#i mean neil gaiman says it's written as a love story

[charcubed]

I NEEEED people—especially those with unfathomably large platforms???—to start doing just a tiny bit of internal evaluation before they log onto a blue website and say “I don’t want these queer characters to fuck in canon” or “I’d be fine if these characters never kissed again” or whatever.

This is a post about Good Omens and the prospect of Aziraphale and Crowley potentially having sex in season 3. It's a response to a tweet that I'm crossposting, but let it be known the above statement and this topic applies broadly across multiple fandoms too.

But anyway, in regards to Good Omens specifically:

I am seeing this take that essentially boils down to "Canon has now made it clear that these characters want to have sex with each other through subtext (i.e. Aziraphale and the ox), but I don’t want that to reach narrative completion because the idea of them having sex makes me uncomfortable or isn’t my personal preference” and it is, to put it mildly and delicately, A Very Bad Take.

This is rhetorical (and I do not expect or particularly want an answer), but: explain to me how and why queer characters who are unavoidably visibly queer (aka 2 "man-shaped beings") fucking on screen wouldn’t be a net positive, especially when you can indicate how canon has set it up.

Presumably, some people say things like this because ~they want to see them as visibly ace.~ Okay. But by some of these people’s own admission, there IS more evidence in canon now to indicate these characters crave sex with each other (vs arguing otherwise)... yet people would rather that be ignored/erased all for the sake of them feeling comfortable or feeling better about what canon shows or doesn’t show explicitly??

I’m sorry, but—speaking as an ace person, to be clear—your personal preferences for the story shouldn’t / don’t affect anything here. There’s too much in this.

Yeah, I understand on a personal level not having “representation.” I almost never see myself or my unique experiences and identity reflected in stories. And yet, I also understand that that doesn’t change any story or the world in which we live. Things like this are not said in a vacuum.

Any queer characters having sex on screen IS a net positive. It is rare and impactful, and openly calling for or hoping for otherwise when canon points to its potential is a detrimental alliance with purity culture, whether intentionally or accidentally. Because we live in a Goddamn society!

Who knows (other than Neil Gaiman) whether Aziraphale and Crowley ARE going to fuck on international TV. None of us do! But the subtext right now blatantly says they’re starving for it. And you don’t have to like the prospect of that, but honestly? We SHOULD get to see it play out. There’s no truly legitimate reason we shouldn’t ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Whether you "prefer" it or not.

And my ultimate hot take is… if someone balks at the idea of that or doesn’t understand the importance of it, despite even seeing the subtext… then they should perhaps unpack that? Just a thought.

Truly the way fandoms are managing to hit either “subtext doesn’t count :/ ” or “let’s keep it to subtext so it’s ‘open to interpretation’ :) ” nowadays depending on what corner one visits is MADDENING. Whiplash-inducing. Surreal. And so much nonsense you can’t pick where to start.

So! I do genuinely hope I'm not kicking off discourse but I felt this Needed To Be Said (and on more than one site). Because posts like “even if they never kiss again, we’ve won <3 “ make me want to be like…

These characters are YEARNING. Do not doom them and us to it. For once, we can reach for the stars and maybe–against all odds–pull them down. Embrace it!

---

[Update: after more discourse has occurred, I have somewhat elaborated on this further, from the POV of the significance of the queer themes in Good Omens and more specifically how they center illicit pleasure/desire]

[fuckyeahgoodomens]

Neil talking about the responses to Good Omens Season 2 - from the Neil Gaiman interview with Brian Levine for The Gould Standard (x,x)

BL: The audience that you have built is a very passionately engaged audience. They, frankly, they love you. And one of the reasons they love you is that you fit into what I think of as one of two great divisions in art. There's, or in writing, um, there is: I'm entertained, I'm amused. I may be even enchanted; and then there's this hits me at a visceral level. You understand me as no one else does. You have touched something very central to my experience. And it seems to me that Much of your writing, maybe all of your writing, actually reaches your audience at that latter level. You know. I would say in the former category, sort of my quintessential and beloved example would be P. G. Woodhouse. He amuses me, but I don't feel like he's revealed my inner self at a very deep level. Um, were you aware that you were going to be able to achieve that? Um, that this is something... was it a startling thing when people began coming up to you, who'd read your work and said, this means so much to me?

Neil: Yeah. It was huge. And it wasn't expected. I... if I had a mountaintop I was heading towards, it was gonna be P. G. Woodhouse. Um, I wanted to be a proficient entertainer with a clear prose style who could tell stories. Um, it probably wasn't until Sandman that I found... I started to realize that in order for a story to work, I had to show too much. In order for a story to resonate, in order for a story to matter, I had to let it matter too much. And, and I remember the first people who would start coming up to me and saying, um, you, you know, your, your Sandman comics got me through the death of a loved one. Your death character got me through my child's death, through my parent's death, through my partner's death, through my friend's death. Um, and that left me kind of amazed. I'm like, well, I didn't write it to do that. I wrote it to feed my children. I wrote it to satisfy myself. I wrote it because nobody else had ever written it. And if I didn't write it, it wouldn't be written, but I don't think I wrote it to give you what you've taken from it. And I spent really about 20, 25 years feeling awkward about that. And then my father died, in March 2009, and never got to cry about it. Never... I, you know, I've, I've got on a plane and I went to the UK and dealt with the funeral stuff and organized all of that stuff and came back and go toff the plane and went and did Stephen Colbert's Colbert Report and wearing the funeral suit because and that was all I had with me and carried on. And then, somewhere in the middle of summer, I was reading a friend's script. They'd sent me a script and said, can you look this over? And I'm reading it, and on page 20, the lead character meets somebody, and on page 26 maybe, she's dead, and I burst into tears. And I'm bawling. I am sobbing. It is coming out of me in giant racking waves. And I realized that it's everything that I'd been, hadn't let myself feel, or hadn't been able, hadn't stopped enough to let myself feel, was suddenly being given permission to feel by the death of a fictional person who I'd met six pages earlier, ia script. And I thought that... and it was huge for me, and I thought, okay, that's that thing that people are talking about sometimes, when they come tome and they say, you, you did this. So right now, I'm in this weird, wonderful place where I think a lot of people in Good Omens Season 2 thought they were signing up for the P.G. Woodhouse, and didn't know that, no, no, no, you've, you've signed up for the whole thing. You've signed up for the feelings. You've signed up for the emotions. I... it is my job to make you care and to make you feel and to feel things you haven't felt before. And which meant that the first week or so after Good Omens came out, I was getting angry, furious, deeply upset messages on every possible social medium telling me that I had betrayed people, and it was awful, and they couldn't stop crying, and why would I do that to them, and did I hate them? And they hated me. And then a weird sort of phenomenon happened as people would watch the show again. And again. And now they started to know, okay, this is where it's gonna go, this is what's gonna happen, this is how it works. And they started realizing that they were actually feeling things, and that was good. And that they were caring about two people who don't exist. You know, I made them up, and then and Terry Pratchett made them up, and then, um, David Tennant and Michael Sheen gave them life, and then they get to walk around on a screen and you know they don't exist, but you can cry for them, you can love them, they can make you laugh, they can make you exult, and most important of all, they can make you care. And the number of people who are now writing to me, saying, 'This was so important to me. This has changed my life. This makes me feel like I belong. This makes me feel like I can cope. And it's let me sort of find myself. P. S. I hope you get to do Season Three.' is, is huge.

[foldingfittedsheets]

One of my earlier jobs in life was at a little pizza place. I worked there when it was first starting up. It’s the only job I’ve ever been fired from and it was because a new manager came in and cleaned house. Because my state requires a reason to be fired he said I used too much pepperoni. So now on job applications I get to write that I was fired for “excessive use of pepperoni.” Never fails to get a laugh.

Anyway! For this story to make sense I’ve first got to set the stage. This pizza place started out as the Wild West of management but one of the original investors was super committed to work programs through the prison. We hired a ton of ex convicts and they were all, to a one, super hyped on Christianity. Like born again for the sole purpose of lauding Christ with their every breath.

I hadn’t been working there long but I’d definitely noticed the Jesus bug had gone around, and as I’ve never been religious at all I tried to steer clear of the topic for my own safety.

The day our story takes place, I was folding boxes. Anyone whose ever worked pizza can attest, there’s so much box folding. It’s something that happens at every lull, the pizza machine demands box folding on a grand and epic scale.

On my right folding his stack of boxes was a guy wider than he was tall, made of pure muscle, Corey. He was newer on staff, and due to a stutter he didn’t talk much. All I knew about him was that he got hired through the rehabilitation program and had done time.

On my left folding was a tall middle-aged woman who loved to yell at me, Cindy. She and I rubbed each other the wrong way and had nothing in common, leading to a tense working relationship.

