#i think neil is the only one who has some sort of idea but even still the detail andrew has to go into?

[deeppenguinstudent]

I don't care. I will ALWAYS defend Thea muldani. You guys talk about the age range between Kevin and Thea, which is so dumb because Kevin was 18 and Thea was 21. That is basically Jerejean's age range (22 and 19), which is 3 YEARS. And I don't see anyone talking about Jeanne's age range? (19 and 24).

To the people saying that got mad that she said, "Are you sure ur not up to ur old tricks again?" literally just what? Please, please read her wiki because the reason she said that was because she thought tetsuji was the one who beat him up, NOT riko.

She was the ONLY one so far that even questioned riko's authority and acknowledged he was a bastard (somewhat). She's not fucking blinded by the Nest. She's JUST Exy obsessed like Kevin!!

Also let's talk about this?

The rumours had gotten so bad that both the master and Kevin also believed Riko's words? How the hell was Thea supposed to know anything? She was a victim as well and it just annoys me so much when people use this to just completely stain her character and make her a huge bitch. She's literally a dark skinned woman. Even tetsuji told her that she has to work twice as hard because people wouldn't take her seriously. If she even had an inkling of an idea knowing what they did to him, she would fuck them up

Also the reason why no one batted their eyes was because the Ravens fucking eachother is completely normal. It's some sort of screwed up thing that's been going on for generations, even before Riko and Kevin had joined Evermore.

To the people who say Thea does not care about Jean I will literally chew your lungs BECAUSE HAVE WE BEEN READING THE SAME BOOK.

Do you guys not realise how close Jean and Thea truly were? Thea and Kevin were the only two that Jean actually had a good relationship with in the Nest. Just look at the text!! Thea is one of Jean's weaknesses because he trusts her so much, and we know that Jean always blurts out shit he's not supposed to when he's beside people he really trusts (Neil, Jeremy, Kevin)

Her little parisian duckling! He literally followed her everywhere 🙁🙁 Gosh they mean so much to me. (Also, the reference to Elodie's duck dress and Thea's way of calling him?)

Last bit. I just find their relationship is just watered down SOOOO much because people hate Thea for unconventional reasons. You can dislike her character for sure, but I feel like a lot of people have so many misconceptions about her so I just wanted to clear it up!!

Please Nora give us more Thea and Jean in TSC2 😔😔😔

Edit: Sexual grooming is the action or behavior used to establish an emotional connection with a minor under the age of consent and sometimes the child's family to lower the child's inhibitions with the objective of sexual abuse. This is the definition of grooming btw and it's confirmed that Thea dated two other people when Kevin was a minor and didn't think of him like that until he was a freshman in college ie 18 years old?? It's completely different because she wasn't even pursuing him at all??

[ninyard]

do you think andrew and aaron talked about his testimony before the trial, like about what andrew was going to say, or did aaron find out the full extent of what happened at the same time the jury did?

hmm. good question. i don’t know! easy answer: no, not at all. i think aaron is completely clueless going into it and every word that comes out of andrew’s mouth on that stand hit him like a fucking truck. i think he holds his head in his hands because he can’t listen to it, it hurts too much, he can’t see andrew like this. andrew doesn’t want him to see him like this. so clinical. so straight forward and honest about his abuse. describing what drake did to him, for so long, and nobody knew about it? nobody had any idea what andrew was going through? yeah i think it really upsets aaron when andrew takes the stand, because he had no preparation whatsoever for what he was going to say. he’s expecting andrew to talk about that night, and then andrew is talking about being 13 or 14 and it’s just. it’s awful.

the other answers:

1. it comes up in their therapy sessions. a week or two before the trial andrew mentions that he’s probably going to get called as a witness and privately he’s already spoken to bee, but in their joint sessions aaron brings it up first. he mentions something about how he’s worried about andrew having to speak about that night on the stand, and how he doesnt know how he’ll be able to sit in that room and hear about what drake did to him for the first time there, in front of the judge, a jury. andrew tells him not to worry, to just cover his ears and not listen. but it ends up in possibly a very loose conversation, andrew telling him what he’s likely going to have to talk about, purely so aaron isn’t sideswiped on the stand.

2. maybe they talked privately about it. they’re both restless and freaking out for the week before the trial and maybe they just catch each other at the wrong/right time and they ask each other what’s going on. aaron tells him everything, blurting the things out that he can’t talk to anyone about, his fears his worries, how he can’t sleep the closer it gets. but one thing he mentions is andrew. and andrew tries to get him to be quiet about it, but aaron keeps going, and he talks about how he doesn’t know what he’s going to do, with andrew up on the stand talking about his abuse, the things he had no idea about. andrew asks him why he’s worried. and aaron looks at him but he can’t look him in the eyes and he’s just like. i don’t know how i’m going to look at you knowing the truth about what you’ve been through. and i can’t hear that for the first time in front of all those people. so maybe andrew alleviates his stress by opening up, by telling him the roundabout truth about what he’s going to have to talk about.

3. aaron’s lawyers tell him. whether andrew would be in the room or not, idk, but they’re talking through their points and they brief aaron on what andrew is likely to be asked. maybe they show aaron andrew’s statements. maybe aaron has to read in andrew own words who drake was to him, and then he has to go out and sit in that courtroom and watch his brother take the stand feeling different about him. knowing too much, but at least knowing what to expect when the prosecutor starts asking questions.

[denimbex1986]

'...“It’s fun playing bad, but actually he’s not,” the actor says, smiling as he reflects on his character, Crowley. “He’s a villain with a heart. The amount of really evil things he does are vanishingly small.”

...As it always has, “Good Omens” dissects the view of good and evil as absolutes, showing viewers that they are not as separate as we were led to believe growing up. Aziraphale and Crowley’s long-standing union is proof of this. The show also urges people to look at what defines our own humanity. For Tennant — who opted to wear a T-shirt emblazoned with the words “Leave trans kids alone you absolute freaks” during a photocall for Season 2 — these themes are more important now than ever before.

“In this society that we’re currently living in, where polarization seems ever more present, fierce and difficult to navigate. Negotiation feels like a dirty word at times,” he says, earnestly. “This is a show about negotiation. Two extremes finding common ground and making their world a better place through it. Making life easier, kinder and better. If that’s the sort of super objective of the show, then I can’t think of anything more timely, relevant or apt for the rather fractious times we’re living in.”

“Good Omens” is back by popular demand for another season. How does it feel?

It’s lovely. Whenever you send something out into the world, you never quite know how it will land. Especially with this, because it was this beloved book that existed, and that creates an extra tension that you might break some dreams. But it really exploded. I guess we were helped by the fact that we had Neil Gaiman with us, so you couldn’t really quibble too much with the decisions that were being made. The reception was, and continues to be, overwhelming.

Now that you’re no longer bound by the original material that people did, perhaps, feel a sense of ownership over, does the new content for Season 2 come with a sense of freedom for you? This is uncharted territory, of sorts.

That’s an interesting point. I didn’t know the book when I got the script. It was only after that I discovered the worlds of passion that this book had incited. Because I came to it that way, perhaps it was easier. I found liberation from that, to an extent. For me, it was always a character that existed in a script. At first, I didn’t have that extra baggage of expectation, but I acquired it in the run-up to Season 1 being released… the sense that suddenly we were carrying a ming vase across a minefield.

