anneangel

[anneangel]

It's also happened to me that I've called someone by the name of a character that's in my mind at the same time as I'm performing a task that has nothing to do with.

I’m deep in writing mode in my brain lately and I accidentally called my coworker Enjolras today in front of a group of people, I cannot with myself 🤦‍♀️

[anneangel]

This is the kinda shit I wanna see Ungoliant do

[anneangel]

ppl will be like i don’t want to read ooc fics and not realise fans have so many personal interpretations of canon that ooc means a different thing to different ppl. like my favourite fics i’ve ever read all have slightly different characterisations and yet i devour them all with hunger. what makes a fic great, to me, maybe has more to do with consistency of voice than with a consensus on what ‘in character’ means, more to do with the quality of writing and the strength of the premise and whether my heart gets shattered and healed or not

[anneangel]

[anneangel]

Past - I wish I hadn't come across this author's work, but unfortunately I did. There's no way to separate myself from reality, to pretend it didn't happen. While I was trying to process all of this, I talked to several other people who were fans of the work, some for decades, some who have tattoos of some work, some who named their pets or even their children after a character. My point is, it's not like it's possible to forget our own history. Whether we like it or not, this author's work was part of our lives and this is a chapter that we can't erase or pretend didn't happen. There's no way to erase our own past. The truth is that we consumed something by this author at some point in our lives and that was, for a time, significant to us (whether we like that reality now or not).

Present - it's an ambivalence of feelings, at the same time affection for what this work meant, and at the same time hatred for what it means now. It's both, affection, for the good vibes and people I met through the work, and hatred for knowing that, while I was happy, other people were hurt by the author without us knowing. Every time I look at something related to the work, at the same time I feel attached to what that universe, characters and fandom meant to me, and at the same time I remember the article released this week about the victims and it seems like the work is radioactive. I can't forget the work, but I also can't consume it. I can't stop liking the characters, and at the same time I can't like them anymore like I used to. And that doesn't make sense. And it's driving me crazy. I don't know what to do with this ambivalence of feelings now.

Future - there is no chance of me acquiring other works by this author, any and all works that I haven't had contact with but wanted to know have definitely left my shopping lists (I will never get to know Coraline, Stardust or Sandman). I'm discouraging anyone from acquiring them. If you buy something, you are giving money to the author. And even if you consume it from a used or pirated item, you run the risk of getting attached to the work (the universe and characters), and I think that the feeling of "love the work, hate the author" is not worth it (it's not worth it for me), the more you can not buy anything and not get sentimentally attached to any work that belongs to him, better for you, better for everyone. Try as much as possible not to get involved with the works, if you never know it, you will never have to let this infiltrate your heart.

Now - I fear that the victims will never see justice. I fear that he will continue to be published worldwide. I fear that I will never be able to resignify and overcome the affection I have for the only work of his that I have consumed (Good Omens). And all of this makes me bitter. It's like being a hostage to my own feelings. I don't wish this on anyone. So, the only advice I have to give is: if you don't know any of this author's works, continue not knowing it!

[anneangel]

[anneangel]

PSA for fanfic writers

[anneangel]

This scene is so full of nuance. Gavroche, at first, believes that Jean Valjean is a bourgeois. Then he thinks that the man was trying to "buy" him with the money, but the boy proves in the top paragraph that he cannot be bought. The destruction of the lamps was in relation to the construction of the barricade, so by giving up the money and continuing to break it he was saying that his ideals cannot be bought.

The whole dialogue about "mother", is significant because Gavroche is Mrs Thenardier's son, but he never considered her as his mother and was always an "orphan of living parents" who chose to live on the streets rather than with his unhealthy and horrible parents. So when he says he "has a mother more than Jean", he is talking about his mother Patria/France. It may not be obvious in English, but in other languages ​​Pátria is a feminine word. When he says he has a mother and Jean doesn't, he is saying that, because he believes in France as a republic, he has more than the bourgeois, the bourgeoisie who were content to stay with the “bourgeois king”, King Louis, who was closely associated with the rich and bankers, at that time.

When Jean says he can keep the coin and still destroy the lamps (in the name of the barricade), he's just saying that he's not trying to make the boy change his ideals, he's encouraging him.

