#╰ * juliet : meta ⧽

[supernaturalsidepiece]

NOO DONT BE DOOMED BY THE NARRATIVE YOU'RE SO SEXY AHA.

[sleepynegress]

*sigh* Featurism...

So, I woke up to this shit on the Twit app and I've only hit on this issue before, but today I'm digging in. Colorism is something that is not addressed often enough, but intersected within that and even more rarely spoken about, is the issue of featurism. The young actress above just got cast as Juliet in the latest big staged prestige production of Romeo and Juliet, opposite Tom Holland. And as usual the blue-checks, everybody else including "black", and even Black regulars are all-in on the cruelty.

...But I want to breakdown a nuance that is too often skipped over when this happens. The two people named with her, give away the featurism game, here; a particularly nasty form of often internalized racism. I guarantee if the young actress looked like this?

She'd definitely still get racist attacks, but the particularly nasty shit I'm seeing attacking her looks wouldn't come. In fact, I could see some people thinking they are defending her with "but she's pretty!" or more specific... "obviously she's mixed" comments. -Something pretty much every Black woman with features that don't align with a narrow perception of blackness hear often (and we'll get to why I specified women in a minute). And don't get it twisted...

These aren't exclusively nor standard white features either (see: the many ethnic features w/in white ethnic groups that also get hit to a lesser and non-racialized degree such as large "hook" and/or Romanesque noses for example, which is definitely about anti-semitism, anti-Romani sentiment, and other disparaged/discriminated against ethnic minorities in Europe) and yes, blue eyes are naturally occurring within non-mixed and dark-skinned Black people due to a mutation called Waardenburg syndrome. But there is a REASON why fetishizing even certain ethnic features within the African continental diaspora has been a thing for a long time...i.e. "the dopest Ethiopian" from the Tribe Called Quest lyric is pictured as this:

and this:

and not this:

...despite them all being Ethiopians of various tribal ethnicities.

A wide-nose, a tighter curl, coil, or zig-zag pattern of hair, fuller lips and often, but not always (because I've given examples above where features "mitigate" skin color) darker skin. Zendaya is grouped with Tracey and Francesca Amewudah-Rivers, despite being both lighter in skin color and having a Black parent and a white parent because her nose isn't what has become the standard surgical look...that too many celebs have. This includes the ones who got so-called "ethnic" work or just a slight 'refinement'. No, her nose is born w/it, made for that good African air, as I call it. Nostrils prominent, nose bridge wide:

I went make-up free as well, because even make-up practices these days, go for that narrowing highlight technique i.e. just below it's subtle.

Sza is a an example of it taken to extremes, even with the Hollywood standard "ethnic" refinement she did get.

The thing is... I don't blame or attack her for that. Because you see above that is just a taste of what happens. Lil' Kim was relentlessly bullied by the men in her life for her ethnic features for her whole life...and that is why she is off-limits to this day for me when it comes to all the work she's had done.

...And this is where I explain why I specified men being mostly exempt. It's because "Blackness" including all the physical features associated with it, is by default masculinized. ...Which is why Idris Elba is considered one of the most handsome men in the world, w/o the caveats that even Lupita Nyong'o often gets. Nobody calls Samuel L. Jackson ugly. He is even idolized and fetishized by a specifically white male gaze for how culturally "Black" he is perceived to be for all the wrong reasons, his signature "motherfucka" for example (and I could go off on a whole other tangent here, but digressing). All this to say... Featurism sucks. It's not talked about enough. Blackness in all variations is Beautiful. Tracy Chapman looking as young she does?? Hell, mark it down to both her dark skin (a natural UV protector) and not messing with her given features (and being a lesbian, men will age you. lol -I got jokes-):

P.S. THANK GOODNESS for Tems and her rising prominence as a beauty as well:

P.P.S. Even Jay-Z the billionaire rapper has had the comments over the years about his lips and nose, hence that lyric in Beyonce's Formation.