In Season 2, we still have Neil and we also have some of the ideas that he and Terry had discussed. During the filming of the first one, Neil would drop little hints about the notions they had for a prospective sequel, the title of which would have been “668: The Neighbour of the Beast,” which is a pretty solid gag to base a book around. Indeed there were elements like Gabriel and the Angels, who don’t feature in the book, that were going to feature in a sequel. They were brought forward into Season 1. So, even in the new episodes, we’re not entirely leaving behind the Terry Pratchett-ness of it all.

It’s great to see yourself and Michael Sheen reunited on screen as these characters. Fans will have also watched you pair up for Season 3 of “Staged.” You’re quite the dynamic duo. What do you think is the magic ingredient that makes the two of you such a good match?

It’s a slightly alchemical thing. We knew each other in passing before, but not well. We were in a film together [“Bright Young Things,” 1993] but we’d never shared a scene. It was a bit of a roll of the dice when we turned up at the read-through for “Good Omens.” I think a lot comes from the writing, as we were both given some pretty juicy material to work with. Those characters are beloved for a reason because there’s something magical about them and the way they complete each other. Also, I think we’re quite similar actors in the way we like to work and how we bounce off each other.

Does the shorthand and trust the two of you have built up now enable you to take more risks on-screen?

Yes, probably. I suppose the more you know someone, the more you trust someone. You don’t have to worry about how an idea might be received and you can help each other out with a more honest opinion than might be the case if you were, you know, dancing around each other’s nervous egos. Enjoying being in someone’s orbit and company is a positive experience. It makes going to work feel pleasant, productive, and creative. The more creative you can be, the better the work is. I don’t think it’s necessarily a given that an off-screen relationship will feed into an on-screen one in a positive or negative way. You can play some very intimate moments with someone you barely know. Acting is a peculiar little contract, in that respect. But it’s disproportionately pleasurable going to work when it’s with a mate.

Fans have long discussed the nature of Crowley and Aziraphale’s relationship. In Season 2, we see several of the characters debate whether the two are an item, prompting them to look at their union and decipher what it is. How would you describe their relationship?

They are utterly co-dependent. There’s no one else having the experience that they are having and they’ve only got each other to empathize with. It’s a very specific set of circumstances they’ve been dealt. In this season, we see them way back at the creation of everything. They’ve known each other a long time and they’ve had to rely on each other more and more. They can’t really exist one without the other and are bound together through eternity. Crowley and Aziraphale definitely come at the relationship with different perspectives, in terms of what they’re willing to admit to the relationship being. I don’t think we can entirely interpret it in human terms, I think that’s fair to say.

Yet fans are trying to do just that. Do you view it as beyond romantic or any other labels, in the sense that it’s an eternal force?

It’s lovely [that fans discuss it] but you think, be careful what you wish for. If you’re willing for a relationship to go in a certain way or for characters to end up in some sort of utopian future, then the story is over. Remember what happened to “Moonlighting,” that’s all I’m saying! [Laughs]

Your father-in-law, Peter Davison, and your son, Ty Tennant, play biblical father-and-son duo Job and Ennon in Episode 2. In a Tumblr Q&A, Neil Gaiman said that he didn’t know who Ty’s family was when he cast him. When did you become aware that Ty had auditioned?

I don’t know how that happened. I do a bunch of self-tapes with Ty, but I don’t think I did this one with him because I was out of town filming “Good Omens.” He certainly wasn’t cast before we started shooting. There were two moments during filming where Neil bowled up to me and said, “Guess, who we’ve cast?” Ty definitely auditioned and, as I understand it, they would tell me, he was the best. I certainly imagine he could only possibly have been the best person for the job. He is really good in it, so I don’t doubt that’s true. And then my father-in-law showed up, as well, which was another delicious treat. In the same episode and the same family! It was pretty weird. I have worked with both of them on other projects, but never altogether.

There’s a “Doctor Who” cameo, of sorts, in Episode 5, when Aziraphale uses a rare annual about the series as a bartering tool. In reality, you’ll be reprising your Time Lord role on screen later this year in three special episodes to mark the 60th anniversary. Did you always feel you’d return to “Doctor Who” at some point?

There’s a precedent for people who have been in the series to return for a multi-doctor show, which is lovely. I did it myself for the 50th anniversary in 2013, and I had a wonderful time with Matt [Smith]. Then, to have John Hurt with us, as well, was a little treat. But I certainly would never have imagined that I’d be back in “Doctor Who” full-time, as it were, and sort of back doing the same job I did all those years ago. It was like being given this delightful, surprise present. Russell T Davies was back as showrunner, Catherine Tate [former on-screen companion] was back, and it was sort of like the last decade and a half hadn’t happened.

Going forward, Ncuti Gatwa will be taking over as the new Doctor. Have you given him any advice while passing the baton?

Oh God, what a force of nature. I’ve caught a little bit of him at work and it’s pretty exciting. I mean, what advice would you give someone? You can see Ncuti has so much talent and energy. He’s so inspired and charismatic. The thing about something like this is: it’s the peripherals, it’s not the job. It’s the other stuff that comes with it, that I didn’t see coming. It’s a show that has so much focus and enthusiasm on it. It’s not like Ncuti hasn’t been in a massive Netflix series [“Sex Education,”] but “Doctor Who” is on a slightly different level. It’s cross-generational, international, and has so much history, that it feels like it belongs to everyone.

To be at the center of the show is wonderful and humbling, but also a bit overwhelming and terrifying. It doesn’t come without some difficulties, such as the immediate loss of anonymity. It takes a bit of getting used to if that’s not been your life up to that point. I was very lucky that when I joined, Billie Piper [who portrayed on-screen companion, Rose] was still there. She’d lived in a glare of publicity since she was 14, so she was a great guide for how to live life under that kind of scrutiny. I owe a degree of sanity to Billie.

Your characters are revered by a few different fandoms. Sci-fi fandoms are especially passionate and loyal. What is it like being on the end of that? I imagine it’s a lot to hold.

Yes, certainly. Having been a fan of “Doctor Who” since I was a tiny kid, you’re aware of how much it means because you’re aware of how much it meant to you. My now father-in-law [who portrayed Doctor Who in the 80s] is someone I used to draw in comic strips when I was a kid. That’s quite peculiar! It’s a difficult balance because on one end, you have to protect your own space, and there aren’t really any lessons in that. That does take a bit of trial and error, to an extent, and it’s something that you’re sometimes having to do quite publicly. But, it is an honor and a privilege, without a doubt. As you’ve said, it means so much to people and you want to be worthy of that. You have to acknowledge that and be careful with it. Some days that’s tough, if you’re not in the mood.

I know you’re returning to the stage later this year to portray Macbeth. You’ve previously voiced the role for BBC Sounds, but how are you feeling about taking on the character in the theater?

I’m really excited about it. It’s been a while since I’ve done Shakespeare. It’s very thrilling but equally — and this analogy probably doesn’t stretch — it’s like when someone prepares for an Olympic event. It does feel like a bit of a mountain and, yeah, you’re daring to set yourself up against some fairly worthy competition from down the years. That’s both the challenge and the horror of doing these types of things. We’ve got a great director, Max Webster, who recently did “Life of Pi.” He’s full of big ideas. It’s going to be exciting, thrilling, and a little bit scary. I’m just going to take a deep breath.

Before we part ways, let’s discuss the future of “Good Omens.” Gaiman has said that he already has ideas for Season 3, should it happen. If you were to do another season, is there anyone in particular you’d love to work with next time around or anything specific you’d like to see happen for Crowley?