We folded boxes in silence. This was really my best case scenario as a quiet Cindy was a Cindy not riding my ass, and Corey intimidated me.

But the weight of the silence grew too much for Cindy, who finally said, “I really want to go to bible school.”

I folded a box. I had less than no idea what bible school even was and I didn’t want to get sucked into a religious topic.

On my right Corey said, “W-why, Cindy?”

“Well, cause I believe what’s in the Bible, but I just don’t know it all.”

He nodded sagely to this.

Cindy continued, “And every time I sit down to read the Bible I get real sleepy. And I know it’s the devil.”

It’s so hard to convey her tone in written format. It was delivered with the emphasis and exasperation of an inevitable inconvenience. Like, I just know it’s the squirrels eating the bird seed.

I froze in place at this pronouncement. My only exposure to Lucifer was Neil Gaiman’s Sandman comics and I was trying to mentally twist into a frame of mind where The Morningstar cared enough about this one middle aged lady expanding her knowledge of the Bible that he followed her around cursing her with sleepiness when she picked it up.

I think I expected Corey to say, “Well that’s silly,” or something to acknowledge what a bizarre thing Cindy had just said.

Instead he said, “Yeah!” In a tone of complete agreement.

I didn’t look up. I tried to keep my face neutral at this development.

But something must have shown. Corey said, “You don’t believe in God?”

I shrugged casually and said, “If I did I wouldn’t talk about it at work.”

“C-cause it’s t-true. If y-you t-ry to r-read the B-bible on unsanctif-fied gr-round the d-devil m-makes you s-sleepy!”

I made a noncommittal sound and fled into the back room.

Over the next week it drove me crazy though. The logic of it wouldn’t leave me alone so finally one day when it was just Corey and I in front, and the restaurant was empty, I said, “Hey man, I have a question.”

He shrugged and listened.

“I really don’t mean this with any disrespect, I just genuinely want to know about the logistics-“

“J-ust ask.”

“Okay, so if Cindy gets tired when she reads any book, is it only the devil making her tired when it’s the Bible?”

His face went purple with fury and he yelled, “F-fuck you!” at my retreating back as I fled once more into the back room.

It will forever remain a mystery.

[ineffable-suffering]

INEFFABLE META MASTERPOST

Because I'm slowly losing count and need to organize. So, here's all my self-written metas or ones that I reblogged with my own added theories and commentary! In rainbow colours, naturally.

1 – Aziraphale, I love you. But you lied. And here's why. My most lengthy and proudest meta about the Final Fifteen and why I think Aziraphale lied on purpose. (Also: The absolute darling @esthermitchell-author bravely fought their way through it and wrote up some more interesting points and different takes on what I came up with. If you want to go down a S2 rabbit hole with us, go read it here.)

2 – Why Aziraphale is an unreliable narrator (links below) A three-part meta in which I try to analyse and explain that all of the minisodes in Season 2 are not objective narrations but actually Aziraphale's memories.

Part 1: The Story of Job

Part 2: The Story of wee Morag

Part 3: The Story of the Magic Show in 1941

3 – The Jane Austen Ball and why it was never about Nina and Maggie A meta in which I go into unnecessarily great detail about how the Whickber Street Meeting Cotillion Ball was meant to be Aziraphale's confession to Crowley.

4 – Crowley & Aziraphale were never free (reblog) A reblog of @baggvinshield's post in which I explain why miscommunication is the single biggest ineffable enemy in Season 2.

5 – In Defense of Aziraphale (double reblog) A double try at explaining why I think Aziraphale's POV in the Final Fifteen is just as horrible as Crowley's and why I don't think him "choosing" to go back to Heaven was the only point of his character journey.

6 – The Art of Miscommunication: Ineffable Edition A meta in which i once again explain why miscommunication is the single biggest ineffable enemy in Season 2.

7– Season 2 Bookshop Shot Meta A meta where I briefly loose my mind because of a single bookshop frame in Season 2.

8 – What if it wasn't Aziraphale and Crowley who performed the 25 Lazarii miracle? A mini-meta in which I propose the theory that Jimbriel helped with the miracle to hide himself away from Heaven & Hell.

9 – Things in Good Omens Season 2 I still find weird (reblog) A reblog of @ok-sims and many other great OPs' thoughts on the weird loose strings in Season 2 and what unanswered questions I still have myself.

10 – The Deleted Bookshop Scene (reblog) A reblog of @skirtdyke's video and @i-only-ever-asked-questions' smart thoughts on it, with my own overly-excited 'what that could have meant for the "It's too late" line'-theroy.

11 – The Bentley Handle Easter Egg A meta I can proudly say has been liked by none other than Mr. Neil Gaiman himself about Crowley's Bentley handle that might have existed before the Bentley ever did.

12 – The F*cking Eccles Cakes A meta where I briefly loose my mind because of a pastry. (Addendum: People said very smart things in the comments of the post!)

14 – Re: "You go too fast for me, Crowley" A meta in which I make myself sad by connecting that infamous line to Aziraphale assuming Crowley wanted the Holy Water as a suicide pill.

13 – Trauma-Dumping on your plants: The Anthony J. Crowley Chronicles A meta on why Crowley treats his plants the way that he does.

14 – Demonic Mental Health Awareness Post In which I talk about why I want to get Crowley a therapy voucher.

15 – The Curious Incident of The Flaming Sword in Good Omens A meta on why the Flaming Sword has no deeper meaning. Or does it? (Updated: here's a reblog from @queerfables who did a wonderfully exellent job at calmly explaining all the swordy questions I was yelling about! Consider this meta solved.)

16 – Ceci n'est pas une plume A meta in which I'm a bit of a nerd for language and also explain why learning French and magic the human way says so much about Aziraphale as a character.

17 – The meaning of "I forgive you" A meta in which I explain what both "I forgive you"s mean and why Aziraphale will always fight for what is right until he wins. Also, the lovely @sharksbeerr translated it to Chinese on Weibo!

18 – Memory, or the lack thereof, in Season 2 A little reblog on how memory is a big and unresolved, leaky-bucket theme in Season 2.

19 – „It‘s always too late.“ (ft. Crowley‘s watch)

A short meta about that lines from Season 2 that won‘t leave my brain (and also Crowley‘s mysterious watch).

Addendum:

The one non-spoiler-y ask I could come up with about S2 that was actually answered by Neil, yay!

Also, this wholesome little post I added to that Mr. Gaiman also reblogged. :‘)

*** This is a work in progress and will get updated every time I post a new meta! ***

[yellowocaballero]

dude psyched ur reading orv, insanely curious about ur takes

My friend @charterandbarter put it best.

ORV is pretty fascinating to me. It's really just a self-insert isekai OP webnovel, and it is nothing else. Its medium is trashy and lowbrow, and its genre is almost devoid of high art. OP isekais are 'id' stories, meant to be satisfying and fun and contain very little of substance. ORV is a very well executed OP isekai - it contains the elements of the genre that make it satisfying, it understands why people read the genre and enjoy it, it reproduces those elements very well, and it is very concerned with telling an enjoyable story. ORV really, really loves webnovels and isekais and shitty wishfuillment stories. There's a lot more to ORV than the 'fist pump' moments of kdj doing something cool or pulling a fast one on a shmuck, but those moments are the undoubtedly the point of ORV, as they are the point of all SIOC isekai OP webnovels. And that's the point of ORV.

Metanarrative stories are cheap. Neil Gaiman's written 30 and millenials love waxing philosophical about the power of narratives. These metanarratives tend to describe stories as a theoretical framework through which we understand the world and our lives. Therefore, stories are tremendously important and valuable because they contain the totality of religion, history, culture, relationships, and lives. ORV says this too. But this theory tends to land at mystifying and exalting stories on virtue of them being stories, which I think misses the point. Stories aren't special because they're stories. They're not more sacred for containing our lives. What ORV says is that stories are important, because our lives are important. I like that a lot more.

ORV says that stories are our way of ordering a disordered world. A history, culture, nation, and religion are stories. None of those stories are true or real, because histories/cultures/nations/religions are constructs - they're how we interface with reality. They're created with a purpose, told for a point, pulled together into a narrative, and are satisfying or dissatisfying based on certain factors. ORV's perspective on fiction is deeply seeped in its own nature as 'low art'. There's something very cynical and commercialized about narratives in ORV, and every narrative in ORV is being told for a quick buck or to try and spread an idea for an individual's gains. It's a very unromantic, unimpressed view of narratives and fiction. It's pretty much the only way a SIOC OP isekai webnovel like ORV can talk about it without being disingenuous. And it's remarkably raw and visceral as a result, because ORV loves SIOC OP isekai webnovels like kdj loves yjh. Fiercely, insanely, like breathing, exactly for what it is. No pretensions.