I love it. I love this book.

extremely funny btw. gavroche is like wait this adult is telling me i CAN smash streetlamps??? and valjean is like go wild kid. here's five dollars

[anneangel]

Victor Hugo is just like me. Like we are both talk about something and that start talking about something completely different and random and than 15 hours later we remember what we were talking about and move onto that subject.

[anneangel]

Writing advice from my uni teachers:

If your dialog feels flat, rewrite the scene pretending the characters cannot at any cost say exactly what they mean. No one says “I’m mad” but they can say it in 100 other ways.

Wrote a chapter but you dislike it? Rewrite it again from memory. That way you’re only remembering the main parts and can fill in extra details. My teacher who was a playwright literally writes every single script twice because of this.

Don’t overuse metaphors, or they lose their potency. Limit yourself.

Before you write your novel, write a page of anything from your characters POV so you can get their voice right. Do this for every main character introduced.

[anneangel]

Did yall know that Johnlock is in the Oxford definition of queerbaiting?

No like actually.

Cuz I didn’t

[anneangel]

There are two situations in fandoms: (a) people who were fans of his work. (b) People who were fans of the image he created of himself, the persona he created to engage his audience.

In both cases fans are in shock. I can still find people who like his work and don't know about these allegations (as a person from a non-English speaking country, I can say that only 10% of fans of some of his works know what's going on, because it hasn't been publicized much in my country).

Just because a person likes the work, doesn't mean they follow the author closely. And even those who followed and admired who he said he was are in shock now. No one should be harassed online because of this.

Just because "it was already a whispering rumor in the darkest places" doesn't mean fans had to know in advance. Don't blame the fans for something they were neither conniving nor complicit in.

Everyone was taken by surprise. Yes, the victims are the people he attacked and used. What he did is abominable and deserves total repudiation. But fans turning against themselves or starting to delegitimize what one or other is feeling about the situation is also not healthy.

Yes. certainly everyone who is aware of the accusations abhors him now. But I also disagree with the persecution of anyone who was a fan of his or a fan of any of his works.

Evidently, anyone who was a fan of him and/or his works is/was not conniving with the vile things he did, and if they had known this in advance they would never have bought his works or followed him. He abused his victims while deceiving his fans and admirers of his work by pretending to be a decent person.

Of course, anyone who was a fan of him, is no longer a fan in light of the situation. But when he "pretended to be a decent person", he and his work impacted the lives of many people. It's a shock to come with the reality that someone you admired, or is the author of a work you love, is actually a monster. Trying to kill the good vibes we had/have regarding his works, because of the horrible person he is, is difficult for some to do immediately.

For many of us, his works served as an escape valve from a cruel world, then suddenly we discover that the author is part of this cruel world and is horrible as a human, so for some the rule is "say goodbye to him and his works because you won't support a monster”. Yes, I understand, it is justifiable to cancel everything that comes from him, but is a grieving process for former fans. And although some are able to immediately let go his works (congratulations if that's you, but don't act like you're superior to others because of it), others are still in other stages of grief.

I see Tumblr as a kind of open "diary." People put on their blogs what they feel, what they like, what they don't like, what they 'think now'. The 'problem' is that it is public, so anyone feels they have the right to oppress someone who is just trying to reframe their relationship with a work and going through the stages of mourning: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. I didn't see anyone against the victims (and if I do I'll block them), people are just trying to figure out how they feel about loving the works of a monster. Only it.

You don't need to authoritatively dictate what others should do, like ordering them to leave the fandom now, let everyone decide for themselves.

Some people are only coming here now to say what the fandom should do to prove themselves "moral".

Yes, the real victims deserve respect and justice. But us antagonizing each other won't help them at all.

I agree, whatever feelings we're feeling right now don't even come remotely close to what these people suffered at the hands of this monster. But just because what we are feeling is insignificant, incomparable to the pain of the real victims, does not mean that it should be delegitimized.

Let each fan kill Gaiman and his works in their own hearts according to their own rhythms and feelings. Well, the author is already dead in everyone's hearts, I suppose. But if fans will also kill his works, that's their choice!