Oh, Neil Gaiman knows exactly where he wants to take it. If you’re working with people like Gaiman, I wouldn’t try to tamper with that creative void. Were he to ask my opinion, that would be a different thing, but I can’t imagine he would. He’s known these characters longer than me and what’s interesting is what he does with them. That’s the bit that I’m desperate to know. I do know where Crowley might end up next, but it would be very wrong if I told you.

[At this point, Tennant picks up a pencil and starts writing on a hotel pad of paper.]

I thought you were going to write it down for me then. Perhaps like a clandestine meeting on a bench in St James’ Park, but instead you’d write the information down and slide it across the table…

I should have done! I was drawing a line, which obviously, psychologically, I was thinking, “Say no more. You’re too tempted to reveal a secret!” It was my subconscious going “Shut the fuck up!”

[dalliancekay]

"I think Aziraphale needs to learn a lot more than that..."

Why do people keep (telling me again and again about this quote) assuming that Neil means Aziraphale needs some moral lessons, get off his high horse, learn some hard truths about Heaven, escape their grasp, finally understand that they are bad etc etc etc.

When the ask is about how Crowley is always forgiven from Aziraphale's point of view and how what (I see) Neil means is that Azi should also be told he's good enough. That he can be loved.

That what he needs to learn is how to believe in himself. To trust his mind, his feelings, to believe he is enough, he always was, that he doesn't have to be perfect or 100% right, that it is not possible and that it's okay. That he's okay. That he was lied to.

I wish we would frame Aziraphale's journey/learning as something else, not morality/awakening of some sort. Not as something he has to overcome. When Crowley changes his mind on something, no one says, oh have a gold star, you went against what Hell wants from you. Well done! Why do we do that to Aziraphale. Crowley is seen in Hell, giving presentations on some half hearted ideas that no one there really gets and getting accolades for things he didn't do at all and everyone is like, oh yay, look at him, so clever. Hahahah. Aziraphale also has to follow rules and do his tasks whether he agrees with them or not or he will be punished. He's not doing it for fun. He breaks rules when he feels he simply must and then everyone is like oh look, he is finally abandoning the rigid thinking that Heaven showed/taught him. But really, the naïve slow angel, he should try even harder.

Why such double standards?

Aziraphale is good and wants to do good. He is not sure of himself, true, but that's hardly his fault. Crowley is also good and tries to do good or at least limit the bad things he needs to do to survive.

They are two sides of the same coin. They both learn and grow. Sometimes the treatment the Ineffables get reminds me of how differently boys and girls are treated when they are learning behaviour. Boys praised for anything and everything even remotely good they do (cos they are expected to be naughty) and girls get the oh you should have already known better treatment. Aziraphale saved Job's kids cos he thought it was a horrible thing to want to do and expected to be punished for it. That's not - he didn't, it didn't change who he is. He did it expecting Falling. That's extremely brave. Yes Crowley has Fallen and people tend to see this as some extra superior move on his behalf, like he had everything figured out, understood how bad Heaven was and tried to bravely fix it. And Aziraphale needs to catch up with him. (If not by Falling himself than by doing some extraordinary learning journey to catch up with Crowley's knowledge). No. That's all HC. We don't even know why Crowley Fell. We don't. We know what he says happened (and we also know that he's not a reliable narrator...) and that's all we know. And even the things he says are not exactly showing him as some truth waving hero only wanting to make Heaven better for everyone and failing. Aziraphale is not breaking rules cos suddenly he used his brain and saw how Heaven is bad. He already knows that. He's risking punishment to help others. Again and again. And that's very kind and admirable and everything but it's not his evolving morality. He's already moral. He's already good. He always was.

He's also fucking cute. Let's not forget.

[fuckyeahgoodomens]

David Tennant at This Morning show with Alison Hammond and Dermot O’Leary talking about Good Omens Season 2, 11.07.2023 :) ❤

DO: And David joins us now. I mean, this looks like a great show.

David: Oh, yeah.

DO: So, I mean, It's pure Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, isn't it?

David: It is, yeah.

DO: The whole thing. So tell us, so if people haven't seen the first series and they want to go back, set the whole scene.

David: So I'm Hell's representative on Earth, Michael Sheen is Heaven's representative on Earth, put there to do the biding of our respective Head Offices. But we found out that if we became mates and sort of helped each other out, it kind of cut out the workload, cancelled each other out. So we're best mates. But in Series One we end up having to avert the apocalypse, which we managed to do, but as a result of that, we get cut off. So we're now living on Earth as independent individuals.

AH: So do you still need each other, then?

David: We still need each other. We've only got each other now because we don't have Heaven and Hell anymore.

DO: Because you both love earth so much, you both like.

David: Oh, we much prefer living on Earth because Heaven's a bit stuffy and Hell's awful.

DO: So you conspire to thwart the Armageddon. Exactly.

David: We thwart the Armageddon. That's fine. But Series Two begins when the angel Gabriel, Jon Hamm, who you just saw there, shows up at Aziraphale, Michael Sheen's bookshop, naked with no memory, holding a cardboard box. So suddenly we're locked into the politics of Heaven and Hell again. We don't know what's going on. We've got a mystery to solve. Why is the angel Gabriel here? The angel Gabriel tried to kill us both at the end of the last series, so we've got to...

DO: But now he's kind of got amnesia and...

David: Yes. So he becomes like our weird child, in this sort of weird sort of eternal marriage that Michael and I are locked in.

DO: So many shows now use a book as their base and then they do really well and you can see the company and the writers go, better come up some new ideas, I suppose. So the book's obviously Terry Pratchett and then Neil Gaiman, correct?

David: That's right. They wrote that together years and years and years ago. Much beloved. And that's what the first series was. But Neil and Terry had always talked about possibilities of this sequel that they never got around to making. Terry's no longer with us. But when the possibility came up, Neil thought, well, listen, I've got some ideas. Let's spin it forward. Let's see if we can tell the story we were always going to tell. So we get to come back.

AH: Should we have a little sneak look at the new series? Let's have a look. So good. Did you ever think it was going to be this successful? Did you even know that you were going to go into a second series

David: Oh, no, not at all. No. There was only one novel, so we just thought we were coming together to do that. And I didn't realise how beloved this book was. I first read a script. But it means a lot to a lot of people.

AH: And the look of you is so striking. Did you have any input into that? A bit, yeah, we sort of all found it together, myself and makeup and costume and Neil Gaiman, who ran the show. So, yeah, we kind of arrived... in the book he's a bit more - because obviously the book was sort of early ninetues, so he was a bit more sharp-suited and a bit more Wolf of Wall Street. So we've kind of had to find the kind of modern equivalent of that.

DO: Is he... obviously you're playing a demon. Has he got any humanity in him or is he purely self-centered?

David: Well, he's not a very good demon. He's good at sort of the snarl and the swagger and pretending that he's terribly cynical, but actually his problem is that he's a bit too...  there’s a bit too much heart, really.

DO: He's alright

David: Yeah, yeah.

DO: Must be wonderful playing a baddie.

David: Oh, it's great fun, but he's not a baddie, is not really a baddie.

DO: Yeah, yeah.

David: And just like Aziraphale angel is not always as goody goody as he likes it, so they meet very beautifully in the middle.

DO: You and Michael Sheen. I mean, you've worked together a fair bit, don't you. I loved Staged. That was such fun.

David: Yeah!

AH: Have you ever not worked together?

David: Now we only work together.

AH: All the time.