It's bizarre, because ORV is about love. It's not about love for anything that deserves it. Not for a story with a lot of literary merit, a main character who is a remotely kind or lovable person, or art itself outside of its commercial or philosophical value. kdj really, really, really fucked loved TWS - because it was there, and because it lasted 15 years, and because it was fake, and because it was what he had. He loves yjh because yjh was his only companion in a dark world. That's fiction. Fiction helped him survive, because love is a way of ordering a disordered world.

I'm still reading myself, but ORV seems to be about how we manage to live in a hard world, and how to find it within ourselves to love each other and find meaning in that hard world. I see why kdj's the protagonist: he can find merit in something for existing, and loving it for being there, and he holds onto something because he has it. He sees the value in that. He read it in a book.

TL;DR: ORV is well-executed trashy commercialized art that is so obsessed with trashy commercialized art that it's looped straight back around into being somehow the most raw and visceral depiction of love I've seen in a long time.

[celestialholz]

The Resurrectionist (or 'Crowley's dying briefly because character-building, and here's why')

I should start off by saying, friends, that I have written exactly zero books. (Bloody lot of fanfiction, but no actual novels). And I like coffee, but not particularly with oat milk. (The poison's metaphorical, not physical), but... well, you guys can keep both of 'em, because they're just not relevant to this conversation. I am also, as you may have already guessed, not Neil Gaiman. A chick can only speculate, but she does like to back it up with actual evidence.

No, I'm simply here to ask you a question.

What's the single worst thing Heaven could ever do to Aziraphale?

What would drive our angel so far from the clutches of Heaven that he would never, ever wish to return? What would set him unequivocally free from six millenia of assumed responsibility; what would make him realise that God can never change? What would strip everything away from him?

Because of course, this is what we have to do next series. This is Aziraphale's whole arc. If he doesn't try and change things and fail, he will always wonder. Always have a 'what if.' Will never be able to truly move on, will never be free from the eternal abuse cycle.

And so the severing has to be monumental, and everlasting. Then we get our happy ending. Storytelling, loves, done flawlessly. (Again, not a novelist... just a girl who's been writing for over half of her lifetime.)

And so, I ask again:

What's the single worst thing Heaven could ever do to Aziraphale?

And, well, it's a manifold question isn't it, with lots of potential ans - no I'm just kidding. Very simple question, very simple answer.

So congratulations to the very likely hundreds of you who have just said 'murder Crowley,' because a. you're very much correct and b. we've all just predicted the end of series three.

(... I mean, probably not the very end. But the emotional crux, definitely.)

And naturally, I'm not talking discorporation. I'm talking 'wiped from the universe altogether, leaving our angel eternally alone' kinda murder. The real shit. The good shit. Never mind any of this 'editing the Book of Life leading to an ineffable paradox' kinda bullshit - this is Heaven, the natural source point of holy water. One miracled Supersoaker and our demon's ancient history, friends.

Because y'see guys, severing Aziraphale's connection isn't the only problem we face in terms of narrative romance. We've also got Crowley, who has spent six millennia being in love with a guy who just takes, takes, takes... him for granted.

And this is NOT to say that Aziraphale gives him nothing back - he so very clearly does. (I am a consummate Aziraphale apologist, Crowley's just as much of a fool post-series two as our angel is, and Aziraphale needs this, as I've mentioned.) But... Crowley is his teacher. His moral guide. His protector. It mostly goes one way, and despite all of that and him being happy to be that guy for all this time... right when it matters most, Aziraphale (to Crowley, at least) has abandoned him. He's told him he isn't good enough.

(... Which is bollocks. That's not what Aziraphale's said at all, they're both as overprotective as each other and have a desperate, painful longing to keep one another safe in their own best way. But it sure fucking looks like it to CROWLEY, which is what matters.)

And so, we have two issues in achieving our happy-ever-after.

Sundering Aziraphale from Heaven forever;

Ensuring Crowley trusts him fully and knows completely that he is Aziraphale's only choice.

(And also by GOD do they need to have a proper conversation, but that one kinda goes without saying. It'll happen.) We have to even up this relationship; we have to make it absolute narrative equilibrium, and I am absolutely sure Neil knows this probably far better than I do.

... And so, how do we achieve both these things in one hit, whilst also telling a Second Coming story and holding a celestial war?

Well, we kill Crowley. Obviously. Not until episode five or six and after an emotional, romantic reunion of mutual understanding, but... we kill Crowley.

... And then Aziraphale brings him back. Yes, from complete death.

I would like at this juncture to remind you that miracles, apparently (and this is a thing we've just learned guys, almost like it's suddenly going to be relevant ongoing) are measured in Lazarii.

(Great thanks to the Aziraphale to my Crowley, @porgthespacepenguin, for these few screenshots I'm showing off here today. You'd never leave me, not even for my own good. <3)

Lazarii is very obviously named after Jesus' apparently greatest miracle, of raising Lazarus from the dead in the book of John. They managed to achieve twenty-five times the necessary amount of energy it takes to bring someone back from death... without actually fucking trying.

Let's take a look at the book of John a sec. Or more specifically, its eleventh chapter and twenty-fifth verse.

Jesus told her, "I am the resurrection and the life. The person who believes in me, even though he dies, will live."

My thanks to Neil once again for murdering me like Heaven's going to murder Crowley. Cold blood, point-blank.

'Who believes in me.' Huh. Only for the past six thousand years, Aziraphale dear...

Here's a little of what the internet has to say about the number 25 in numerology, by the way.

And may I also remind you at this stage that there is a pub in this series called The Resurrectionist, and only Aziraphale goes into it.

I mean sure, Crowley's booksitting and trying to make the ladies hilariously like him and Aziraphale fall in love in the same way he himself did, but the fact remains... one relevant pub name. One guy. (We all need a narrative excuse sometimes Neil, I get you.)

Considering all this, friends, let me ask you another question. This one's a little more wordy, that's on me.

What do you think would happen when a being capable of raising someone from the dead twelve and a half times over for the sake of his beloved's protection loses said beloved beyond all doubt?

... And this will be after he gains the ultimate celestial power-up, by the way. In case we'd forgotten that that alone is also about to boost Aziraphale to the fucking stratosphere, and finally put him on an equal footing with Crowley. (Who is clearly an ex-archangel, but not Lucifer, so Neil's since said.)

... And I think we know the answer, don't we? The kind of miracle that

(You can't see me, but I'm staring into the camera like I'm one of The Office main cast right now.)

This is the kind of power that fucks with reality - the kind of power that scares Heaven and Hell to absolute death, hence Metatron being in the DMs. And crucially, this miracle was boosted because of love. Because of a desire to keep the status quo, their 'own side'. You amplify both those conditions to the nth degree by destroying one of them? It's over, lads. Resurrection is the beginning.

Resurrection evens up a playing field. It destroys Aziraphale and renews him in one hit; it proves to Crowley once and for all that Aziraphale loves him exactly as he is.

... It's a no-brainer, pals.

And what do they do after this? Well, fuck up the celestial order, naturally. I have theories, the main one of them being that they're going to be God and Satan respectively and unite Heaven and Hell in eternal marriage, but... that's just a theory. A television theory.

The resurrection thing? Not so much.

... See, this is the thing, my friends. You don't need to have written a 16k essay to predict the future.

All you need is the ability to tell a story, an observant eye for that which is already present, and a simple question. (Followed by a mildly more complex one. It's a working allegory.)

... I'm just going to leave you with this one shot of Aziraphale picking up his own destiny. Because poetic cinema.

