viola🌸

22y ~ she/her ~ live, laugh, lesbian

[eklmrlos]

thinking about their peaceful morning in the cottage

[turnipoddity]

au where aziraphale and crowley are the tiny angel and demon on a person’s shoulder (adam, specifically)

[luminousslime]

[dalliancekay]

An Ode to Aziraphale

Aziraphale, Yes, I adore you because you are an angel. A literal angel from Heaven and yet you are not perfect.

I love that you try and do the right thing even when you know your superiors will not like it, even when your plans go awry.

I adore your sassy ass.

I think you are odd and brave and entirely too wrapped in your own head sometimes.

I love the joy you find in Earthly, human things you don't need.

You are adorable when you get annoyed.

It's very, ahh, affecting.

Your silliness makes me giggle and persuades me to be more open and free and unashamed in my own rl.

Your huge heart and openness to learn and to consider others' experience and point of view are themselves a miracle.

Angel or not, you care for the humans you don't entirely understand.

I adore that you fell in love with a demon not because he's handsome, but because he's kind and considerate, and because he cares.

I adore how much you rankle each other and yet you are each others' worlds.

I love that you pay attention. To things that may seem as ephemeral as an actor's enjoyment in playing a role, or the playwright's success with it.

I adore you for trying to cheer up a friend who you knew was very likely doing things you should be wanting to punish him for.

I love that after 6000 years with humans, watching them murder each other in increasingly innovative ways you still melt at signs of love between them.

I adore that you are happy to do things imperfectly even though you could miracle everything to be impeccable every time.

This goes for your worn, loved clothes as well.

I adore that you implicitly trust a demon.

And that you taught him to trust more as well.

I adore that you pay attention to what others do and not what they say.

I adore you for not giving up.

I adore you for making the hardest decision to have a shot at the best possible future.

You deserve to be happy angel. And adored.

[homicidalbrunette]

WHERE'S THE LIE?!?!

[gemennair]

The Rest of Our Lives - Christmas Extra In which Aziraphale and Crowley spend their time contentedly indoors in one warm night during Christmas Eve, just relishing in each other’s company. Just as Crowley starts to fall asleep, Aziraphale gives him an innocent goodnight kiss. Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 WIP Patreon | Ko-fi

Keep reading

[carowleysposts]

Asexual or not, you cannot tell me these aren’t looks of pure lust.

4 times Aziraphale had a hard time keeping his cool while looking at Crowley.

1- Paris, the Reign of Terror.

2- 1941, the N4zi Zombies incident.

3- Edinburgh. This one is insaneeee.

4- When Crowley says “ask me anything about love”. My boy Azi was about to jump on him.

[bleucalire]

« Why do you always do bad things! »

« …! »

[luminousslime]

TO THE WORLD

[kendallroy-deactivated20210425]

people on this website be like “it’s actually school’s fault that i don’t know how to read because i wanted to write my essay on the divergent trilogy and that BITCH mrs. clarkson made us study 1984 instead. anyway here’s a 10 tweet thread of easily disproven misinformation about a 3 year old news story and btw, who is toni morrison?”

[kendallroy-deactivated20210425]

i KNOW most of y’all are lying about being in the gifted program as children because none of you could pass the basic reading comprehension assessment they give third graders today

[themself]

this post is mean and I never read divergent or whatever the fuck but 1984 sucks and is rape apologism so if somebody wanted to write about divergent or whatever good for them

[westenra]

this reply is like literally exactly what op is talking about lol. like firstly ops point isn’t “1984 is good”, ops point is that analysing complex stories teaches you how to form opinions and think for yourself. and like secondly in 1984 you’re supposed to think damn it’s fucked up that he’s thinking that way about her, i wonder if this ties in with the central theme of “a society like this will fuck you in the head”? (this is the thinking for yourself part). like do you think orwell just put that in for fun? do you think that just because winston is the protagonist you’re supposed to agree with everything he does?

[lunaescribe]

You know I feel like this post just gave me an epiphany for what is wrong with how Tumblr Fandom/Internet Fandom responds to media-or not *wrong* but makes it very hard to respond to anything but a morally correct, and heroic protagonist. 

When an English teacher, or reader, taught or picked up 1984, it wasn’t with the intention they were going to love the protagonist. They picked it up with the intention of reading a whole story and trying to grasp the theme or catharsis from the story. If the protagonist was a *shitty* person it played into the the themes or the story, because it wasn’t about morally judging the book or *liking* or feeling attachment to the protagonist. Sometimes and often times, books were just about gaining another perspective. 