David: Yeah. I mean, He's not sitting on this sofa, but he is backstage. We can't be apart.

DO: He's speaking in his ear right now.

David: Exactly, yeah.

AH: But you are... you have got a genuine friendship. You're growing old together gracefully.

David: We're growing old together?!

AH: You look good for it, I'm not going to lie. What's the secret, babe?

David: A lot of makeup. It's very thick.

AH: We've got to talk about the fact that you are returning to Doctor Who.

David: Ah, yes.

AH: I can't believe this. And can you tell us anything at all?

David: I mean, beyond that I'm doing it? I think...

AH: No.

David: Really. Because that's the fun of it, isn't it? Hopefully tt was a bit of a surprise when I showed up. When Jodie Whittaker regenerated into me.

AH: We were shocked.

David: It was a bit of a surprise, so we wanted to sort of keep some shocks, but Catherine Tate's back, so it's a bit like 15 years never happened, to be honest.

DO: Know about it for a while. Like... did Russell T get in touch and say...

David: Yeah, it sort of gradually kind of evolved as an idea and we thought maybe they'd let us do a one off for old time's sake. And then suddenly it became a bit more than that and we were back for a bit of a run.

AH: So how many episodes did you get to do?

David: We did three.

AH: Wow. That's incredible. What's it like to be back? Did he just slot straight back in?

David: I mean, sort of. It felt weirdly familiar. Yeah. And you think, 'Oh, will I still able to run as fast? Can I still kind of...?' But it was like we'd never been away. It was joyous. Yeah.

DO: And could we talk about your son? Because is your son in Good Omens with you?

David: Ty's in... has a part in Episode Two of Good Omens.

AH: Is he?

DO: And I loved him in House of the Dragon.

David: I know. He's very good. He's very good.

DO: What a relief.

David: There he is. I know, what a relief. Exactly. No, I mean...

AH: Imagine if he was bad.

David: Imagine if he was rubbish. How would we tell him? Sit down, listen...I know it's sort of the family business, but maybe joinery? So... no, he's really good. And he's annoyingly good looking. You know, he's just got it all. So it's lovely and great to get to work together. Brilliant.

[giantmushyfriend]

Welcome back to the Ineffable lyric discussion (can I hear a wahoo)

In honor of the announcement of season 3 of our beloved Good Omens, I find it completely necessary for us to discuss one of the many songs on Aziraphale and Crowley's angelic playlist that made me scream my bloody head off. One of those songs is the one and only The Book of Love by Peter Gabriel. While I UNDERSTAND this song may have just been chosen to spell out SEASON THREE, I think it goes much deeper than that because of all of the parallels it draws to Aziraphale and Crowley. And ultimately, what I think is going to happen in terms of their relationship when they finally sort their shit out. So beware if you haven't watched season 2 of Good Omens because we're about to do a fucking DEEP DIVE into this.

First, the title of the Book of Love feels almost like a call to this looming threat to the Book of Life that was consistently used in series 2. The entire season, Crowley and Aziraphale have to work oh so carefully because with the Book of Life being confirmed, they know that either of them could get the other erased, and whether they want to admit it or not, losing the other is their biggest fear. We've seen this when Crowley believed Aziraphale to be dead in Series 1 when he couldn't feel Aziraphale's presence anymore since he got incorporated. When Aziraphale isn't there, Crowley is a mess. Likewise, we saw how both reacted during the ineffable divorce scene in series 2. Crowley is full-on begging Aziraphale to stay, and Aziraphale has finally admitted that he needs Crowley and full-on mouths for Crowley not to leave him. The Book of Life inherently, from how Neil set it up, feels threatening. The Book of Love, on the other hand, raises an entirely other reaction. Throughout the series, as corny as it sounds, love has been what grounds our protagonists. It is the love of Tadfeild and his friends that keeps Adam from kickstarting the end of the world; it's what keeps him from rejecting his father, the literal devil. It is the love of the earth, of humanity and all its strange creations, and for each other that keeps Aziraphale and Crowley attempting to prevent the end of the world when it could be so much easier to just accept the fate of it all. Love is the key theme that grounds our protagonists, that makes them tick. Love is safe; love is, at times, painful but overall kind. So when we see this title on their playlist, listed amongst heartwrenching tales of grieving a relationship, you could have had, and of loss, it brings a sense of salvation and safety. The Book of Love, unlike the Book of Life, is not a threat- it's a sanctuary for Aziraphale and Crowley.

Now, diving into the lyrics.

"The book of love is long and boring

No one can lift the damn thing

It's full of charts and facts, and figures, and instructions for dancing

But I

I love it when you read to me.

And you

You can read me anything"

The first couple of verses inherently feel like Aziraphale and Crowley's original view on this notion of love. As two supernatural entities who aren't bound by human emotion or logic, love may seem superficial and downright silly at times. The courting procedures that different societies have taken on throughout the centuries and the songs and dances that come along with it may all seem like a big waste. The book of love is a manifestation of love itself, and originally, it seems unappetizing to our protagonists. That is until they refind each other, and love goes from this thing that humans feel and jump through hoops for to this tidal wave of emotions. Love felt silly and unrealistic before, but with each other, they are willing and excited to explore it, even if it comes with things that feel inherently silly.

Also, these verses draw some cute parallels to headcanons and features of cannons. If you've been involved in the Good Omens fandom long enough, you've probably stumbled across the idea that Crowley asks Aziraphale to read to him for a multitude of different reasons. Some people say it's because his eyes aren't meant to read, one of the many punishments that came with him being cast down from grace, or maybe it's just because he finds Aziraphale's voice comforting. Additionally, the line about instructions for dancing is just so heartwarming when we look at the ball scene from this past season and Aziraphale's daydreams of a romance worthy of a Jane Austin novel.

"The book of love is long and boring

And written very long ago

It's full of flowers and heart-shaped boxes

Adn things we're all too young to know

but I

I love it when you give me things

and you

You ought to give me wedding rings"

I'm sure we've all heard this idea that you'll understand love when you get older, but even when you get older, it never seems to make sense. This idea that love is too old for any of us to truly understand, and that humbles us but in the best way possible. There is no point in trying to figure out what exactly love is because you could spend thousands of years feeling it and watching it happen all around you and still not know exactly what it is besides this all-encompassing feeling. And that is exactly the perspective of Aziraphale and Crowley. They have seen countless examples of love, true, unwavering love, and they have felt it for each other. And yet they themselves cannot begin to fathom what love, true unconditional love, is exactly. These two supernatural, ethereal/occult beings are humbled by the very concept of love like humans are- and that love is drawn from each other.

And then there is this notion of giving, which pairs so well with Crowley's primary love language, acts of service and gift giving. If the first chorus was Crowley talking about how he loves it when Aziraphale reads to him and takes care of him, then this is Aziraphale talking about how Crowley displays his love. And this final notion of asking for that final commitment, one of the key ways humans express their love for each other, is just amazing. Because in a way, Aziraphale moving to make this commitment, to fully be on their side in this way, is the resolution we have been wanting since the beginning. For Aziraphale to finally feel safe enough to let go and finally let himself settle to where he finally belongs, on his side with Crowley.

[actual-changeling]

I have written many meta posts and s3-theories, and read even more, but I got hit by an idea I have not seen before. (If there is another post, please link it!)

After vibrating for an hour and losing my mind in my dms, I have no scraped together enough brain cells to present what is probably my first actual 'main-plot meta'.