[onehundredandeleventropicalfish]

so i keep referencing the What Broke Delirium essay i plan to write but never actually writing it, so let's dig into that one!

because. sandman does not spoonfeed information. neil gaiman even said this in regards to the tv show, most shows are written these days under the assumption that audiences aren't really paying attention and need things spelled out for them - but sandman is not one of those shows. you gotta notice everything to get the full story

which honestly i love in many ways because it's part of why i'm never gonna run out of sandman essays to write - every time i reread the comics or rewatch the show i catch something new

and this is one of the first hidden bits of info i caught - remember this spread from overture?

it's a fucking gorgeous page and one of my favourite in the entire sandman run, both for the pretty art and the content itself (i love delirium SO much)

but let's just zoom in on the center of those flowers for a sec

because there's tiny tiny text written inside them

(for anyone who can't parse that, the first says "delight was sad", the second says "delight went mad")

now i've mentioned in many of my posts before that the endless all struggle to experience their own aspect, they are that thing, it exists for the most part out of their reach, and that causes problems for all of them

but i usually leave delirium out of these explanations

and that's because, for whatever reason, delirium is the opposite. and delight was too. i don't know what it is that makes her different, but while her older siblings all seem to be barred from their own domain by nature (or have to go to great lengths to experience it), del is too much of it. she's utterly absorbed by it. and while i think she's learned over the centuries how to be a bit more flexible (she understands the coins have two sides thing better than any of them, and can be lucid when she needs to), she didn't start out that way

we don't know what it is exactly that broke her. but we know why.

she had spent all of her life as the personification of happiness and joy, and someone who embodied those emotions. she appeared most as a little kid as delight, because kids definitely find it a lot easier to stay in that perpetually excited, happy mindset

but nothing stays that way forever. and this is where she is like her siblings, and why she's so familiar with the coin metaphor - when you're missing a fundamental piece of being human (either by being barred from your aspect or by being absorbed by it), that's not sustainable. it will tear you apart. dream refuses to accept that this is the case, and that breaks him. desire is equally stubborn about it, and they've outright admitted (in narration) that they're hanging on by a fucking thread

but death figured it out, when she realised she couldn't fulfill her function properly without learning what it was like to live. destruction figured it out when he ran away to go create. and delirium figured it out the hard way, because as soon as the world got a little too big for her singular aspect to make sense, it shattered

and it shattered slowly

there may have been some form of inciting incident, but she didn't become delirium overnight. i think a lot about her describing it as "growing up, or at least growing older", because that's both a very mature way to look at it and also an extremely tragic way to look at it, the idea that she knows too much, is never going to see the world the same way again, and that means delight is never coming back

(and that realisation is when she stopped presenting as a child and started presenting as a teenager)

and i think for a while, early days of being delirium, not delight, she didn't know what to do with that. delight broke into scattered pieces and the more fell away the harder it became to connect them

but she's also the only one of her siblings who's picked herself up from that. and it's why she's the wisest of them. because from there she learned

okay, so her innocence is gone. so delight isn't coming back. but there's still parts of her around, if delirium ever needs them. and the more she observes about the world, the more she experiences, the more different pieces she gets to add to the puzzle. they don't fit together, but that's del's real strength - they're not supposed to. she could have tried to reassemble herself piece by piece, like gluing together a broken statue, but why would she do that? then she'd be exactly as breakable as before, if not more so

instead she's more of a floating amalgamation of pieces, or rather, she's the ties between them. and because there's no set puzzle, she can put those pieces together in any order. she's no longer susceptible to the same problems as her siblings, because she's not missing anything anymore. she didn't lose parts of herself when becoming delirium, she gained some

and yes, no one is entirely without flaw - her downside is she's still susceptible to strong emotion, and when that overwhelms her mind she stops being any kind of person, we just see that floating amalgamation, until she can calm down. but that's the worst of it. her siblings may see her as broken, but she's more whole than she ever was as delight. and she's never going to break again

[writing-for-life]

WHAT DO YOU MEAN DREAM'S HAIR USED TO BE WHITE!! oh my god. i just saw your post about killala and i have now perished. thanks for breaking my heart.

but also hi!! i'm relatively new to the fandom and it's a great place to be. i haven't finished reading all the comics yet but i'm curious to know:

what do you think are the main differences between TV!Dream and Comics!Dream? i've heard so many people claiming that he is incapable of changing, for instance, and though the show does convey his overall rigidity pretty well, i'm not getting the vibe that he's immutable.

also!! it's clear that he feels a lot. which is always funny to me when the corinthian is like yo, try this and maybe you'll feel something for a change but like. he does!!! or i get the impression that he does. he probably feels too much if anything?? all of it simmering just beneath the surface, barely contained. how would you personally analyze his relationship with his own emotions?

i hope all of this is coherent enough for you to answer lmao, i saw your post about enjoying being asked sandman questions two seconds after i woke up and barged into your inbox. hope you have a lovely day!

Thanks so much for the ask, and welcome if you’re new(ish) to the fandom! 🤗

I’m sorry I broke your heart—much more heartbreak to come I fear if you haven’t read the comics yet, so I’ll try to keep this as spoiler-free as possible.

I am one of those people who believes the differences between comics!Dream and show!Dream are actually not as big as they are made out to be where it matters, and you will definitely find people who disagree. At the end of the day, we all read it through our own lens and will never be fully objective about it.

The main difference I see is that they filed off the rough edges of the comics a bit to make a new audience sympathise more. It’s very hard to do that with a character who is basically in full arsehole mode for most of the first 40 issues or so, and even then only slowly begins to come out of it (although we can obviously see glimmers of what lies below the surface at the beginning of the comics, too, but it’s far more subtle than in the show). I’ve worked in musical theatre for a over decade of my life and understand a bit about bringing the written word to stage/screen, and some things simply don’t translate well from book to stage/screen, and you have to change it. So my personal opinion is we get a more sympathetic Morpheus and certain changes so the audience can do exactly that—sympathise off the bat. You will lose an audience pretty quickly if they don’t care about the protagonist and the universe he moves in, and you can’t be as nuanced about it as you can be in a written work. We’re talking about streaming services thinking about profits here, even if people don’t want to hear it.

Also: The more you sympathise with a character, the deeper the emotional investment and the more you feel, even if it hurts.

Having said this, I don’t think Morpheus is incapable of change, and I never got where that idea comes from. His biggest flaw is that he believes he cannot change (and even he has moments when he admits he might have). In the introduction to Endless Nights, Neil Gaiman says that he was once asked to describe The Sandman in twenty-five words or less, and famously, it was this (you might have heard it):

“The Lord of Dreams learns that one must change or die, and makes his decision.”

And I think some people might have wrongly taken that for an either/or thing. I don’t want to say too much at this point because I don’t know how much you know (if you’d like spoilers or already know how it ends, let me know, I’ll happily expand on it). Only so much:

He is capable of change, also in the comics. Very obviously so. But just like he denies he has his own story (which also isn’t true), he denies he can change. Or at least he thinks he perhaps cannot change enough (it’s actually hard to write about this without giving everything away, help! 🙈).

As for his feelings: He does feel, but again, it is something he pushes down and will deny himself. Until it bursts to the surface and breaks through, and when that happens, it’s usually with, well, let’s say varying results, and that’s putting it mildly. Personally, I’d say he has problems relating to his feelings, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t feel. Quite the opposite in my view. He holds the collective unconscious—all unprocessed feelings and whatever else floats around in that collective mess, and it’s exactly what he says to the Corinthian in that famous scene: he needs to keep a lid on it and keep that lid firmly closed so all of it doesn’t consume him. But that also means denying himself the feelings that are linked to his own personhood (if you want to call it that). There’s Dream of the Endless, and then there’s Morpheus. And while they’re one and the same and inseparable, Morpheus is also the “point of view”. The character, the person, if you will. And deep down, he craves that personhood so badly. Out of all the Endless, he is the only one who basically collects names because they mean having something beyond his function, which is also mirrored in what he tells Death in “The Sound of her Wings”: he wants something more. He is the only one whose realm is populated with sentient beings (yes, I know Despair has rats, but I think you get my drift). He is desperately lonely and struggles with it. He seeks connection yet denies it to himself. That’s not someone who doesn’t feel.

I don’t know if this answers your questions at all—I was doing the wild “spoiler-free” dance 🤣 But please let me know if you want me to go a bit deeper, I love talking about this stuff.

You can also have a look at my metas if you haven’t already. The headers pretty much explain what they’re about and what spoiler-level to expect, but none of them are truly spoiler-free I guess:

Again, thanks so much for encroaching on my inbox, and feel free to follow up if anything was left unanswered.

@dreamaturgy ask answered

[heyimdove]

Things of Note at @neil-gaiman ‘s NJPAC talk:

1. Do you people understand that he switches into accents when he reads? Do you people know he does a perfect Michael Sheen impression? did you know it’s also hot

2. He used to cold call publishers/mags to see if they’d publish his work. He’d lie when asked what other magazines he wrote for; they’d think he was more legitimate and would, therefore, be more likely to take him on themselves. “You couldn’t get away with that now” thanks to Google. Also, back then, “we had telephones and we used them,” but today’s publishers would not easily recover if you unexpectedly called them on the phone.

3. It was a personal point of pride for Neil to write for each of the magazines he’d claimed to have written for. He said “I didn’t lie. I was chronologically challenged.”

4. Neil made a deliberate effort to not be boxed in by publishers. He’d interviewed many authors who were unhappily boxed and did everything he could to avoid it, including declining big contracts from prestigious publishers (notably after American Gods). This is why he can write what he likes now. Comics writing spoiled him in this regard, as publishers mistook the medium for a genre, and therefore didn’t care what he wrote (so he wrote all the genres he wanted to in Sandman).

5. He hates Thomas Hardy thanks to being introduced to him in school. Regarding being forced to read Tess of the D’urbervilles, he said “I wouldn’t do that to a dog”. He hopes students, who might have liked him if they found him on their own, don’t encounter his work in school and hate him for it.