[demontobee]

Nightingales and Romeo and Juliet in Good Omens S2E6

I’ve been thinking about the many symbolisms of the nightingale since the end of S1, but especially since the whole “That’s the point. No nightingales” conversation between Crowley and Aziraphale at the end of S2. Nightingales feature in a lot of literary texts symbolizing a whole bunch of things, but I found this particularly interesting:  

In Romeo and Juliet (you know, the play where two star-crossed lovers from rivalling families try to overcome all boundaries in the name of love), there is a scene (Act 3, Scene 5) where Romeo and Juliet have a conversation (or a little row/misunderstanding) about nightingales and larks. It is the night/morning after their secret marriage (!) and Romeo has to leave before the morning comes. Otherwise he will be in great danger as he might get caught by Juliet’s relatives. Juliet, who does not want him to leave yet, argues that the bird that they hear singing outside the window is a nightingale. Since nightingales sing by night, she hopes that this will convince Romeo that it is still night and thus make him stay a bit longer. Romeo, on the other hand, is convinced that it is a lark, a bird of dawn, that is singing, which would mean that he has to leave soon. When Romeo suddenly states that he does not care if he will be killed or not and that he wants to stay with Juliet, Juliet caves in and explains that the bird they hear is actually a lark and that Romeo has to flee.

So, a few things to point out here:

It is the night after their “secret marriage”

The nightingale is a night bird whose song indicates darkness and a world asleep, which protects forbidden love from being found out

Juliet does not want to face the harsh reality of the day approaching, which is why she tries to convince Romeo that they are hearing a nightingale while, in fact, a lark is singing, indicating danger

When her lover unexpectedly declares that he wants to stay with her, even at the risk of losing his own life, she tells the truth  in an attempt to usher him out to save his life

Okay, back to Good Omens:

It is the morning after The Dance™ (you know, the one Aziraphale organized only to be able to make a move on Crowley and dance with him; the one during which Crowley tried to open Aziraphale’s eyes to the dangerous situation they were in while Aziraphale refused to give up on his little fantasy-bubble of love and romance). Aziraphale tries to convince Crowley to go back to heaven with him. We don’t know exactly what went on in the conversation between him and the Metatron, but there was probably some threat involved, which means Aziraphale thinks that they will both be safe(r) in heaven. In a way, he is the Juliet in the situation, trying to make his Romeo stay/come with him by convincing him that the nightingale is still singing – that they can still be safe that way. Like the night before, he does not (or at least does not seem to) realize the danger they are in and will be in and that heaven will never let them be “an us”. He does not want to part with Crowley. Crowley, on the other hand, knows exactly that going to heaven is not an option for him and he understands that they are in danger. His statement, “that’s the point. No nightingales,” means that the protection of the metaphorical night, the indifference of heaven and hell concerning their situationship, is over, and that they can either flee together or have to part. Aziraphale, judging by his expression, seems to understand what Crowley is implying here. This seems to be where his parallels with Juliet end, since he does not agree with Crowley in the end. However, there is a version of events that would make his actions similar to Juliet’s in the end: Assuming that Aziraphale knows that one of the two options to keep Crowley safe(r) is out since he knows that Crowley will never agree to going back to heaven, his only other option is to ensure Crowley leaves without him (and without the impression that he needs to save Aziraphale and their relationship). He does this by driving him out if the bookshop.

In any case, the nightingale seems to symbolize the temporary safety of their forbidden love, and Crowley’s statement at the end signals the end of this precious period, and that they must part (for now).

[o-wild-west-wind]

y’all out here saying Izzy’s death made no narrative sense because it’s a comedy show clearly haven’t seen the Shakespeare post…I’m sorry I really am but death immunity only applies to the romantic leads the genre has not changed babes

(I don’t mean this to be patronizing, but genuinely: critically analyzing and engaging with art is a skill, and an important one. it’s a tool that will help you in the real world, for real current events. use this as practice not to take everything at face value. sad art does not equal bad art!)

[incorrect-star-allies]

Dedede: I can’t go.

Meta Knight: I know how that feels.

Dedede, with his head wedged between a fence: No really, I’m stuck.

[worrynoodle]

I was thinking about "No nightingales." again.

I believe someone's made a post about this before, if you have it please share it with me I'd love to read it again!

When Crowley says there are no nightingales, he's saying their evening is over. The four years they've had together; peaceful, precious, and fragile; are now coming to an end. The nightingales have stopped singing, and Heaven's watchful eye is back on them. That it was Aziraphale's decision and their privacy, their evening romance, has to be over.