Knowing how to respect others also means knowing how to respect people's time, their limits, choices and feelings.

It's also a very complex conversation whether or not you believe in "separating the creator from his work", some think it's possible, others think it's not. The main aspects that are highlighted are:

(1) The work aggregates parts of the essence of its creators, so it is not possible to separate the work from the creator (it's true, but don't be a hypocrite, just because you know he's a monster now doesn't change the fact that you I thought his works were great before. There was something about his works that made you like them, hence the difficulty of separating the work you love from the creator you now hate.

You hate him now, you currently hate their creator of this works, but it doesn't change the fact that the work changed, helped and inspired many in past (include you).

(2) some think that “I can't separate the work from the creator because I don't want anything that references him near me nor do I want to be linked to anything that has his name on it” (yes, keeping the work is keeping the name. But if that bothers you, If it makes you more comfortable, you can donate the works and then separate from your income an amount equivalent to what you invested in them over time and donate this amount to a charity. But let this be your decision for your own conscience, don't try to force others to do the same just because you think that they should.

Others can think different from you, and just because you want to get rid of of works as a form of reparation to the victims, this does not mean that others cannot maintain them in the name of what such works symbolized for them in happier times [the work itself has not changed, what has changed is your perception of who created it. If you cast shadows of disgust on your perception of these works now, it is only because the dirt on the author is weakening your love for the work, and this is not necessarily an automatic movement that happens to everyone, some may hate the author, but continue to see the work with the same eyes as before].

By no means feel better than others just because you can get rid of the works and distance yourself from the fiction and characters that you once loved, while others cannot. This is not about being better, don't make it a fact to boost your own ego, don't feel puffed up because you think you're better than others.

If you no longer want access to the fandom, it's simple: block the tag and people who appear in your feed by reblogging it. But, in no way, try to impose that everyone should leave Fandom just because you want to or because you think they 'should'.

(3) Some think that “buying the work gives money to the creator, so it is not possible to separate work and artist” (but don't be a hypocrite, there are many ways to consume a work without giving a single coin to its creator. Go tell me say you don't know how? So you only buy official and/or new products? Let's say you now have a good reason not to care about Copyright).

Yes, it is possible to access a work, and continue to consume it, without giving money to the creator. Fans who think so believing that fiction and its characters created life and live freely and exclusively in their minds, for what this means to them of good things, even if they repudiate the author (read item 1 and 2 again if you don't understand). And people can living off things made by fans for fans too, if they want (fanart, fanfiction, etc).

That's why some think that Fandom can perfectly continue, even though they hate the creator now. If you don't believe this because the work is still tied to the creator's name, stay away from the fandom as much as you want. But, again, don't make this a reason to oppress those who will remain in the fandoms. This is not about your ego, it is not about you showing that you are better than others, it is not about you being a pillar of morality who wants to guide others to a more opportune decision, it is not about you repudiating the nature of those who think differently of you.

You may not agree with those who will remain in the fandoms, but you don't need to antagonize them.

Don't intimidate anyone in the fandom!

Many fans have let their fictional literary universes and characters create life and roots in their hearts and minds, and have thus established an escape and comfort valve that leaves them sane in the midst of overwhelming real life, a kind of escape mechanism, one place and characters where they can take refuge. You can't know what will happen if you ask these people to get rid of the crutches that support them. So don't judge a fan because, even when they hate and despise the author now, they can't get rid of the feelings that the work evokes in them.

Want someone to blame? Blame the real perpetrator and culprit of all this, the author, and if that's not enough for you, go attack the companies and publishers that still finance and publish him and his works!

Note: If you don't want the world to give money to the author, boycott and protest against the publishers and companies that publish and finance the author now.

Fans are the last link in this chain. It makes no sense to attack fans in a hostile way when mega-corporations that only care about money will still publish the author.

[anneangel]

Oh, I can't believe what I'm seeing. This is… I have no words… this is incredible, this is amazing. Whoever thought of this, whoever produced this, you are unbelievably fantastic. I've been struggling to stop my mouth from being in absolute 'O' for about three minutes now, failing miserably.

