#i have to be productive and stuff tmrw and whatever but i don't want to do anything

[kuiinncedes]

adfjgbak;ngajkfglkafhg

[ineffablegoose]

the ungay good omens petition is funny in a lot of ways but i had some thoughts

so, okay it's very likely if you follow good omens, you must've seen the petition going around. and yes, while I definitely think its satire, on the off chance its not?? i kinda think that's even funnier

I dont think good omens season 1 was subtle about being, very inherently queer, I'll talk about the book in a bit but GO s1 wasn't hiding it at all. they threw much more of the book's subtlety OUT and were much more vocal about it and the themes. and that makes sense. people nowadays like to complain about 'stuff getting too woke' and like?? yeah? so?

activism and agenda is something very inherent in media. id almost venture to say its impossible to create something (especially write) without hampering in some of your core beliefs. an anti-capitalist will write an anti-capitalist story, or at the very least will not have capitalism be idolized. and you can ponder if its deliberate, what it says about us as writers and as readers (because interpretation is a thing), but then id be going off topic so moving on

the difference is that back in the 90s, people were much more subtle about pushing queer narratives. and you can have your own opinions about whether you liked the stories better back then or whatever, but you have to acknowledge that activism and representation in 2023 are much different in comparison.

one can argue that the GO book itself wasn't meant to have the queerer narrative we have in the TV show.. and whether that's true or not will probably depend on what you think and infer. only two people have the answer and I don't remember if Mr Neil had said anything about it (I apologize, i should probably check, but its also 12am and i have an exam tmrw. this is just a rambly text post i don't think anyone is going to see)

i think GO book had some queer elements, but subtle enough that perhaps someone who isn't of a queer background could ignore it. (again the thing about interpretation of media by the consumers, you will see what you want to see)(though how subtle is the f slur line and the legendary monkeys on nitrous oxide line? seriously?) and they could be chalked up as jokes. plausible deniability is plausible deniability.

It is of my opinion (and feel free to disagree) that Mr Neil had chosen to accentuate the core beliefs of the story that was held in the product that he and Sir Terry Pratchett wrote 30 yrs ago. the agenda was there already, but how you write out representation will continue to change and evolve, as did society change and evolve in 30 yrs. how he chose to change and adapt the book, while i don't think is accurate (because its not 1 to 1), is definitely faithful. its faithful to the source material and its core messaging, and i choose to believe the adaptation reflects on what good omens the book has and always been: a critique of religious extremism by way of satire. and again,

feel free to disagree, but i don't know any narrative that can better push anti-religious extremism other than an inherently queer one