Maybe that's why the kiss is so powerful. Because he kisses him even though the nightingales have stopped singing. Risking everything.

And maybe that's why 'I forgive you' hurts that much more. Because Aziraphale is rejecting him (or at least that's how it seems).

[kimbapisnotsushi]

i LOVE the conversation that hinata, kindaichi, and kunimi have right before they all separate at the end of the training camp because that shit had to be soooo validating for kindaichi. like, it's obvious he spent a long fucking time wondering and aching and doubting his actions — even after he told kageyama not to apologize and he wouldn't either, even after he swore to win and to defeat him and move forward — and i get the feeling it was tearing kindaichi up on the inside more than he let on. had it been the right choice to make? had kageyama actually deserved it? was it something kindaichi was allowed to regret? couldn't there have been any other path than the one that hurt them both?

did they ever stand a chance at being something better?

(and i think, probably, that part of the problem lies in the not knowing. in the what-ifs of it all. in the "maybe this, maybe that". that's the biggest draw of kageyama's, kunimi's, and kindaichi's relationship: how far could they have gone if they had actually understood each other? what would they have looked like if kageyama had grown roots instead of taking to the sky?

anyways. let's keep going.)

the thing is, it isn't easy hurting someone you care for. even if it's just a little bit of hurt and a little bit of care. kindaichi might have claimed the opposite in the beginning, but he makes it so, so clear. he did care. he does care. he wouldn't have asked hinata about kageyama otherwise. but i think maybe he didn't know if he had the right to, not after what he did. he had his own burden to bear just as much as kageyama did.

but then kunimi tells him "you did the best you could at that time" and hinata tells him "it's normal to stand your ground and fight", and that's all kindaichi needs to hear to feel like a storm breaking apart — that he hadn't had a choice, that the odds were up against them, that he had some right and kageyama had some wrong and the only thing they could do now was face each other with their heads held high and be everything to each other they never were, and then, maybe someday, they'll get to play volleyball together again.

[forestofsprites]

within supernatural's remit, angels and humans are in such a star-crossed, oppositional, yet need-each-other-to-exist relationship and it makes dean and cas infinitely more juicy. you go back to the beginning - big plans for that fish, betting on the evolution of humanity, and of course chuck's eventual want for angels to bow down to, to protect this now revered species. humans are central to this take on mythology - angels have intrinsically grown up alongside us. this materializes as lucifer's fall, it materializes as the entire angelic subset of cherubim (cain and abel -> mary and john), and how these all play into human vessels, to the apocalypse. angels and humans are geared to be fatefully tied together, in this sort of antithesis/star-crossed sense. i mean, the mere existence of human's fragility bars an angel from inhabiting their trueform - the solution to which is to then possess a human as a vessel. it's stunningly metaphorical and wildly symbolic of the entire dynamic at play between species. to this you add castiel (and anna!!) who is consistently a bridge between the divine/mortal, and dean who arguably fills a very similar position. they are the emissaries of their respective species yet they continuously alter this starcrossed course through excessive questioning, doubt, and freewill

[rapha-reads]

I tried to resist the urge but at the end of the day ranting about Romeo and Juliet is my most favourite thing to do, and ranting about vampires is also in my top 10 regular hobbies, so...

Louis, Lestat, Armand and Balthasar, or, a R&J x IWTV unplanned rant.

Under the "read more" because it got long.

Balthasar is introduced in the play as "Romeo's man", often modernised in various adaptations as his valet or his page. The footnote in The Arden Shakespeare 2012 edition states that:

"Shakespeare introduced the name for the part in the play, though it is not, of course, his invention. The name, which is also found in Comedy Of Errors, Merchant of Venice and Much Ado, occurs only once in the text of R&J, even though the character speaks nearly 30 lines in the final act."

Three things from that only: it's a common enough name, at least in Shakespearian texts, that the character could be switched for another one; he's so inconsequential that he barely even managed to make his name known ; yet despite his apparent unimportance, his role at the end is extremely crucial in closing in the tragedy.

What lines does Balthasar speaks and whom does he speak to throughout the play?