6. “The evil characters (you write) don’t possess you, you try to find the little bit of you in them….the little bit of you that is gloriously evil.”

7. “I touched the magic and passed it along” this was a line from Watching from the Shadows that especially moved me.

8. Terry was increasingly upset as the bidding on Good Omens increased (eventually reaching 150,000 - can’t remember if he said $ or £). For his part, when the book finally sold, Neil put on Iggy Pop’s Success and danced.

9. Anansi Boys should be out on Prime by the end of 2024!

10. Described Sandalphon as someone you want to “hit with a large oar”. (The woman next to me, who was extremely stingy with her applause, hooted like an owl at this and clapped til the last).

11. Pronounces Amazon as “Ama-zin” and Los Angeles as “Los Angelese”. This isn’t noteworthy, but I liked it enough to write it down.

12. “Being on a beach in bare feet” was the line that led Neil to realize David Tennant would be perfect for Crowley.

13. He is pictured on the ALA’s poster holding Wind in the Willows because, as a child, “it messed up my head.” He said he is “in love” with a chapter in the middle called The Piper at the Gates of Dawn where the characters meet Pan. It’s often left out of printings, which makes him sad because it is “strange, beautiful, luminous”.

14. TOATEOTL was originally planned to go to Broadway. Then, Covid. They did a “world tour” instead. Now that it’s wrapped, talks about Broadway are happening. He says all of adaptations of his work, this is his favorite.

15. “Disney’s Aladdin plays four times a day in Hell”

16. His favorite question of the night was “WHY did you think of the Other Mother?” He was tickled by the word choice of “why”

17. Asked the library in Sussex “What have you got in the way of really good horror for four year olds?” Obviously none existed so he wrote Coraline.

18. Talked about going viral for being in a falafel, seemed to marvel at the progression of the meme’s meaning.

19. “Tumblr is its own madness”

20. “Stephen King has fabulous stories about meeting fans in toilets, including being passed a book under the stall”

21. Read “The Day the Saucers Came” which I misheard initially as Sauces. Saucers is definitely better.

22. “You want to see me doing Dickens?” I laughed inappropriately at this. I was the only one.

23. I don’t want to say what pieces he read because I want you to buy tickets to his events. But it was very nice to be read to by Neil Gaiman.

It’s very worth it to go. I flew out from San Diego for this and would do it again in a heartbeat!

[deppiet]

About the yassification of GO2.

Warning: the following text is highly critical of the second season of Good Omens. If you enjoyed it, I am happy for you, and a non-negligible amount of jealous as well. Please scroll past before I inevitably rain on your fandom parade.

So, I did the thing. I binged the entire second season of what was, up to now, my favorite show ever, in one sitting. And I have a great deal of things to say, but hardly any of them is positive.

Let me start by saying that I don't mind the cliffhanger or the melancholy ending, like at all. In our era of Marvel apologists and the instant gratification culture, it is necessary for media to persevere and add nuance to romantic relationships. That said, what transpired during the six hours leading up to this sort of unearned climax hardly contains anything remotely close to nuance.

Who are these people? I don't mean the new characters, all of them written as cardboard-cut anthropomorphic personifications of stereotypes, yassified to the point of representation losing its purpose and getting in the way of, you know, actual writing. I mean the protagonists themselves, Aziraphale and Crowley, up to now my favorite characters in the entire world and -up to now- tangled in a love story so beautiful I had, for better or for worse, devoted a large part of my creative output on it, making art, songs, and metas on why what those two entities had was as close to perfect as anyone can hope to find for themselves.

These are not the characters I knew. The characters I knew spent hundreds of human lifetimes revolving around each other in a treacherous yet familiar dance- they both knew the love was there, it was comfortable like an armchair that has taken the shape of the body using it for years. They argued the way old couples do, and of course, like all fictional beings that are counterparts of one another, had differences to settle, but what stood in their way wasn't misunderstanding or miscommunication, in was their fear of Heaven and Hell, and their fundamentally different approaches on how to keep each other safe.

What is all this teen angst? This will-they-won't-they silliness that lacks any nuance, thematic coherence, or literally even trace amounts of understanding of the source material? Where is the dark humor, the quotability, the chaotic overarching plot, the self conscious camp? The season is so cynically written to cater specifically to a certain part of fandom, that I am losing respect for the original work- because if Neil Gaiman doesn't care for these fictional beings, and he evidently doesn't, why should I?

The thematic core of what made Good Omens what it was, had always been the "Love in unexpected places" trope Sir Terry Pratchett knew how to write so well. It had never been about the fantasy, because Sir Terry wrote satire wrapped up in a supernatural package, it had never been about the romance, because when the ship becomes the end instead of the means, the love rings hollow, like artificial light trying to pass as sunshine. The beating heart of GO lies in its philosophy, in the beautiful notion that the agents of two oppressive systems at war have more in common with one another than with their respective oppressors. That being a nobody, a mere cog in a larger machine, says more about said machine than it does about you, and that you can try to break free and build a life for yourself, where a happy ending looks like a dinner at the Ritz with the one you love most.

Shoehorning an underdeveloped "romance" between Beelzebub and Gabriel not only feels like bad fanfic (disclaimer: I like the ship and feel like it could have worked if developed in any capacity, and presented in a more humorous and character-appropriate way. I hate with passion how much they watered down Beelzebub in order to make them stereotypically romanceable, adding the Ineffable Bureaucracy to the ever-expanding list of characters I don't care about anymore.) but also, it muddles and grossly undermines the thematic raison d'être of Ineffable Husbands. If the ramifications for defecting and fucking off with the enemy were a slap on the wrist for the respective leaders of both sides, well surely the system can't be that oppressive after all. And if fear of the oppressive system wasn't, after all, what kept these beings apart, surely these two entities don't like each other as much as we thought. Or rather, one is reduced to a lovesick puppy and the other to a brainless husk of a character, a plot device, a means to go from place A to place B without spending much brainpower on the logistics.

And if these two new people got to kiss I care not, for they are not the same people I rooted for (props, though, to the actors, who gave, somehow, an almost Shakespearean gravitas to their love affair, underwritten and dumbed down as it was. They both love the characters, and it shows in the minuscule yet brilliant ways in which they added nuance where the script had none.)

What was that thing with the lesbians about? Though straight passing, I have always known myself to be attracted to women as well as men, and I am always highly suspicious when an "ally" writer (see: straight, no shade to straight people among which I live because they are, like, the majority) decides to make all characters queer, in the face of real-world statistics and despite NOT being queer themselves. When a person like Nate Stevenson does it they get a pass because writers self-insert and because, when done well, it can carry a message of equality. But when the ally writer does it, unless it is pitch-perfect, I am forced to examine the possibility of them being calculating about it and trying to score representation points, often because they need the rep as a fig leaf to cry homophobia behind when people start complaining about the atrocious plot.

Nina and Maggie were boring. They had no personalities, no cohesive backstories, nothing to make us understand what they are to one another and to the overarching plot ("plot" is used loosely here, for there was no plot: the series ended where it should have started, with six hours of -progressively more offensive to my intelligence- fanfic tropes in a trenchcoat serving as the, well, "plot"). I didn't care whether or not they'd end up together, because I have no idea who they are. The blandness of the dialogue had the actresses, both very talented as evidenced in the first season, grasping at straws with what little characterization they were left to work with, and the "ball" was so unbelievably bad a plot device no amount of suspension of disbelief was ever going to make it right.

The minisodes, though at parts clever and philosophical, felt out of place. This was another narrative choice I had to raise my eyebrows at, because it felt like a bunch of executives sat around a table and watched Neil Gaiman's powerpoint presentation of what made Season 1 financially successful. They were shoehorned in, largely irrelevant to the, eh, "plot", and most of them lasted far more than I personally deemed welcome, or necessary.

What else is there to say? The wink-winks and nudge-nudges to the Tumblr nation? The in-your-face Doctor Who reference? The narratively myopic choice to make Crowley a former archangel? The cheese dialogue, not one bit of which was quotable?

I am distraught. I am grieving an old friend, and a part of my fandom life I cannot, in good faith, return back to after this gross betrayal. I am happy for those who don't see it, because I wish I could love this season past its flaws. However, the writing isn't simply mediocre, it is irrevocably, immeasurably, undescribably bad, so bad I am shocked to my very core, so bad I find it offensive to Sir Terry's memory and everything his own creative output was lovingly filled with.

I am passing all five stages of grief and very much doubt I will return to this fandom. I loved the original story and the characters with all my heart- now the aforementioned heart is broken, not by the breakup or anything as pedestrian as cheap romantic tropes. But because my old friends, my family of fictional beings, are no longer the ones I loved and could relate to.

Deppie out.