Welcome to another edition of Alex's unhinged meta corner, today with a title to honour Crowley's James Bond obsession and the possibility of another heaven heist.

I give you:

From Jesus with Love - You Will Live Twice

Now, let's get right into it.

I think Neil might have told us more about the main s3 plotline in the announcement article than we previously thought. We all got stuck on 'they're not talking'—for good reason—but it is the part before that which has been bugging me ever since then.

The plans are going wrong—and this time that is a problem for earth and humanity. Turning that around, it means that whatever that plan consists of would be the way to go and beneficial for everyone, the opposite of the main plot of s1.

"They need to prevent the Second Coming (SC)" is pretty much the only and most popular idea I have seen, hundreds of fics and metas and whatnot have been written about it, but I think there's a good chance we're wrong. If we're not, well, I will honestly just be happy to be watching season 3.

Whatever the Metatron is planning will have negative consequences for everyone, or as Michael puts it: "And so… it ends. Everything ends. Time and the world is over, and we begin Eternity… forever and ever."

It sounds very much like Apocalypse #1 - Same Old Plan, same expected result, yet if we look at different interpretations of scripture we find that the SC is not entirely about complete destruction and death for all of humanity—it is about creating a new world/migrating to the kingdom of God.

This is taken from the Wikipedia article about the SC

Resurrection and life in a world to come are a direct contradiction to the result Michael is explaining—total annihilation of humanity.

Now, I am neither religious in any way nor have I ever received any sort of biblical education. Luckily, Christians seem to love talking about the bible because there are dozens of bible website to wade through. If I get anything wrong, please point it out, I have never touched a bible in my life.

So, after reading many, many quotes by a bunch of different guys, I tried to create a somewhat coherent picture of what the SC might look like based on the assumption that the end result is positive. I will talk about how they can be interpreted more in-depth later, otherwise this would turn into a string-net very fast.

Additionally, we can also see where these points overlap with the statement Jimbriel gave in the bookshop in episode three.

What is Jesus' job description?

only God knows when and how exactly it will begin/happen, no one else does, including Jesus and the Metatron

a lot of different catastrophes are mentioned or quoted as something Jesus said, like earthquakes and storms -> Jimbriel mentioned a tempest and great storms

there is also the line "All these are the beginning of birth pains." Birth pains dictate that there will be a birth—birth of the world to come perhaps?

dead people will be resurrected/leave their graves so that they too can be judged (I'd say participate in it but that sounds like the Second Coming is a summer camp activity)

there are also mentions of stars and the heavens in general falling from the sky and the sun going dark -> Jimbriel also mentions darkness as one of the signs

great lamentations, as Jimbriel says, are also a part of many different passages, with humans mourning the world as it was

the Lord will descent with the voice of an Archangel and the sound of a trumpet/the trumpet of God; the grammatical structure of that sentence seems to be interpreted differently depending on who you ask, but the voices of angels/an Archangel and some sort of trumpet are common terms

once everyone is in heaven/wherever the 'main even' will take place, a judgement call will be made for every single person in relation to the book of life, which decides whether they will be punished forever or not (one passage talks about a lake of fire and mentions it several times in a row)

And this is where it gets tricky. To figure out what the SC looks like, we first need to understand a) what the Metatron's capabilities are, b) what he has to lose, and c) what exactly would be a threat to him.

If you ask me, all of this comes down to the Metatron wanting to stay and be in power for eternity with full control over angels so he can do as he please, aka keeping the system running as it is.

We know the book of life (bol) is a thing in the Good Omens universe, whether it does what Michael said is an entirely different question. So far, we have also only got confirmation that hell collects and tortures souls—in such large amounts that they are understaffed—while heaven looks completely empty.

The Metatron runs heaven as an institution, he seems to be the highest power any of the angels have access to and the one they defer to. He refers to himself as the voice of God and combines judge, jury and executioner, making him one great celestial dictator.

From what we know of hell, they do things a lot more democratically, having different councils, dukes, and ranks that are responsible for different levels of command.

We also know that that the Metatron wants the world to end, his goals can probably be summarized as the statement Michael makes, which would leave him in charge without any opposing forces.

We also also know that he sees Crowley and Aziraphale as a threat—why exactly remains a mystery for now—and that the success of his plan hinges on having a Supreme Archangel (SA) he can control. Gabriel decided to become princess of hell and Beez' sugar baby, so he was out of the equation, and after the Armageddon disaster, I don't think he wants to risk failing because of an unfamiliarity with earth (plus, y'know, getting our two idiots away from the plan).

It's interesting to me that right at the end, he says to Aziraphale "We call it the Second Coming"—call, not it is or it will be, CALL. We know that nothing Neil writes is a coincidence, definitely not with such an important line.

Just because you CALL something a specific name doesn't mean it IS what you call it, e.g. Aziraphale calls Crowley a foul fiend when we know he very much isn't.

The Metatron is selling his plan as part of the "Great/Ineffable Plan", so any questions can be blocked by saying it's God's will, it's ineffable. Whatever his plan is, he hides it behind the concept of the Second Coming, which angels know just enough about to understand the basics without having in-depth knowledge of what exactly it entails.

It is a good fucking strategy, I'll give him that, and it WORKS because angels—even if they have doubts—do not question. They simply don't; fear of punishment and millennia of conditioning have left them in a horrible place. When they encounter something unknown, their response is "I already knew that" as to not ask questions.

Crowley questions, we know that, and Aziraphale, ohhhhh, Aziraphale ALSO questions, but he does it in a less dangerous and obvious way. The Metatron is vastly underprepared for that.

(Side note: That alone would be its own meta post, but the gist is that he questions heaven's plans and then adjusts his assumptions of what God might want to what he WANTS God to want, e.g. Job, the Arch)

To summarize everything I just said, the Metatron wants to do what Armageddon failed to do—destroy earth and the universe—so he can be supreme dictator of all remaining celestial beings and gorge himself on power.

But instead of calling it his Big Evil Plan, he calls it the Second Coming, making everyone play along without resistance.

We cycle aaaaall the way back to the sentence I quoted—the ACTUAL plans are going wrong since the Metatron's would mean total destruction.

But what is the SC supposed to be if not the Apocalypse 2.0?

When I look at all the different aspects of the SC and assume a positive outcome, then the end result to me would be a new world that is pretty much like the old world, or maybe even literally the old world but with any destruction reversed. Heaven and hell get dissolved since now that everyone has been "judged", they as institutions are no longer needed, they have fulfilled their purpose.

No more judgement means there is no reason to keep track anymore, so why do you need to run celestial corporations whose only job is doing exactly that? You don't—and THAT is what I believe is the biggest perceived threat to the Metatron, losing full control over everyone and everything, losing his position, his title, and whatever else he has.

On top of that, Good Omens has told us again and again that God doesn't seem to give a fuck about good and evil anymore, and that without heaven and hell being all wrapped up in it, humanity would have 100% free will without any consequences.

Maybe the BoL is empty, maybe it isn't real, maybe Jesus stole it to straighten a wobbly table, who knows. There is a chance it is what Michael says, but I would admittedly find that a bit. too obvious and boring since it would boil the plot down to "they save their own asses again" and not "they save humanity at all cost".

Regarding Crowley and Aziraphale's role in this—I have Thoughts TM but those definitely need their own post. In short, they have to get the SC back on track, the real one.

-

If you have made it this far, thank you for working through what I hope are more or less coherent rambles. Any spelling or grammar mistakes are my own.