Man waits until Act III scene 1 to make his entrance. Given his function as Romeo's man, you'd think he'd be a bit more present before that point, but no, Balthy waits until everything's gone bad to arrive like "Grandma, it's me".

Romeo asks him "How doth my Juliet? That I ask again, / For nothing can be ill if she is well." The beginning of his answer could lead you to think that he's about to lie so that Romeo can still be "all well", but, naaaah, sike, he's here to deliver news and he's going to do his job. And the way he does it doesn't leave any details to the imagination:

"Then she is well and nothing can be ill. Her body sleeps in Capel's monument, And her immortal soul part with angels lives. I saw her laid low in her kindred's vault, And presently took post to tell it to you. O, pardon me for bringing these ill news, Since you did leave it for my office, sir."

"Her immortal soul"... We'll come back to that point when we'll get to the vampires. Interesting to note that he says he saw with his own eyes Jules' laid down in the Capulet's tomb, but there's no indication in the text prior to that line that he really did. Some stage adaptations have Balthasar lurking around as Capulet and Cie put her in it, most movies totally ignore Balthasar's entire role - which I will come back to in the second part too. In a way, one could think that Balthy didn't see anything, he just heard the news like any other Veronese people, and didn't wait for more information or even actual confirmation and hurried on ("took post") to tell his master. Which, he does say it himself, that's his job, to keep Romeo informed of the going-ons of Verona in general and Juliet in particular. But, man, what are your sources, actually? Whose your informant? What authenticity does your information have, except from "source: myself"?

And then homeboy has the audacity to tell a desperate and ready to commit all kinds of violence Romeo to "have patience. / Your looks are pale and wild, and do import / Some misadventure." You think?? After this we lose track of Balthy while Romeo goes soliloquising looking for his cuppa poison. ... I don't want to tell you how to do your job, Balthy, but aren't you supposed to always follow your master closely...? How are you losing him so easily? Well, to be fair to him, Romeo does send him to "hire those horses", but that's a really thin excuse.

Balthasar reappears then in the Comedy of Situations that is "everybody and their mothers come visit Juliet's body" (you know, Warm Bodies did have a point; the zombies and necrophilia jokes do write themselves). First he enters with Romeo, and then for once shows some working brain cells when Romeo tells him to peace out and he tells himself "For all the same, I'll hide me hereabout. / His looks I fear, and his intents I doubt." Yes, thank you Balthy, maybe stay inside the crypt itself... Nope, okay, I don't know where he hid but Paris "14yo is perfectly acceptable to marry when I'm 30" Escalus makes his own appearance unbothered and unstopped. Great scouting skills there. Granted, he was the first on the scene actually, but if Balthy really hid close by, he should have witnessed the altercation and maaaaybe stop it. But no. I think he's having a drink with Paris' page. Current body count: 3 (yeah, Juliet's not dead yet, for those following).

Then Friar Laurence arrives on the scene. Oh, hello, Friar My-Ideas-Will-Definitely-Work-Trust-Me-Bro. Balthy emerges from the shadows (from where? Who knows, not me and certainly not Willie the Bard himself; homeboy was lurking, planning the best moment to reappear to create maximum chaos I guess). Their discussion goes something like this:

Laurie: who're you? Balthy: come on bro, you know me. Laurie: oh, hey Balth, so nice to see you? But what the heck are you doing here? Balthy: yeah I'm here with Romeo that fail emo lord lol. Laurie: Romeo? Whaaaat? How long has he been here? Balthy: eeh, 30 minutes? Maybe 45? Dunno but it's been a while. Laurie: Jesus fucking H Christ, okay, let's get into the fucking crypt. Balthy: no thanks, without me. I told Romeo I was leaving and if he sees me still here he's going to break my neck. Laurie: ugh, fine, you coward. I'll go alone and I'm not even afraid. Actually I lied I'm scared out of my mind but I'm better than you so nah! I'm going in. Balthy, walking away: oh yeah, another thing, I was napping, ahem, keeping watch, and I think I dreamed, I mean, hallucinated Romeo killing another dude. But I don't think that's real. Anyway, hasta la vista, losers! [Exit] (sadly not pursued by a bear)

I paraphrased, naturally. And... That's Balthasar's last lines. So to recap: he's supposedly Romeo's man, hence, by his job's function, supposed to always be with him and protect him; he only appears at the end of the story to make sure that no one else can get to Romeo first and maybe tell him about Laurence's plot. He always says he's going to keep an eye on Romeo, or tries to get him to stop, but actually never does anything. Literally, by his own admission, while he's supposed to make sure Romeo doesn't do anything drastic visiting Juliet's tomb, he took a nap: "As I did sleep under this yew tree here"! And the only two people he speaks to are Romeo, whose sole purpose at this point is to die, and Friar Laurence, whose role is to fake-kill Juliet, which leads to both of them dying.