[orionsangel86]

Seeing criticism of Good Omens Season 2 on here is a wild ride for me because I generally seem to agree with everything gomens critical people are saying whilst at the same time still absolutely loving gomens S2.

It's like this: Okay so you have written this super popular book revolving around this precocious kid who happens to be the antichrist whose birth kickstarts the apocalypse. The four horseman turn up as well as these other strange human characters one of which is an actual witch whose great great great grandmother wrote an accurate prophecy book which predicts armaggedon. Through a series of somewhat hilarious events, the kid, his friends, and the other weird humans manage to stop the apocalypse.

Also throughout the whole thing there are these angel and demon characters fussing about getting into arguments but not actually doing anything to forward the plot or make any difference to the main storyline. For some reason everyone reading the book finds these characters far more compelling and entertaining and seems to think they are the main characters. But they are not.

Then the book gets adapted into a show and the focus shifts onto the angel and demon characters because obviously they are the popular ones that everyone loves. So what's a writer to do when the fan favourite characters basically don't have any part in the primary plot points? Give them a more coherent side plot steeped in romantic tropes and claim that they are in love. Boom. Instant fandom catnip.

But then you are presented with a problem. The show has become super successful and everyone wants more story. You may have discussed a sequel over the years with your writing partner but it never really came to anything probably because its difficult to plot out a sequel centred around two characters who weren't the protagonist of the first book, and that story is done and dusted. Whats a writer to do?

Lean into the fans thirst for more angel on demon action and write what amounts to high budget fanfiction pulling the love story b plot of season 1 into the main focus for season 2. Of course book purists are gonna hate that!

Any legitimate sequel to Good Omens should have centered around Adam. The former antichrist now coping with everything he went through growing up a normal human whilst still having a creeping sense that its not quite over, that maybe heaven and hell still have a part for you to play in their grand plan. Sure, Crowley and Aziraphale could have been involved, continuing their b plot love story, but at least this way the sequel would have been more consistent with the plot of season 1.

The problem with continuing Adam's story is that, and I mean no disrespect here, no one cares about Adam. Adam and his friends are the weakest elements of season 1. People tune into Good Omens for the Crowley and Aziraphale show, and Neil Gaiman knows this.

The plot of Gomens S2 is weak. The mystery around Gabriel is a bit silly, and is only connected to the season 1 plot in the loosest sense. The fact that he and Beelzebub speedrun an angel/demon romance is bizarre and does come out of left field... like something out of fanfiction. It also does indeed rob some of what made Crowley/Aziraphale so special - the fact that they were unique in their love and respect for each other despite being on opposite sides. Also I wish Maggie and Nina were given more development (and less clunky dialogue).

The only criticism I really don't agree with is the criticism that Aziraphale was written out of character, because quite simply, season 1 never ever resolved the fundamental issue at the center of Crowley and Aziraphales relationship. Throughout season 1 Aziraphale constantly insults and berates Crowley, claiming he's the "bad one" and refusing to accept that they aren't on opposite sides. There have been plenty of metas stating that this was all out of fear and a need to protect Crowley, and sure, you can interpret it that way, but not once in season 1 does Aziraphale actually say "yes we are on our side. Yes we are the same. I was wrong to claim you were bad when you've clearly been showing me how good you are for millennia." Its maybe implied that he has learned, but its never truly confirmed, because season 1 wasn't about Crowley and Aziraphale and their relationship. But season 2 takes its lead from that.

It's just rather amusing to me how the discourse that has built around season 2 seems to be fundamentally forgetting these points. GOS2 isn't really a sequel to Good Omens. It's a spin off. It's a spin off about Crowley and Aziraphale and their silly relationship drama whilst they deal with a silly low stakes mystery regarding Heaven and Hell (also characters that were barely involved in the book if at all!). It doesn't really tie into the first story at all.

In my opinion, all it needed to link it more closely to season 1, was to bring back Frances McDormand as God to do the narration. If that had happened, season 2 would have been just fine. As it stands, it comes across rather like a spin off fanfiction. But I love fanfiction, and I have always only ever watched Good Omens for Aziraphale and Crowley. To me, season 2 is fantastic, its like if Supernatural had a spin off show all about Castiel in which he is the lead character, and part of the main A plot is him getting together with Dean finally - Dean being the love interest in this particular show. Amazing. 10/10 would watch another 15 seasons of just that - but general Supernatural fans who aren't fandom specific would probably HATE IT.

So yeah, I do understand the criticism its receiving, but I find it funny, because ultimately Neil Gaiman gave fans exactly what they wanted, he gave them an Ineffable Husbands fanfiction - M/M Romance, F/F OC Side Pairing, Rated: Teen and Up, #Fluff, #Dancing, #Excessive Jane Austen References, #Crack Treated Seriously, #Surprise Final Pairing (check the end notes for spoilers!), #Miscommunication, #Love Confessions, #First Kiss, #Angst #Hurt/No Comfort, #Cliffhanger Ending.

Can any of us really say we wouldn't immediately click "proceed" on this fic and then stay up til 3am reading it til our eyes bled? Me neither.

[melbatron5000]

Fangirling for personal improvement

My Good Omens hyperfixation has made me a better writer.

I did not expect that when I got hooked on the Ineffable Mystery and started digging for Clues.

I've been writing fiction for decades. I have five books out, seven if you count the side adventure novellas I wrote to entice people to my email list. I'm currently editing the sixth (eighth?).

I have a few deeply devoted fans. I have a handful of good reviews on my books.

I also have a full-time day job, because selling books ain't making me rich.

My goal has never been to be rich, it's been to make a living doing something I love. And I'm still not there yet. It's largely my own fault, there are things I could be doing, but I'm too scared of rejection to do them. I've been working on that fear of rejection, but it's been a bit of a roller coaster of feeling better and then feeling worse and scared again.

As part of my attempt to feel better, I decided to re-edit my very first book and re-release it. I'm indie, so I can do that.

Everyone always asks for the first book, and I've learned a lot as a writer since I put it out, so it's not necessarily my best foot forward. Several people have told me to let that go and write another book, but when I'm selling, shoppers are never interested in the newest book (unless they already read the first one), they want the first book. And if the first book doesn't catch them, they won't care about the newest book. So I want the first book to make the best impression it can.

My day job and self-esteem issues have made the editing process slow going. It's been over a year. (I'm also editing the sixth book on top of that, so I may be biting off more than I want to chew. But anyway.)

I took hyperfixating on Good Omens as a little bit of a mental break from grinding on my own stories. After I did that for a while, I figured it was time to get back to grinding.

Holy shit was it easier!

I had a sentence that I had re-written like, five times, trying to capture exactly what I wanted to say. When I came back to my hand-written edits, I saw immediately how to word the sentence to say what I wanted with the most punch. I also saw that in my efforts to correct some author tics, I had re-written some of my sentences to be more "correct" but lose their impact. I could see at a glance which ones needed a little tidying to take care of tics, which ones needed total re-writing, and which ones were good as they were, tics or not.

As I began working on edits again, I also started to feel more confident. I have a better way with words than I had given myself credit for. My characters are interesting. My stories have a deeper meaning. I have a clear-cut idea of what kind of author I want to be.

I had a moment of feeling like I want to make Neil Gaiman proud of me, and of course that's a wildly unrealistic thing to want, and I was feeling sort of defeated at how no matter if I ever have success or not I will always be too small a fish for him to ever notice me, and so will never make him proud. But watching him be so encouraging and lovely on Tumblr has been deeply vicariously uplifting to me. In the distant, good-will-towards-all-baby-writers way he has, Neil may never hear of me personally, but he is, in fact, proud of me nonetheless. This has meant more to me than I know how put into words.

This is all literally because of Good Omens.

I've always loved both Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett. They are master-class writers, for sure. I've read everything by both of them, multiple times.

Reading and re-reading are not the same as hyperfixating, it turns out. It's not the same as reading meta-analyses of a master work and going, "Oh, I never saw that before, but it absolutely tracks!" It's not the same as seeing the same words or phrases repeated over and over by people who love them, and seeing why those phrases in particular have caught people's imaginations, the layers of meaning available in them. Reading and re-reading are not the same as dipping a toe into writing my own metas, using my own skills to break down an amazing story I love and examine its working parts and see how it ticks.

I'm not developing new skills that I didn't have before, I'm using the same skills I've gained over the years of trying to write good books. But I am using them in new ways, and maybe more importantly, I'm using them on a book that I love by two authors I really care about, rather than a book I don't like assigned by an instructor or chosen by someone writing a book on how to analyze writing. Being able to ask myself, "Why do I love this bit so much?" as opposed to "What's so brilliant about this book I've never read and never will?"