It is the 1920s, and in a sleepy Sussex village, beekeeper and former world's greatest detective Sherlock Holmes (James Quinn, Apostasy), is trying to arrange a pleasant clifftop picnic for his lifelong companion Dr Watson (Andrew James Spooner, Muppets Most Wanted). The only problem is that a series of mysteries keep getting in the way!

Features

Explore a seaside town It’s the day of the village fete, a suspicious new neighbour has taken a lease on  a long-abandoned cottage and something strange is happening down on the  beach…

Interrogate and befriend a fully professionally voice-acted cast of eccentric characters including a clown with a tragic past (Felix Trench, Wooden Overcoats), the local leader of the women's institute (Alison Skilbeck, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, (yes that one)) budding young naturalist (Alice Osmanski, Sanditon), a wannabe showman (Layla Katib, Victoriocity) and a prickly police officer. And lots more. I love this cast to bits.

Make deductions and decisions. Puzzles have multiple solutions, some of which may please your neighbours more than others.  What path will you choose? Who will you enlist to help you?

Phone for help of you get stuck! Your older brother Mycroft (Richard Rycroft, Game of Thrones) is always ready to act as your consultant, just give him a call at his club if you need a hint. 

A  relaxing bespoke soundtrack by @sandygarnelle

🐝Releasing March 2025🐝

Hey so, I'm @jabbage, and I've spent the past few years and thousands of hours making the funny, poignant, cosy, queer game I always wanted to play. I can't wait to share it with all of you!

If you would like to support the project, please consider following this blog, wishlisting the game to feed Steam's algorithm, reblogging this post and spreading the word to your friends - it really does make a massive difference to a solo indie developer like me! <3

Wishlist on Steam | Itch.io Demo | Discord | Press Kit

(Also feel free to ask me a question about it!)

[anneangel]

Good omens and the lost angel: we’re having a moment here!

Good omens and the lost angel, this time they are finally back together and boy am I glad. But don’t worry, more drama coming up. I mean, more heavenly agents are appearing in LA. This can only go so well 😂

Next chapter

Previous chapter

[anneangel]

Oh! Fuck, did I log in just to reblog this? Yes! Fully! This art and dialogue did things to me! Look at Crowley all blushing, stuttering and shy! Oh, and bold and dominant Aziraphale. I love this setup! Yes! Oh, amazing, I mean, I fall in love with it! Look at this! Look! I love it! Is there more where this came from???

It's Angel's turn🫢🔥✨

Should I draw more of this one?🤔

Btw, I'm so glad so many of you enjoyed my last piece!🩷

Do you know that I made a whole 2025 Ineffable Calendar with my top 12 (+cover) Good Omens fanarts?✨ Check it on my profile if you interested, pinned post🎀

[anneangel]

Aziraphale is not bad or foolish nor stupid in the last 15 minutes of S2. And he is clearly suffering when Crowley didn't agree to go with him to Heaven, that is noticeable to anyone (or so I suppose).

But, in the same way that Crowley is sad about the whole situation (and about Aziraphale's choice), the audience felt the same way (ok, I know Crowley would never hate Aziraphale, while some fans condemned him and hated him a lot after that). But, getting to my point: I believe that, for most of us, Aziraphale is not "the bad", it's just that the entire 15 minutes were played to make us feel more empathy for Crowley.

He is the one we can identify with the most in the 'lover who declares his affection and is rejected'. Meanwhile, the 15 minutes still have Aziraphale saying that heaven 'is the side of the good guys' (something that would consequently be rejected by Crowley and the audience, who would agree with him in 'Heaven and Hell are toxic').

Its much harder to understand Aziraphale's side when the whole scene is played out in Crowley's favor. Aziraphale ends up coming off as the "poor naive" who leaves his love behind in exchange for trying to make Heaven a more decent place.

But listening: I also don't think Aziraphale thinks Heaven is perfect, he has shown that he doesn't always agree with God's plans or ways (he knows not to ask questions, he warns Angel Crowley, he gave his sword to Adam out of pity after the couple was expelled from Eden, he also didn't agree to kill Job's children). Aziraphale doesn't think Heaven is perfect, just that it's better than the alternative (Hell).

You see, both "Crowley book" and "Crowley show" fear the reprisals of Hell. It's not like Hell in GO isn't bad, because it is.