Given all of those elements, one could then consider Balthasar's role in the play as an agent of Death. Death being a character in Her own right in the play, according to some readings (I admit, the idea of Death being the one pulling the strings as Fate would do is something I very much like but is very much inspired by the French musical).

So. Balthasar, agent of Death, purposefully or accidentally, but undeniably, leading the main character to his own death and carefully not stopping nor even interacting with characters who could stop the final act.

And that's who Louis-as-Lestat compares HIMSELF to. Yeah, Louis calls himself Balthasar, let that sink in. So, spoiler alert for those like me who haven't read the books, but Armand later on is going to lie and tell Louis that Lestat died in the fire that burned down the theatre, lie that Louis will totally believe and that will certainly influence the decades of his relationship with Armand. We know Louis is absolutely not over Lestat, we know Lestat is weak at this point, and wants to scare Louis but also get him back, and we know Armand is a lying liar who lies and twist the truth to better serves him. And we know Armand was jilted by Lestat and while he (genuinely?) loves Louis, he's also bitter that Louis got what he himself couldn't get. We also know that Louis is extremely conflicted by his vampiric nature, that he's a stone cold killer but he's also constantly trying to get away from it, that he hates himself and all vampires but also hates humans and all of humanity. We know Louis feels immense guilt at what he thinks is Lestat's murder, and that this guilt is weighing on him enought hat he conjures up a mental Lestat to follow him around and sass, bitch, moan, comment and critique for him.

So, why is it interesting that Dreamstat calls Louis a Balthasar?

Let's go back to two points already evoked earlier. Balthasar makes a point of mentioning Juliet's immortal soul - in the text, it's evident enough, they're Catholics, Heaven, Hell, bla bla bla. Transposed to the idea of vampires, it does lead one to question first if vampires have souls, secondly, what are the limits of immortality. It links to Louis' questioning of his faith, the morals that he fiercely defends but abandons rather quickly when they don't suit him anymore, and his survivor's guilt vis-à-vis his brother first and Lestat secondly.

The second thing is the way Balthasar is generally erased from the known Romeo and Juliet narrative. From an intradiegetic POV, Louis could mean it as "I'm Balthasar because this story is not my story, I barely even appear, only at the very end, and even then, I'm not important, and I certainly do not want to be the focus of attention" (which could also be linked to the coven complaining that Louis hunts sloppily and will expose them all, and that's actually a point in the Death's emissary column, huh). From an extradiegetic POV, the writers might have chosen to compare Louis to Balthasar because in most screen adaptations, the first part of his role is given to Benvolio (announcing Juliet's death) and the second part (talking with Laurie) is totally erased. Which means that people who haven't read the play (or have but aren't totally obsessed with it *cough cough*) and only know the story through the movies or the musical, would have NO idea who Balthasar is. And that's what Louis tries to be: a nobody, a Monsieur-Tout-Le-Monde, unimportant, invisible, unknown. The way Balthasar is for everybody. Quasi inexisting.

And the final part of the parallel, and that one is definitely extradiegetic, is that Louis brings Death wherever he goes (although maybe in a way, after Lestat and the woman vampire in Romania, Louis thinks that of himself too, but let's not go there just yet). His arrival in Paris is what disturbs the equilibrium of the coven, makes Armand questions what he's doing here and how long he can keep going like this, drives Claudia even more away from him, and intensifies the resentment and inner conflicts of the coven. Which will all lead to the theatre burning dow, the coven dying, Claudia dying, Lestat presumed dead and 70 years of toxic married Loumand. Unintentionally, the way Balthasar seemingly unintentionally too, doesn't protect Romeo, which leads to not only his and Juliet's but also Tybalt and Mercutio's deaths (and Paris too). Unintenionally, but who's pulling Balthasar's strings, Death, Fate itself? Who's pulling Louis' strings? Armand? Lestat? Or is he such an unreliable narrator that he's passing himself as a victim of circumstances while the reality is that he's fully aware of what he's doing...? To be determined.