My confidence is so much higher than it has been in years, and it's holding steady. Every time I look at my own writing, I'm jazzed and pleased, rather than intimidated and concerned. I'm excited to start working on more stories. I'm excited to really give it a go to get them selling enough to make a living at it.

All because of Good Omens.

[di-42]

I've been putting off writing this because I was trying to find a way to not sound defensive. But, I mean, I do feel attacked on this subject, so I may as well sound defensive in my response to it.

If you have read some of my other posts and are wondering... yep. Yes, you might have guessed this is yet another post about Aziraphale's choice in the final 15. Or, rather, not. This post is not about Aziraphale. This post is about explaining Aziraphale's choice in a way that differs to the one-layer depth that we are shown on screen and being accused of lacking the ability to accept that characters I like can be complex and can make mistakes.

Oh, the irony!

So, I mean, possibly no one will be interested in this but let me rant on.

So first off, and I can't believe I'm having to say this, my opinions on Aziraphale are just that: my opinions. I won't specify that on every post I write. If your opinions are different to mine, I strongly encourage you to reply/reblog my posts with your own thoughts and pointing out what and why you disagree with. I take this as a healthy exchange of opinion and really what the fandom is for! I can learn from you! Just, needless to say, keep personal attacks out of this.

Secondly, surprise surprise, Aziraphale lovers can see clearly that Aziraphale makes mistakes. We have watched him making mistakes for 2 seasons, dropping our jaws and shaking our heads. He can be self-righteous, self centered, oblivious to other people's (especially other demons') feelings and incapable to read the room at times. But you know what? He gets it right the time that matters. And that time we are talking about mattered. But that's beside the point. The point is, the point is, we know Aziraphale can be, deep down, a bit of a bastard (and we know Crowley wouldn't love him as much as he does if he wasn't). So, these two things live together in our little, simple, depth-deprived minds: the knowledge that Aziraphale can be a bastard and the feeling that that one time he wasn't being a bastard, he was in fact being selfless.

Thirdly: our little, simple, depth-deprived minds know that stories can have, wait for it, plot twists! When something later on in that story is revealed to have happened for different reasons to the ones that were apparent at a previous point in the story. Neil Gaiman has done it in most of his work. This, of course, doesn't necessarily mean he's doing it here. Again, this is just my opinion. But really, dismissing completely the idea that there can maybe be reasons we don't know yet behind Aziraphale's choice is doing a disservice to Neil Gaiman.

Fourthly (do you even say fourthly?). The most important point of all: do you think we don't feel for Crowley? Do you really think that, because we believe Aziraphale didn't betray Crowley, we can't identify with Crowley's feelings of abandonment? Do you think our little, simple, depth-deprived minds can't hold these two feelings at the same time? Do you think we are dismissing his and our own traumas? Do you really, really think we never wanted to drive that Bentley off a cliff? We do feel for Crowley. We do feel desperate, broken, empty. We know he's lost EVERYTHING and we do recognise that feeling as well as you do. Whatever I think the reasons are behind Aziraphale's choice I do enjoy reading fiction that explains it in a different way to what I think because, again, I can believe something and feel something different at the same time. Reading so wonderfully written fiction about Crowley's pain makes me feel less alone, like bloody all of us. I write my own poems from Crowley's desperate, heartbroken point of view. It is much more alluring than the calm certainty of trust. But I digress. My point is, don't think for one second we are dismissing Crowley's pain. Don't think for one second we don't love Crowley as much as you do only because we believe Aziraphale loves Crowley even more.

Rant over, I guess.

Justice for Aziraphale. Justice for Crowley.

[nastasya--filippovna]

A funny little story full of funny little coincidences and sweet serendipity, but I know people on this site love that

This is a funny story of how I got into the Good Omens fandom. And it is so weird that sometimes I even amaze myself when I tell someone. But I love to tell this one....... so....................................

Late 2021 I watched Wilde and I absolutely loved it. And the best thing out of the movie was that I discovered Michael Sheen. I remember at the time being struck by two things: a) how this actor who had a side character and a small role was so magnificently out-acting great actors like Jude Law (just my personal opinion plz don't come at me for that) and all because of these beautiful micro-expression which I find myself criticizing many big actors like Brad Pitt even for that they lack good subtle micro expression and its as if their faces are dead, nothing is going on there. But Michael is always acting even when the camera is not focused on him he is in character. And (b) his fine beauty. I mean as a lesbian and more than that a portrait artist, I was mesmerized by the artistic beauty in the most non-sexual way.

And I found myself spiraling down the MS hole. And I watched literally everything he has ever done. Except one thing.

Good Omens.

That was because I love Neil Gaiman as a writer. His books have saved me during some very dark times in my love and his work is absolutely sacred to me. To be honest I didn't enjoy his other adaptations. They sucked the juiciness out of the books and kinda confirmed my earlier conviction that no filmed adaption of a book will ever do justce to the written word.

And it's so weird that I had seen all the other adaptations but I hadn't ever heard of GO adaptation.

And then one day I was like yk what just f^ck it. I'll just watch it and strike this one of my list (I'm a cinephile on a mission to watch almost everything ever made in the world).

So I'm watching it and I'm like oh look MS looks so ethereal. Born to play an angel. Look at those floofy wings.

BUT something was bugging me. Usually in most MS movies/shows he keeps out-shining, out-acting his co-stars. Just out there being the best making everyone else look flimsy. But here there was one person who is NOT looking flimsy with MS. Infact he keeps complementing him so perfectly it looks like a graceful waltz.

'Yeah so the demon guy is a great actor I guess'

But that's not why my mind is bugging me. There was something else some weird deja vu kind of familiarity.

I try to ignore it.

Two days later my sister is scrolling through her Pinterest and she goes "What's a Doctor Who?"

And I was like "It's an old childhood show I used to watch, you wouldn't know (she has never seen Doctor Who btw).... why're you asking?"

And she holds up her phone and she's like "Idk it says he's a Doctor Who?" (btw I love the way she says 'a Doctor Who')

And my mind went whoooooooosh!

It's such a strange feeling when stuff you'd forgotten, stuff that was once really special to you, but seems to be lost, and yet is only nestling in some corner of you chaotic mind waiting for the day it'll one day come into the light again, that's tuff comes whooshing back.

I grew up loving DW. Especially Ten. Well I was a tad bit pissed when Nine regenerated into DT and I was like noooooooo who's this skinny f^cker.... I don't want it. But I just fell in love with Ten. To my little lonely-kid-in-school-weirdo-nerd-wallflower self Ten was a best friend who made me feel that it's okay to be different to be geeky and childlike without being embarrassed. Ten was a secret best frined.

And when he regenerated I stopped watching the show. And I forgot about it because I was so busy adulting I lost track of everything I had cherished as a kid.

Now almost 15 years later I found out that my new favorite character (along with Aziraphale cz they're equally special to me) was played by the same person who played my childhood favorite character. And that he's also the best actor I have ever seen so I spiraled down DT hole and I am obsessed (not ashamed to say this). And guess what I found.... almost every show or movie I had watched as kid, he was there.... Ducktales, Harry Potter, Loud House, Einstein and Eddington, Mary Queen of Scots...... its endless.

And the 60th Anniversary special, well it's the most specialist thing to me. I feel like a child again.

GO and DW. Best things that ever happened to me

So thanking Neil Gaiman and Russel T. Davies and MS and DT for making my childhood better....... constantly, because it's never over..... the child lives in me constantly...... she's alive again. Thank you for keeping that child alive and helping her through the darkest nights .

Meena x

[himboskywalker]

Thank you so much for these many recommendations, i will definitely read some of them. I finally ordered lord of the rings, always wanted to do it but I finally did it.

I would love a separate rec list of less new books and overall classics. If you have the time of course. I always have a hard time finding new books for myself or to gift to other people.

Sure! And I'm ecstatic to hear you bought lotr! Another one to be welcomed into my fold! This list is decidedly less organized, but here's a list of more classic/ older works I always recommend or gift to people.

Anything written by our beloved Neil Gaiman. He's most well known, especially in this sphere, for "Good Omens" cowritten by Terry Pratchett, and rightfully so. If you've never read anything by either author, it is absolutely worth the hype, and even if you've watched the tv show, it is so incredibly funny and wonderful. "American Gods" is also phenomenal and very well known from its tv show now, but my personal favorite of Gaiman's is "Anansi Boys." No one does urban fantasy like him, and his works will always be the gold standard for me for this genre.

The Discworld series by Terry Pratchett. There's 41 books in the series so it's a mighty undertaking, I myself haven't gotten through all of them yet, I think I have about ten books left. They are so wonderfully funny and philosophical and witty. I don't recommend reading the books in the order Pratchett wrote them, rather there are collections in the series you'll want to read in order. The Death collection and City Watch books are my favorites but there are many more than that you may like better.