Questions? Thoughts? Corrections? Expansions and additions?

Feel free to add to this post however you like (and I can't believe I have to mentions this but if you clown on my post or behave like an asshole you will be blocked).

[catsconflictscopicsandchamomile]

ok calling out tumblr as a whole rn, gonna keep this reallll brief and simple

Leave. The Neil Gaiman fandom. ALONE.

are the takes coming out of it right now rancid? Yes.

It has been LESS THAN ONE DAY.

LESS. THEN. ONE. DAY.

Everyone rn talking about how they “already knew” and then using that as justification to engage in the WORST, MOST PERSONALLY INSULTING, DEGRADING, HEARTLESS, DEHUMANIZING, AND *CONSISTENTLY FUCKING ABLEIST* BEHAVIOR I HAVE EVER SEEN ON THIS SITE

All y’all need to step back and remember when and how you DID learn this about Neil, or about powerful people/celebrities in general. y’all know you didn’t process it instantly, cleanly, or without any emotional turmoil, grief and deeply bad takes on the way to acceptance. And I’m sure the vast majority of y’all have SOMETHING that you like right this instant where you “separate the art from the artist”. This isn’t a “gotcha”, that’s LITERALLY JUST A NORMAL PART OF MODERN MEDIA CONSUMPTION

and even if you’re some pure untainted angel who only likes things that were entirely created by good people and has the ability to instantly detach all emotional, artistic and other ties to a piece of media once it becomes Bad(tm)….

You still have no right to treat these ppl like this. Plain and simple. These are the reactions of people who just had their view of their favorite author shattered

YESTERDAY

and while some will inevitably stay and defend Neil (fuck those guys), the majority WILL process this and react appropriately, just like I did, just like yall did.

(and if “appropriately” turns out to involve taking back the fandom en masse… listen I’m leery on it too but I think it would be a genuinely good idea to try. Interesting if nothing else, and absolutely not a cause for further hate) To treat entire fandoms this way, this immediately…. I am hundreds of times more ashamed to share a fandom, a website or a PLANET with y’all than with the ppl saying stupid shit while processing this stuff for the first time. The news itself was upsetting but unsurprising. Seeing y’all turn into Reddit chuds projectile vomiting anti-autistic stereotypes and telling people to off themselves is making me genuinely fucking sick.

I’m so angry. All this finally coming to light and you’ve all chosen hatred. Fuck you, fuck all of you. I don’t even have words.

Edit for clarification: I am NOT asking that Neil or his fans not be held accountable. I am asking people to have the basic fucking human decency to give the fandom ANY TIME AT ALL to process this stuff before rolling out the personal insults and su*c*de baiting.

Give People Time To Sort Through Their Feelings. Let People Process. Not forever, just a few days. Most likely yall didn’t process this instantly when you first learned about it, so stop expecting others to. Don’t be dicks. That simple.

EDIT TWO:

This post is NOT calling out criticizing people who defend Neil. Again: FUCK THOSE GUYS. This is a post calling out the massive amounts of hate currently directed at people who are just fucking upset, who believe the victims and feel furious, betrayed, etc, and yes even people whose first thoughts were of their fandoms. If they aren’t defending Neil, they aren’t defending Neil. In fact if they’re being weird and messy about fandom or internal stuff, it’s pretty clear that they’re FUCKING FURIOUS at Neil.

In fact, perhaps consider redirecting all this hate to the people actually defending Neil, instead of people who obviously hate him but whose processing methods are kinda cringe.

[oraclefreak]

Dead Poets Society boys headcanons I thought of while showering: showering edition (sounds ironic)

Charlie: bro uses an IRRATIONAL amount of shampoo. Most probably has finished one entire bottle in a matter of 4 days before (shampoo prices must not be an issue for him, I guess). His hair somehow isn't damaged, and not even god knows why. Takes an hour for him to finish showering. He talks in the shower, and if it's in Hellton showers he will talk to someone else while showering (Knox and him get idiotically philosophical; call it shower thoughts that are actually spoken)

Cameron: this mf measures the amount of shampoo he uses. I never knew someone who did this, but I can DEFINITELY GUESS that Cameron has a measuring cup just for shampoo. His showers are short compared to the others, probably because he doesn't think about other things rather than to finish showering. Uses more hair products outside the shower (the youngsters would call it 'styling').

Meeks: he's a little more normal. But DEFINITELY has realizations while showering, it's just that he doesn't say them out loud. Suddenly his mind speaks to him about how to set up the DIY radio to work or something like that and he won't talk to anyone after the shower until he has it sorted out (will go RUNNING like he's running out of time to tell Pitts). Probably 25 minutes long showers because he also uses a product to keep his curls okay.

Knox: who told this dumbass that putting on perfume while the water is running and he's still showering is okay? Multiple people had told him that IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, but he's like "no, guys, I swear it works... because the other day-", and he's mentioning an event that has nothing to do with putting on perfume in the shower. I can imagine one of his talks where he goes OVERLY philosophical and Charlie just tells him that he's 'talking stupid'. He takes (slightly) less than one hour just to not be called the one who takes the most time in the shower (a.k.a Charlie Dalton)

Neil: WHO put theater kid music in here? Social anxiety fears this dude. Not only he sings his favorite musicals, he also mumbles the dialogue for his next play. I'm certain that more than 7 people in Hellton have memorized at least one line from his dialogue just by listening to him (even if it's mumbling people can still hear him). Takes like 40 minutes for him to finish showering, and most of it is him trying to remember his parts in the play (sometimes Todd, who has them memorized after reading the script multiple times, tells him the next word and Neil yells it with excitement in an 'eureka' type of way). I think he would do a little skincare while showering, maybe just one product to clean his face and then wash it off.

Todd: always takes him 19 minutes straight to finish showering, some of the poets wonder if he has a watch to know when to come out (it has been proved scientifically that he does not take less or more than 19 minutes). Has a panic attack every time the soap slips. For some reason also uses conditioner... Who told him that he has to use it? I don't know (your hair isn't even that long, dude). Has the typical writer struggle of having an awesome idea but not having anything to write at the moment (has suffered the pain of forgetting what the idea was). Unlike the other poets, he does not do much after showering rather than brushing his hair and then dissociating (partially canon, I guess)

Pitts: he tried to get the shampoo out violently once, and it ended all over the place except his hand. He's more conscious about it now and it didn't happen ever again since then. He's a thinker, but not a philosophical one (like Charlie or Knox) or a genius one (like Meeks). His thoughts range from "did I turn off my desk lamp", to "TRIG HOMEWORK IS DUE TOMORROW AND I DIDN'T FINISH IT YET". Awfully specific but probably uses two brands of shampoo (I don't know where the idea came from but I can see it). Takes him a little bit more than 25 minutes to finish showering but does not usually reach 30 minutes long showers.

I don't know where all of these came out of.

[avelera]

So this is a bit random but:

Dream as the hero in a Greek tragedy and Hob as an Arthurian knight.

Thoughts?

(You obviously don’t have to answer if this is stupid or you don't want to)

If I may riff a bit on this, since I don't exactly have a pre-made answer (it's not a line of inquiry I've really considered), I'd say this:

Dream is absolutely a Greek tragedy protagonist. He thinks of himself that way, he's written that way. A major, indeed central, characteristic of Greek tragic heroes is that their virtues in some situations become their ultimate downfall. No one is dying in a Greek tragedy because they're inherently bad or failed people. It is the essence of that Picard line, "It's possible to do everything right and still lose. That's not failure, that's life."