If you've made it to here, thank you so much and don't hesitate to tell me what you think! You can find my Tybalt/Mercutio fic here, and my essay on adaptations of Tybalt and Mercutio on screen here.

[sleazyjanet]

one thing i find so funny in the lost fandom is all the people going like "why did this character not remember this time travelling other character?" likely because you usually don't expect someone to time travel, for one. and also because memory is not a kind mistress

like, ben is likely not going to remember juliet (except subconsciously, if anything) because 24 years passed between when he was 12 and seeing a 30+ years old juliet, and when he was 36 meeting a... also 30+ years old juliet, and while she stayed more or less the same, admittedly, it's been 24 years for him. very likely for him to have forgotten

it's the same with danielle meeting jin in the present timeline of s1/2 etc. like no! she's not going to remember a man she saw for like thirty consecutive minutes and who then disappeared before her eyes. arguably, given her lack of sanity, it's likely she even thought she hallucinated him

and on a similar note, yeah, likely danielle didn't remember BEN from the night he stole alex because, well, it was dark, she was half-asleep and it was a traumatising enough event that she likely repressed it, while simultaneously clinging to it

[scroogemcducksbastardchild]

i'm not reblogging this directly so as not to derail, but i think this line gets misinterpreted pretty regularly within the fandom and i wanted to go over that + offer my interpretation :3

the original line it's referencing comes from act 3, scene 1 of romeo and juliet, after romeo kills tybalt to avenge mercutio:

tybalt falls benvolio: romeo, away, begone! the citizens are up, and tybalt slain. sound not amazed. the prince will doom thee death if thou art taken. hence, be gone, away. romeo: o, i am fortune's fool!

here, romeo is remarking on his bad luck after being effectively doomed by fate (and more broadly, the narrative). to atone for tybalt's murder, romeo has to leave verona on pain of death, pretty much because he found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time.

the line can also apply to his relationship with juliet. had circumstances been different, she and romeo could have had a happy life together. it was fate that kept them apart, not a lack of love. fortune would have them on opposite sides.

will's arc, however, was set into motion because of hannibal. he was manipulated into killing gjh and then eventually randall tier, although tier's murder was more by will's volition than hannibal's. then in season 3b, after will has found stability with molly, hannibal returns and gets will to kill again.

i think that if will hadn't met hannibal, he would have had a chance at a happy, normal life, or as close to one as he could get. will's relationship with molly was an attempt to reclaim that life from hannibal- to save himself from hannibal's perception of him. but hannibal ultimately came between will and molly, just as fate prevented romeo from finding a sense of stability in juliet.

so is this line romantic? yeah, if you want it to be! hannibal's manipulation of will did come from a place of love ("no one can be fully aware of another human being unless we love them. by that love, we see potential in our beloved. through that love, we allow our beloved to see their potential. expressing that love, our beloved's potential comes true") but it also deprived will of the normalcy that i think on some level, he craved almost as much as he did understanding.

but i don't think this line is a proclamation of love from will as much as it is an announcement of blame. will blames hannibal for the loss of the life he could have had before hannibal or with molly (which parallels romeo's banishment from verona) and it's not until the finale that we actually see him choose hannibal.

tldr: will is saying that he's not a victim of fate, he's a victim of hannibal. here's the original post (op is cool, go check em out!!)

[greenqueenhightower]

Ok but Juliet’s quotation in Romeo & Juliet:

“My only love sprung from my only hate/ Too early seen unknown, and known too late!”

is so Alicent-coded

[stuckasmain]

Hadestown and cyclical stories stuck in the brain after watching West side story the other night and thinking about how Romeo and Juliet have a similar story. Not only of doomed lovers but of being told a thousand times, names and body’s change but the love remains.

It’s been asked before but do you think, just maybe they’re a little tired? Or is it enough to replay the sweet, private moments knowing you’ll get them again?