"The Princess Bride" by William Goldman. This is one of my favorite books of all time and while the movie certainly gets the vibe, it's a whole different animal. It's just so incredibly funny and fun and smartly written, and I've given it to many family and friends for Christmas and birthday presents.

"The Lies of Locke Lamora" by Scott Lynch. This is commonly regarded as a fantasy genre must and I often vehemently disagree with what's considered a "classic" but I have to side with the powers that be in the lit community on this one. It's just damn well written and character driven in the exact kind of way I love in stories. If you start reading it and think "oh look morally gray thief characters doing a heist" just remember, Lynch published it in '06 and pretty much wrote the template for everyone who has copied him since.

Anything by Ursula Le Guin although I read the "Earthsea" series first and would recommend starting there as well. She just really is that bitch, it doesn't get better written or more observant of life than her. Outside of Tolkien I don't know if there's anyone I admire more as an author than Le Guin. Her prose are not only stunningly gorgeous, but line after line after line hits like a sucker punch to the side of the head for how she makes you see life and yourself in new ways. “Only in silence the word, only in dark the light, only in dying life: bright the hawk's flight on the empty sky.”

The Redwall series by Brian Jacques! I love them so dearly, they're fun and beautifully written and full of adventuring that only forest animals with swords are capable of. I do recommend reading them in order, or at least the original "Redwall" before you dive into the rest of the series, but "Taggerung" is my favorite.

This is a more divisive rec nowadays but Kurt Vonnegut. If you read "Slaughterhouse Five" in school and hated it I don't blame you, it's not my favorite of his and not what I urge people to look to if they want to fall in love with him like I did when I was a teenager. My favorite Vonnegut is "Sirens of Titan" and "Breakfast of Champions." Do look at content warnings for "Sirens of Titan" and I've seen a lot of vitriolic reviews of the book in recent years by younger readers, but I absolutely think it's worth the read and the shining glorious example of what I mean when I say protagonists aren't meant to be liked or morally right.

And speaking of squicky divisive recs! May I tell you about our lord and savior of "oh god I don't know if I can get through this" Margaret Atwood? Most people know her for "Handmaid's Tale" but I first read "Oryx and Crake." Seriously, read the content warnings, but Atwood is known for writing the best of speculative sci-fi for a reason.

Anything by Octavia Butler. My intro to her was through "Bloodchild" which I highly recommend, and I think is the perfect introduction to her brand of unnerving brilliance. She is most well known for "Kindred" and rightfully so.

"Perfume" The Story of a Murderer" by Patrick Suskind. It's weird, by god it's weird, and it's one of my absolute favorite "classic lit" novels. In 18th century France a weird little freak of a guy with a super sense of smell winds up murdering a bunch of people to make perfume. It's fantastic and the quintessential, I will not morally justify this, but boy am I enjoying reading about this little creep.

"Trainspotting" by Irvine Welsh. I also love "Filth" and "Porno" by him. I think Welsh is brilliant at characterization, especially when most of his characters are morally bankrupt and terrible. But what he does best is make you feel for these characters who have often put themselves in these terrible positions. They're just people, and life is shitty, and I don't think anyone writes that better than Welsh.

"The Things They Carried" by Tim O'Brien. O'Brien made a career of writing fictionalized recounts of his time in Vietnam. I love everything he's written, he is one of my favorite modern lit authors, but "The Things They Carried" is his best known work and what I first read of his. It's brilliant and beautiful and sad, and it was the first time I ever had to put a book down and read in chunks because it affected me so emotionally.

Cormac McCarthy, any and everything he has ever written. He's best known for "The Road" of course, and it's certainly worth the read but "Blood Meridian" is my absolute favorite of his. His stuff is brutal and wry and full of the dry irony that only the bleakness of reality offers, and by god is it well written.

And finally I'll leave you with a single nonfiction recommendation. I try to keep those minimal when I know that's not usually what people are looking for when they ask for reading recs. But since I'm giving a list of books I have often gifted, I can't NOT include this one. "Man's Search for Meaning" by Victor Frankl. I read this at 18 and it had a profound impact on how I think and view life. Any time someone I love has gone through a difficult time I've bought them their own copy.“For the first time in my life I saw the truth as it is set into song by so many poets, proclaimed as the final wisdom by so many thinkers. The truth - that Love is the ultimate and highest goal to which man can aspire. Then I grasped the meaning of the greatest secret that human poetry and human thought and belief have to impart: The salvation of man is through love and in love.”

[danielfeketewrites]

DOCTOR WHO TOP 10 - 11th Doctor

My favourite of the New Who Doctors. I started with his era and it changed my life.

10. The World Tree

A recent addition to this Doctor's EU canon, I utterly love this little story. It's another winner of the Paul Spragg Memorial, so you can download it for free on the Big Finish website. I urge you to do so.

9. The God Complex

Having previously written School Reunion and Vampires of Venice, I presume Toby Whithouse's reputation in the Who fandom was something along the lines of "he writes the fun, fluffy ones". The God Complex is his first darker and, well, more complex script. And it really, really works. I have a soft spot for most of his episodes anyway, but The God Complex is probably the most ambitious one. I adore the visceral liminality of that hotel, it's so good. (Also, I choose to ignore that nonsense reveal in The Time of the Doctor.)

8. Apotheosis / The Child of Time

These two basically form a two-parter, so I'm putting them together. Although, for the record, I prefer Apotheosis, contrary to what Jonathan Morris presumes in his commentary at the end of the comic strip collection. Mostly because I love Dan McDaid's art so bloody much, but also because of the atmosphere, setting, clever use of the medium (the stuff with the beard ROCKS), and nuns with guns. But The Child of Time is also pretty great as a big, satisfying finale full of fun twists. I said it before, I'll say it again - Morris is a great chameleon, perfect at writing excellent Doctor Who stories while using voices of other excellent Doctor Who writers. I mean, he admits in the commentary that he wanted to get the strips close to Moffat's style and I think he definitely succeeded.

7. Amy's Choice

It's a shame Simon Nye never wrote any more Doctor Who, because Amy's Choice is a stellar character piece. Toby Jones' Dream Lord is such a memorable presence and the connundrum this episode presents is really fun and unique.

6. Space in Dimension Relative and Time

one best the is it but One Year Doctor's eleventh in one-shot experimental only the not It's. clever really, really it's yet, simple It's. it read go all should you and story timey-wimey unique and fun really a in potential full it's to medium the uses Williams Rob.

5. The Eleventh Hour

The episode that hooked me. The episode that changed my life. I fully believe this is the best episode to show to someone new to Doctor Who.

4. The Rise and Fall / The Other Doctor

A two-parter, with the first part written by Al Ewing and draw by Boo Cook, and the second part written by Rob Williams and drawn by Simon Fraser. I've only read Year One of eleventh Doctor's comics published by Titan, but I strongly feel the story of the Doctor taking on SERVEYOUinc. In a way, the story feels like a conversation not just with Doctor Who's past and present, but also with it's future... It feels like the perfect antidote to Kerblam!.

3. The Day of the Doctor (and The Day of the Doctor)

Listening to Steven Moffat talk about The Day of the Doctor is weird. Everything around the writing and production of the 50th anniversary special seems like hell. And yet, the end result is something that's not just extremely good Doctor Who, it feels like it knows it's good Doctor Who. It looks simple, seems self-assured, appears to know exactly what it's doing. It's a minor miracle. And it's also amazing. Gallifrey falls no more. All thirteen and all that.

Note: This spot is shared between the episode AND the novelisation. I love both of them very much. Go read the novelisation if you haven't read it yet. It's really, really fun.

2. Vincent and the Doctor

Nearly everyone loves this episode and, well, I can't really argue with that. It really is special. I adore it, the greatest celebrity historical the show ever did.

1. The Doctor's Wife

My favourite New Who episode.

So, I am a huge fan of Neil Gaiman. That is probably not a shocking take on this website. My collection of his work currently includes 12 books (1 in Czech translation, the rest in English), 6 comic books (1 in Czech translation, the rest in English), and 1 script book. I love Neil Gaiman.

I love the idea of the Corsair. I actually roleplayed as an incarnation of the Corsair in a game of Cubicle 7's Doctor Who TTRPG at a Red Dwarf convention recently. In front of an audience of like four people.

Hell, I even made a fanart of the Nephew like 6 or 7 year ago. I love the poor Ood and I love the horror aspect of the episode, with TARDIS becoming an abject and unfamiliar place when she gets possessed by the House.

But the reason I love this episode the most out of not just the eleventh Doctor's era but all of the 2005 series is... Well, it's the relationship. The Doctor and his TARDIS. Or, the Thief and his Sexy. It recontextualizes the whole mythology, it recontextualizes the entire series in a way that's so moving and poetic and just... perfect. I love The Doctor's Wife.