#i know a fair bit about ww2 socio-politics so im actually going to screenshot this and study it later but

[tonydaddingham]

Crowley's flaws: I think Gaiman accidentally wrote himself into a hole that he either doesn't see or doesn't know how to escape, and he fell into the hole when he decided to turn what was a political allegory into a psychologized relationship issue. Pratchett's understanding of evil is rooted in post-WWII thinking about totalitarianism, in which unthinkable acts are perpetrated by bureaucracies staffed by "normal" people, and resistance comes from individuals who become aware of what this routinization really conceals. This is consistent across the Discworld novels, not just GO. What GO does is take this point and filter it through C. S. Lewis' THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS (the hell-as-bureaucracy model, which NG and TP then extend to Heaven). In the novel, there's a direct line from Crowley's "hung out with the wrong people" to the moment at the airfield when he tries to reject Aziraphale's claim that they're both responsible for the mess the humans are in because they were "only doing our jobs." That's a textbook example of what we now call the Nuremberg defense ("just following orders/just doing my job"). The fandom loves romanticizing this aspect of Crowley's character--he has trauma! he's a proto-Marxist with demonic class consciousness!--but when Crowley busts out this kind of reasoning, he gives way to /evil/, just as Aziraphale does when he tries to justify the ways of Heaven to himself. Any fan who wants to be uncomfortable ought to read Hannah Arendt's EICHMANN IN JERUSALEM and then go back and look at Crowley's dialogue again, because boy howdy. But when it comes to their relationship, the transgression is not /personal/.

In the series, the political allegory has vanished, and the direct line runs from Crowley's "it's not my fault" to manipulating Aziraphale into killing the Antichrist. So far, so good, sort of? Gaiman had to remind the fandom that we aren't supposed to buy Crowley's excuses, all of which are bad. He's called out on the "why me" bit three times in the first episode alone. But by the end, there is no sign that Aziraphale understands that he has been manipulated, and no sign that Crowley understands that he did something wrong! The moral epiphany Crowley had in the novel vanishes, so we are left with a nasty /personal/ transgression that neither character understands as such. Aziraphale, by contrast, keeps owning up to his mistakes (at the bar, to Adam during the timestop, on the park bench). Part of this has to do with comedy and its lack of object permanence, so to speak. However, instead of facing up to the conflict it's created for itself, the series drops the whole thing like a Hellfire-hot potato, and so appears to conclude that there's nothing wrong when one character repeatedly takes advantage of another one's gullibility, sometimes in destructive ways. The question is to what extent the new writer has any opinions about this, or even notices.

i have no words........ 👀 a very interesting and thought-provoking take. i dig it. i never thought to look at the tonal comparison of the book vs. the show but this is... eye-opening. yes. YES. (and this doesn't mean that the characters nor the story are unlikeable. it means they have depth but that depth sinks into murky, terrifying, bottomless oceans just as much as clear, shiny, crystal-like reefs). YES.

also anon if you are comfortable pls message me direct i just wanna give u a lil virtual kiss a lil smooch✨