No one read Lolita expecting to endear, or like, or be inspired by Humbert. You are supposed to be upset by his behavior, you don’t read Lolita with the intention of being inspired. You read it to learn more about what the fuck is going on inside someone’s head when they behave like that. How children get sucked into abusive situations. Or read “The Great Gatsby” not because they want to fall in love with Gatsby or Nick, but to better understand and analyze the experience of the 1920s or destitution of the American Dream. 

A lot of internet and fandom culture has changed that though. When we say something like “I love the Great Gatsby” it comes with the idea or association that means you must *love* or relate to one of the characters. And maybe you do, but the first assumption is not longer about the quality of the work or themes, or cathartic impact-it’s about character admiration. And with that character admiration, in tumblr stan culture, or kin culture, or exalting characters with fanart/romance/so on you don’t just ‘admire’ or find that character ‘compelling’ it now translates to ‘you LOVE that character’ or you ‘DIRECTLY relate to that character.’ 

You can’t say “I love how Humbert is written, it’s so fascinating and dark”, without it directly translating you somehow relate to a child abuser or condone his actions. Taking in media has become an act of worship and connection. We no longer watch meant to just see the story as a whole, we watch expecting to connect to a character and if we offer them our “worship” as it’s become, as opposed to just attention or interest study as it traditionally was, it means we are condoning the character or saying we directly empathize with all their actions. 

I think that’s why there is often now so much fuss over *toxic* characters or not. Or whether that classical novel is showing good or bad things anymore. We’re treating the characters as people we should love or want to draw or write about. Sometimes a story is just about getting the the theme or catharsis or learning another perspective. We don’t NEED to like the character. Or we don’t HAVE to like a character to be impressed by how they’re written or intrigued by their behavior. 

I think if internet culture could learn to view stories as small insights into other lives or single takes of one perspective instead of purposeful moral inspirations we’d be a lot less worried about how toxic or not toxic they are. 

[derinthescarletpescatarian]

About… I want to say 20, 25-ish years ago?… the Big Fashion in writing advice became that you had to make your characters “relateable”, which many writers took to mean “as identical as possible to the target audience in terms of personality, morality and reason”. So making characters who the audience could agree with or at the very least sympathise with became practically mandatory in mainstream writing. I think a lot of people who started reading those sorts of stories exclusively started to assume that that particular choice is like, a mandatory part of writing, and if the main character isn’t Like You (or different for excusable and sympathetic reasons) then either they are badly written, or the author is trying to convince you of something. Humbert is a pedophile, and of course he’s supposed to be Relateable, so that must mean his morals are supposed to be your morals and the authors morals, so the author is a pedophile and the book “promotes pedophilia”! If you like the character, you find him Relateable (just like you), so you’re a pedophile, or at the very least sympathise/apologise for pedophilia. So we have this weird perspective that all stories must be direct morality tales where something being depicted means it’s being glorified/normalised (why else would you put it in, if you don’t want your audience to enjoy it and therefore think it’s a good thing?), and the protagonist must be Morally Pure or become that way over the story so that the audience can properly Relate to them and not become morally confused (because books are magical devices where the wrong fictional depiction in one of them can brainwash the audience into bigotry, and All Readers Except Me Are Stupid).

This isn’t *new*. When novels became popular among women in England, there was a lot of concern that they would corrupt their poor feeble minds and confuse them with their daring tales and illegal and improper acts. Humbert got this flak for Lolita, which was published in 1955. There have always been a crowd out there terrified that somebody might see something bad depicted and that means that the depiction itself is evil and the only way to stay Pure And Good is to avoid such literature and decry its very existence. Book burners aren’t new, and nor are moral crusade book haters. But I think this weird “all main characters are clearly intended to be Just Like Me, so if we disagree then their existence is morally wrong because why else would they be like that” perspective contributes a lot to the current trend.

[empireofthesin]

“How can you like this, it’s problematic!”

“It is MEANT TO BE.”

“How dare you criticise this PRECIOUS SNOWFLAKE OF A CHARACTER WHO COULD DO NO WRONG?!”

“But they DID. That’s the POINT! Character development, relationship development, plot development!”

“The author knows what they’re doing! How can you doubt anything?!”

“I’m just theorising! Questioning! Wondering! It’s showing the story is deep enough to make people think which is a good thing!”