Anyway- They get a double date out of the fucking narrative with Orpheus and Eurydice. No retellings for two years they’re at the beach!!!👏

[elinordash]

Michael Sheen and Kate Beckinsale narrating the 'no nightingale' scene from Romeo and Juliet

[from this audiobook | inspired by this facebook post]

complete scene text below the cut:

JULIET. Wilt thou be gone? It is not yet near day. It was the nightingale, and not the lark, That pierc’d the fearful hollow of thine ear; Nightly she sings on yond pomegranate tree. Believe me, love, it was the nightingale.

ROMEO. It was the lark, the herald of the morn, No nightingale. Look, love, what envious streaks Do lace the severing clouds in yonder east. Night’s candles are burnt out, and jocund day Stands tiptoe on the misty mountain tops. I must be gone and live, or stay and die.

JULIET. Yond light is not daylight, I know it, I. It is some meteor that the sun exhales To be to thee this night a torchbearer And light thee on thy way to Mantua. Therefore stay yet, thou need’st not to be gone.

ROMEO. Let me be ta’en, let me be put to death, I am content, so thou wilt have it so. I’ll say yon grey is not the morning’s eye, ’Tis but the pale reflex of Cynthia’s brow. Nor that is not the lark whose notes do beat The vaulty heaven so high above our heads. I have more care to stay than will to go. Come, death, and welcome. Juliet wills it so. How is’t, my soul? Let’s talk. It is not day.

JULIET. It is, it is! Hie hence, be gone, away. It is the lark that sings so out of tune, Straining harsh discords and unpleasing sharps. Some say the lark makes sweet division; This doth not so, for she divideth us. Some say the lark and loathed toad change eyes. O, now I would they had chang’d voices too, Since arm from arm that voice doth us affray, Hunting thee hence with hunt’s-up to the day. O now be gone, more light and light it grows.

ROMEO. More light and light, more dark and dark our woes.

[e-rated-beardo]

I had ✨A Thought✨ (about forgiveness)

I can't be the first one to connect these clips like this, but here goes...

Crowley doesn't like that he's a demon. He makes the best of it; our boy (gender neutral) is nothing if not able to adapt. But he resents having to be Evil(tm) by definition, seems to only just accept his snake side (under sufferance), has taken a more human name, distances himself from Hell any chance he gets, etc. And we all remember how he reacted to "you're the bad guys".

At the bandstand, he calls himself unforgivable. Aziraphale has just said "may you be forgiven" and snek's like "lol no did you forget i'm your eViL hEreDiTarY eNeMy" (poking in his own wounds again like he does it for a living); he puts himself down with references to his demonic nature as a sort of challenge to the angel and he's expecting to be rejected for what he is because he hates that part of himself. (And Aziraphale certainly has a habit of bringing that shit up, too; it's a self-defence mechanism, for sure, and Crowley isn't stupid, but I bet it still stings.)

But we know Aziraphale doesn't actually think Crowley is bad. (Right? Nobody believes he thinks that. RIGHT?? Please tell me no-one actually believes he thinks that)

He knew already by Job that Crowley is more "properly good" than most angels. He also knows Crowley has nothing but disdain for Heaven (if he hadn't picked that up by now he'd be very stupid, and it's underlined so many times in the show and the book that Aziraphale is not stupid). So what if when he says,

he's actually saying "you're not unforgivable, it doesn't matter what you are, you're better than all of them"?

He knows by this point that he has to leave, and Metatrash is most likely watching through the window so Aziraphale knows he can't say much or they'll be in trouble. Maybe this is all he could think of to communicate that Crowley is the best being he knows in all of Creation and that had he any choice, he'd pick him every time?

[trickster-archangel]

I know they're talking about Junior and Magnum, but honestly?

For an episode where Danny was absent, his presence was put into such glowing light by everyone, but especially by Steve who couldn't let the parallel between himself and Danny, and Magnum/Higgins go to waste. No Sir.

So yeah, Higgins is talking about Magnum and Tani is thinking about Junior (whom we know she'll ask out for a date at the end of the episode), but do they really think we're so stupid we can't do math and see whom else this rule can be applied to?

Someone at work who makes you happy

Someone at work who brings a little light into your life

...so if you find such a person, then then you should pursue this feeling.

She said it.