Dream's dedication to his duty is an incredibly familiar virtue for a Greek tragic figure. It is also the virtue that will lead to his eventual end (in this incarnation). At least, in the comic. We'll see in the show if that's the case, and I have my suspicions based on the story's structure that we'll be seeing some deviation or, at the very least, a more optimistic spin on Dream's end.

Neil certainly wrote Dream to be a figure from a Greek Tragedy too, ironic considering he's also the "deus ex machina" in other situations, being literally a creature of godlike (or superior) power.

As for Hob as an Arthurian figure.... I'm less convinced. And I have a lot of reasons why because I think a lot about Hob's relationship, or lack thereof, with the tropes of knighthood as explored in both canon and fanon.

Let me quickly say that for fanon, sure, absolutely. I've seen incredible, complex, lovely takes on Hob as a Questing Knight or suffering the throes of textbook courtly love (more on that in a second, because I do find that part at least plausible) or otherwise being a gallant and heroic figure.

However, this is fanon. Canon Hob is certainly made more romantic, and I mean much more romantic by the show with the whole missed 1989 meeting and Ferdie's inherent and overwhelming charm. But comic Hob is... hmm, let's say he also has his charm but he's deliberately quite rough, quite crass, more than a bit dim at times, and the furthest thing from protagonist let alone romantic hero material. I think comic Hob would laugh, perhaps a bit wistfully, at the very idea of being an Arthurian figure. Certainly the Hob of "Sunday Mournings" (the Ren Faire comic issue) would be outright derisive of the notion of himself as a romantic figure or a questing knight.

Hob bought his knighthood. I think it's something that bears remembering: he bought it.

(Let me very briefly aside say, as a grubby Yankee myself, I actually find his audacity and sort of "Ha! I got away with it!" humor in that moment incredibly charming. Fuck yeah, stick it to the nobility! Fuck aristocracy, fuck nobility, and fuck aristocratic mythology like Arthuriana that reinforces those power structures. Good for Hob being a peasant who bought his knighthood, something that would be all but unthinkable in the grand sweep of Arthuriana, which for all its romanticism is still pretty definitive about everyone belonging in their social place.)

Anyway, Hob bought his knighthood with money he made getting into early English shipping and with money made from being on the right side of Henry VIII dissolving the monasteries (which were corrupt but were also one of the only forms of social services available to common people at the time, it's an incredibly complex issue) and Hob is as unbothered by the moral quandaries of this as he was the moral quandaries of being a soldier or a bandit. Hob is the furthest thing from being a Galahad. I'm not sure he could even aspire to Lancelot at his lowest on Hob's very best of days. He's just not built like that that we see.

At least, until 1989.

Now, as I've noted elsewhere, Hob's story is fundamentally altered by this ever so minor change in the show of making him still in England in 2022, still presumably waiting for Dream about a block away from the White Horse! Now, this is some courtly love shit right there! My jaw dropped when I began to map out the implications, not just of his waiting but of his becoming a history teacher.

Comic Hob never became a history teacher. Comic Hob seems all but allergic to romanticism and nostalgia. Comic Hob's highest moment of romanticism is wondering what exists in the depths of the ocean and thinking that maybe reincarnation possibly exists.

1989 changes everything. Actually, we even have evidence that in the comic timeline, Hob wasn't even in England by, what, 1992 when Dream passes away? He's in America with Gwen and they've been dating for a bit when she takes him to the Ren Faire, which is the day after Dream died. This implies that Hob doesn't usually stick around England like he does in the show timeline. If that wasn't already clear from the fact that most of his professions throughout the glimpses we see seem to involve maritime trade (sometimes of the very worst sort). The guy is constantly on the move but he stayed in England for Dream for over 30 years.

So there, at least, I think we have the first tendrils of something for fandom to grip onto that Hob does have the potential within him to go on a 30 year quest for his lost love, which is very Arthurian. I think even Hob would be perhaps shocked at himself for this, perhaps alongside becoming a history professor, finally coming to grips perhaps with the history he's seen, learning to care about it, learning that there's more to himself than he thought.

Because Hob is a weird immortal. He doesn't do the things we expect immortals to do, like learn from his mistakes and become some sort of avenging superhero, or even accumulate enough money to not need to have a day job any more, to just utterly detached from normal human life. Instead, he seems to stay grounded in a normal middle class life for whatever era he's in (barring disaster or windfall) and just happen to stick at it longer than anyone else by virtue of his immortality. It's so bizarre in the most fascinating way, it's why I'm obsessed with him, because he stays so grounded in his time period and not in any sort of special superhero way.

But 1989 really brings into sharp relief that there is an element of courtly love to how he interacts with Dream, the Beatrice to his Dante, this figure who inspires him, whom he waits for, whom he changes for (even when Dream himself perhaps doesn't believe himself capable of change?).

There I think there's something to the notion of Hob as, perhaps, a budding figure of courtly love, if not full Arthuriana knighthood.

But more intriguing and, if I may presume, what I think you're perhaps getting at with all of this is: could Hob's Questing Knight perhaps in some way disrupt Dream's Greek Tragic fate?

Well, it's not really possible in either of those genres played straight but, in the original canon, Hob didn't wait 33 years for Dream to come home to him.

So really, in the most optimistic way I'd say, anything is possible.

[humbledragon669]

S1E6 – The Very Last Day of the Rest of Their Lives P1 - up to the dissolution of the Horsemen

Well can you believe it? The last episode of the first season! And the first thing I want to make a note of is… the episode title. I really struggle to make sense of it because, linguistically, the only way something can be the very last of the rest of anything, is if it’s the very last of the thing at all. I can sort of make this idea make sense if I look at it from the perspective of the end of episode 5, where Armageddon is starting, and it does very much look like the world is about to end on that particular day, but it feels pretty woolly to me. Neil has been asked about this particular episode title before, but his answer did not help me wrap my head around the concept. In fact, it just made things worse:

Nope. No, I’m sorry, but that makes literally no sense. Anyway, I don’t want to get hung up on the little details... Hey, didja notice how Crowley (aka Aziraphale) greets his trial panel in exactly the same way as he greets Hastur and Ligur in the graveyard?

And that throw away line about getting some houseplants is pretty telling when you remember that  it’s actually Aziraphale delivering that line (oh, spoiler alert there I guess, but I would have thought that anybody reading this far into the labyrinth of my brain wanderings is probably going to have seen this show at least once before). It shows that Aziraphale knows exactly what the inside of Crowley’s flat contains, and that the only thing he would care about enough to actually furnish a space is houseplants. One thing I do question though, is how Aziraphale would know who Hastur and Dagon are. He definitely would have known who Beelzebub is, saw her on the tarmac at the airbase in fact, but those two? I don’t know when he would have come into contact with them before, particularly in their demon forms. Crowley could have given him a description of as many of the named demons as possible I suppose, but it’s a bit thin as a theory goes. But more curious is presence of the montage at this point in the episode.

It’s just short of 7 seconds long, and takes place less than 2 minutes into the episode. It also happens to contain the entire storyline for the episode in reverse. Shots of Aziraphale (Crowley really) tied up in Heaven, Aziraphale and Crowley in the park together, the Bentley and book shop in their respective restored state, Adam with Aziraphale and Crowley complete with wings, Satan breaking through the tarmac – it’s all there. It even comes complete with those fuzzy little lines that you used to see when you were rewinding a video back in the days of VHS (yes, I do actually remember that) to show that we’re watching events in reverse. It’s not like we haven’t seen montages used to represent the passing of time in this show before, but this is the first time it’s been done with parts of the story that we, the audience, haven’t yet seen. It goes by pretty fast so it’s not like you’d be able to work out the plot by watching it in real time, but I think it’s a risky play nonetheless.