A while back I saw a poll that asked if you would like to be an angel or a demon, most people chose demon, but only because they use Crowley as a parameter, they want to be like Crowley, so they chose demon, but the question wasn't if you want to be Crowley, but a demon. Crowley is an exception, not the rule. Being a demon is not about being like Crowley, Crowley is the gray aspect between the black and white that Heaven and Hell are (he and Aziraphale are the gray aspect).

So Heaven is relatively more pleasant than Hell, that is beyond doubt. I think that when Aziraphale says "it's heaven, the side of the good guys", he didn't mean that it's the side of the "perfect and good", he was just replying that, compared to the alternative (Hell), Heaven was better.

This doesn't mean that Aziraphale support the publicity of heaven: He doesn't understand all the ordinances of Heaven, but he fears that disobedience and associating with demons (Crowley) will lead to his downfall, he feared that he had fallen after the whole "arc of Job". And he has reason to believe that he could fall if he is disobedient, or if he allies himself with "the wicked".

Angels did not fall only with Lucifer, mind you, biblically speaking 1/3 of the angels allied themselves with Lucifer's rebellion and fell with him (including Crowley). But after that there were other falls, before the flood for example, about 200 angels also fell: for having fallen in love with human women, having sex with them, creating Nephlins, and teaching forbidden knowledge to humans, all of this caused evil to be perpetrated on earth and it hence the flood.

So it is possible that an angel can fall at any time, if he does not fulfill the tasks of heaven and associates with the "wrong people".

Aziraphale does not think that heaven is perfect, but falling is still not a better option: Hell is not a better option.

Furthermore, he does not understand or obey all of Heaven's ordinances: he associated himself with Crowley, as well as committing sins (gluttony?), and others things. But he also knows that "running away" from Heaven (as Gabriel did) is not a good option in the long run.

So Aziraphale made the decision he thought was wisest in relation to Metatron, to find out what was happening in the management of Heaven, and trying to change what he believe is wrong.

See, Crowley's plan to run away isn't ideal, it's also naive foolishness.

Crowley would certainly agree with Aziraphale on "hell is toxic", they are in consensus on that. But, see, in the end of S2 Aziraphale and Crowley were both purposely put in a difficult situation, Metatron knew he would separate them by confronting them with a topic they would disagree on: Heaven.

Aziraphale, by saying "Heaven is the good guys' side," claimed to believe in the status quo. As if he believes that Heaven is broken, but can be fixed. But Crowley, by saying that "Heaven and Hell are toxic," doesn't believe they can be fixed, that it are both toxic precisely because it are functioning as it should.

I don't think either Crowley or Aziraphale is wrong, they just have different opinions based on what they believe. They shouldn't have to apologize for that. Aziraphale hurt Crowley, but Crowley also hurt Aziraphale. They're both hurt.

The reaction to Aziraphale was only so antagonistic because, as I said, the audience tends to identify more with Crowley and his idea that "Heaven and Hell are toxic", so they tend to give him more credibility during these last 15 minutes. But he was also wrong in the way he conducted the conversation.

Aziraphale saying that they can both go to Heaven as angels, is like having to accept that there is only Heaven and Hell and they need to join one of them, in the classic "if you can't beat them, join them". On the other hand, Crowley does not believe that it is possible to "join them", he believes that it is only possible to play against the system and outside of it, as an "us".

Only the plot of the sequel will show which one is being wiser (and I really hope the plot doesn't do it in a way that blames and ridicules one of them).

They both ended up saying things, and acting, in ways that hurt each other in S2. (Aziraphale was wrong in assuming that they were both supposed to be angels and that refusing this was unacceptable on Crowley's part, in believing that Crowley should be an angel like him without first asking him how he felt about the matter. But Crowley was also wrong in the way he refuted the idea and in kissing Aziraphale without his consent, without asking him how he felt about the matter, only imposing something that was not wanted at that moment.)

They saying things, and acting, in ways that hurt each other. Yes. But that happens at least once in a couple's life, doesn't it?

So you see, the second season only separated them to bring them back together in the "sequel" in a more epic way (or so I hope❤️).

[anneangel]