[plumbum-art-deactivated20250302]

Azirafeast is over, but I'm not done yet with our beloved little angelic bastard ray of sunshine so I used my newly found favourite sketching brush to practice on drawing Aziraphales face. A lot.

[certifiablyinsanez]

Me: “Aziraphale did nothing wrong.”

The crowd boos. I begin to walk off the stage.

“They’re right.” I hear someone say from the back.

It’s Crowley.

[gingiekittycat]

"There must be something I can do for you."

OK so I have been trying for the longest time to make sense of why the fuck they KEPT GOING WITH THE MAGIC ACT when they realized they couldn't do miracles. And I think I've got it.

Once again, it boils down to misunderstanding and miscommunication (surprise surprise):

I fully believe Aziraphale thought he was doing Crowley a favor by offering to do his magic act. Crowley’s in trouble with the theater, the alcohol he was going to sell is ruined because of Aziraphale’s shenanigans at the church. To take some of the pressure off Crowley, he offers to perform.

Here's the thing, though. Aziraphale DOESN'T think he's a very good magician. Just look at how nervous he is! He has zero confidence. Even the coin trick he does for Crowley, he's shocked and delighted when it actually works because he doesn't think it's going to. He's pretending for Crowley's sake because he's trying to get Crowley out of the hot seat with the theater.

That's also why he chooses such a dramatic and dangerous trick for the stage: he has to make it good for Crowley.

Meanwhile.

MEANWHILE.

Crowley sees Aziraphale's offer to do the magic act purely as another one of Aziraphale’s whimsies. Which of course he is going to indulge, because he's a lovesick fool. He goes into FULL SUPPORTIVE HUSBAND mode, builds up Aziraphale's confidence, agrees to do the highly dangerous trick because Aziraphale wants to, because he thinks Aziraphale thinks he's good at magic, because he thinks Aziraphale really wants to get up on stage and perform, and he just doesn't want to see Aziraphale embarrassed... (Sound familiar???)

So. We get to the stage. Aziraphale doesn’t actually want to be there, but he's doing it for Crowley; Crowley doesn't actually want to be there, but he's doing it for Aziraphale. BOTH of them are complete idiots, because they're so enamored with each other and so fucking COMMITTED that neither of them wants to back down when they find out they can't do miracles. They just really want to make their husband happy--so badly that they're willing to risk discorporation for it.

In conclusion: they are idiots and I love them but THEY NEED TO COMMUNICATE JESUS CHRIST

It's no wonder the season ended like it did...

[fellshish]

Goddddd good omens is SUCH a queer allegory isn’t it. Crowley’s already been rejected by his family. Thrown out. But he’s out and proud and unapologetically himself and yes that’s part really cool but also part necessity. He’s had to build himself from the ground up and declare who he is and find a place in this world, from the moment he fell he had no other choice. And he’s at peace with that. Now aziraphale. Aziraphale is still Accepted by his family, or — or tolerated. They do sense that he’s different. They frown at what he loves and at his habits. But really choosing — really going for all he is openly and standing up against his family when they’re wrong, it’s going to take some guts, it’s going to take giving up a lot of safety and comfort, and a lot of vulnerability. And any queer person who has ever stood on that ledge, who has ever felt that choice between — what is known, and flawed, but good, in many ways, but also not truly you — and what is new, and scary, and possible rejection — any queer person who’s ever been there and chosen either way will get what aziraphale is facing

[rylandsgrace]

David Tennant and Michael Sheen - BTS of Good Omens season 2

[parlapina]

Only Aziraphale is able to leave a person after looking at them like that for 6000 years

[sunderwight]

still not over the fact that Crowley WALKED ACROSS CONSECRATED GROUND, then stood next to a BASIN FULL OF THE THING THAT DESTROYS HIM, in a church he'd just DIVERTED BOMBS TO, so he could stand IN THE EXPLOSION with Aziraphale and trust Aziraphale's miracle to SPARE THEM EXPLODING TOGETHER, and he trusted it well enough to use his own energy to RESCUE AZIRAPHALE'S BOOKS, which he knew AZIRAPHALE WOULD FORGET TO DO, and he did all that while he was ON THE WAY TO ANOTHER JOB, which he fucked up because he remembered to protect the books but FORGOT TO PROTECT HIS OWN STUFF, and then he spent the rest of the night HELPING AZIRAPHALE LIVE OUT HIS HOMOEROTIC MAGICIAN THEATRICAL DREAMS like he hadn't just BURNED HIS FEET TO SHIT like dear lord Crowley the power of love is a heckuva drug, isn't it?