantic love and affection â incredibly important also in the asexual context â and weâve seen some of them already occur between Aziraphale and Crowley. Erasing an entire level of verbal and nonverbal communication in the Finale is a conscious decision that not only feels like a discourtesy towards the charactersâ journey so far, but also sends a chilling in its clarity signal that same-sex presenting love is something uncomfortable and better dealt at a safe distance. Even when that was clearly not the intention of the cast and crew who fought for this title to end on the highest note possible and deserve respect and recognition for their achievements on that front.
It wouldnât be an issue â or at least an issue of this magnitude â if we were talking only about Aziraphale and Crowley. But unfortunately all of the unconventional storylines from S2 have met some sort of tragic conclusion. Nina and Maggieâs businesses were ruined, their own fates beyond Whickber Street left completely uncertain. Muttâs seemingly plot-irrelevant and unnecessarily mentioned off-screen death with its weight on their still unnamed spouse shocked to the point that the sudden revelation of Mrs Sandwichâs sex work dividing a family that needs her can be overlooked. Even in the abridged romcom of an alternative human lifetime, Asa and Anthony relied in a big part on easily overlooked or censored context clues like the wedding rings and vague references instead of non-negotiable declarations and actions. And Iâm certain that some translators and viewers have already used this window of opportunity to minimise the intended impact of this scene.
Even a simple goodbye hug or a forehead kiss would be a statement that queer characters deserve more than on-screen physicality born out of raw desperation or animal desire. That they can utilise the same nonverbal language as their non-queer counterparts without being judged. That their intimacy isnât different than that of cisheteronormative couples weâve seen in multiple beds â even while actively engaging in sexual acts â in the first season of Good Omens. It would be also a sign of what seems forgotten somewhere in the meanders of the production hell and personal struggles: that Good Omens, while intended as a fun summer adventure, grew out of its genre confines into a love story, and deserved to be treated as such. Not just a love story between an angel and a demon, but a story of love transcending the highest power structures and shaping entire universes. Destroying the system together with its institutions specifically built as tools of oppression is the only way towards radical change and freedom of expression, something that Terry has been personally aware of when plotting Good Omens in the middle of the political upheaval of the late 1980s and early 1990s, but the modern TV show had failed to highlight enough. Instead of inspiring and encouraging, the ending can be easily misunderstood as a story about giving up and running away, especially to younger and queerer audiences already dealing with this type of reasoning in terms of representation and their personal lives.
In times of intensified fascist activity targeting queer media and individuals alike, witnessing a spectacular collapse of a community centered around the title that even 36 years ago was seen as a beacon of hope for people like me seems like a tremendous red flag in terms much bigger than storytelling. And itâs clearly not due to the lack of attention to detail or love towards the characters on the cast and crew part, but genuine top-down pressure limiting the creative processes and decisions in this particular context. Whoâs more at fault here, Neil Gaiman, Amazon Prime, a secret third option? We can debate this among ourselves and out in the open through available media outlets, but please donât take the easy way out. Donât attack those closest to you. This type of reaction is precisely what helps this world become an even worse and less accepting place.
I will just repeat the last message I wrote before the Good Omens 3 release:
The world as we know it might come to an end in a moment, but the one that comes after it is vast and brimming with opportunities. Reach out to one another and take them together, little miracle makers.