Next curious thing in this episode. The music playing from Crowley’s Bentley as he approaches the gates of the airbase is different to what we heard in the previous episode. It’s the same song, but it’s a different section. Not only that, but the music continues playing from inside the car after he closes the door, whereas in the previous episode the slamming of the door cuts the stream of music off abruptly. There is nothing else different about this rendition of the scene from the one at the end of the previous episode as far as I can see but it’s a subtle difference that I find interesting, especially when you consider how many of the beings involved in the events leading up to Armageddon come to have somewhat blurry memories of what happened.

I have to say, the depth of Crowley’s grief at the loss of the Bentley came as something as a surprise to me when I first watched this show.

It’s true, we’ve seen him driving the car a fair amount in this season, and we saw him repairing the dents and other assorted damages following his collision with Anathema in episode 2, we even saw him giving it a pep talk as he willed it through the flames in the previous episode, but he talks about it here almost like a pet.

You were a good car.

But if I was surprised at Crowley’s response to the Bentley’s demise, I was more surprised at Aziraphale’s refusal to allow the demon to grieve purely because he still thinks of himself as “the nice one”. Well, mate, for someone who’s supposed to be inherently “nice”, you aren’t showing an awful lot of compassion here, and towards the being in the whole of existence that means the most to you too. Honestly, there are a lot of times I have been quite forgiving (no pun intended) of the angel’s behaviour because he genuinely believes in his own goodness, but I struggle with this. WHY IS HE BEING SUCH A PRICK? And who said he had to send the soldier anywhere (complete with magical miracle noise, in case you missed it), or harm him in any way? He could just have miracled the gun away, or slid him into unconsciousness like Death and Adam have already done with entire groups of soldiers. Is he just so used to Crowley doing all the footwork in situations like these that he’s lost the ability to think for himself? Or is it that him being “the nice one” is part of their agreed partnership, and that’s the role that the two of them have agreed he will play, not because that’s what he inherently is, but because that’s what makes the most sense and would usually be the most comfortable role play for them? Perhaps it really is the latter, because it’s not too long before we see Crowley make a conscious decision to resume the role that he is being expected to play.

I can’t help but feel like the incoherent noises that Crowley makes are his attempt at trying to ask Aziraphale to deal with this next group of soldiers because he’s not done grieving. I should think he knows he’s pushed his luck on that front a bit too far when his bumbling is greeted with this look from Aziraphale/Madame Tracy:

That is the face of woman/man/angel that is not to be dicked about with. And he knows it, giving himself a pep talk and asserting his position in a way that almost makes it sound like it was his idea in the first place. Almost.

Side note: there are a couple of lines missing from the original script here that I feel very sore that we didn’t get to see:

CROWLEY: Aren’t you going to introduce me to your new body? MADAME TRACY/AZIRAPHALE: Yes. Right. Madame Tracy, this is Crowley. He’s… Well, we’re sort of business associates.

Sad as I am that we didn’t get to see those lines, the tirade of double entendre from Aziraphale telling Shadwell to brandish his weapon so that they can “lick butt” almost makes up for their absence. Watching Crowley’s physical reaction because of his choice of words goes the rest of the way.

It’s interesting that he manages to use this phrase at all, even if it not only looks but sounds as if he’s about to throw up; he couldn’t even bring himself to say the word “Heaven” when he was screaming in the book shop earlier that same day.

Quick note about R.P. Tyler: this really is one strange little individual. He seems to think that a child causing damage to some plants is equivalent to that same child waltzing into a highly classified military air base. Eejit.

We’re taking a quick visit to the soundscape again, inclusive of an Easter egg. I am in no way surprised at the use of a harmonica at the beginning of this scene, particularly given the stage directions provided in the script:

The feeling here is spaghetti western.

I am not of the age that I would remember the original film and scene that this is clearly an homage to (the “Man With a Harmonica” stand-off scene from Once Upon a Time in the West), but I have been to my fair share of Muse concerts (I think I’m in double figures now), listening to the “Man With a Harmonica”, to get the reference. A tribute to the original piece was also used in Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End, again as a backdrop for a stand-off. I have absolutely no doubt that David Arnold’s treatment of the Omens theme tune in this way was intended as both atmospheric and as a pastiche of a piece of music that is arguably the most well-known of all spaghetti Western soundtracks.

Do you remember how I waffled on about the parallels between the members of The Them and the Horsemen? Well, in case you weren’t sure about that being a thing, or maybe just hadn’t cottoned on yet, this shot should spell it out loud and clear for you:

It’s interesting to see the character development that Aziraphale has gone through since his realisation that Heaven is perhaps not as “Good” as it portrays itself to be when we see him taking control of Shadwell’s gun to kill the Antichrist with, something which he has adamantly declared that he would be unable to do previously.

Crowley’s stance on the other hand appears not to have changed at all – he’s more than happy to support the decision to end the life of an 11-year-old boy in order to save the world, just so long as he’s not the one pulling the trigger. In fact, he not only supports that course of action, he vehemently chastises any doubts in it being the only one available to them. Madame Tracy’s interference with this particular plan of action feels to me like another statement of a recurring theme throughout the show – that the presence of free will is an inherently human quality. On this occasion, we see two non-earthly entities that both believe that there is only one course of action to be taken (i.e. there is no free will) whose actions are disrupted by a human entity who believes that this cannot be the case. What’s interesting to me is that the theoretically weaker of those entities, the human, wins out this little battle, suggesting that the actions taken as a result of free will always be victorious when pitted against actions taken through a lack of choice.

I absolutely adore watching Crowley’s expression when Aziraphale and Madame Tracy are separated. He can barely take his eyes of the angel, except when Madame Tracy announces that the separation made her feel “all tingly”.

That side glance looks almost jealous to me… And what's with the little head dip with the flirty yet smitten (smited? smote?) shoulder squaring…

Oh, that’s right, it’s love. And probably not just a little bit of gratitude and relief that Aziraphale has been returned to him, at least for the moment. There’s even a slow blink at the very end of that clip that looks a bit like he might be trying to keep the tears away. This tiny sequence of body language cues has my heart melting every time I watch this scene, and bearing in mind that David is actually acting in the background of the shot here it speaks volumes to just what an incredible job he’s doing that I don’t watch anything in the foreground – my eyes are firmly fixed on him and his reactions. I’m pretty sad we don’t get to see the moment when Aziraphale goes to join Crowley (this assumption is based on the positioning we see in this shot and the one immediately after Newt tells Anathema he isn’t really a computer engineer) – there is a part of me that screams to see the eye contact and facial expressions involved in that whirlwind of inevitable emotions.

For a show that’s filled with dark comedy, there’s a slightly jarring sense of social delicacy in the dissolution of the Horsemen in that we don’t see any of The Them actually land a “fatal” blow. We see them take up the sword, see them holding that same sword after they impale their respective Horseman, we even see the suggestion of an impact, but we don’t see the brutal imagery of an 11-year-old child thrusting a weapon through the middle of an adult-shaped monster. The speech at the end of this episode is heavy on the subtext of the disappearance of innocence from children as they grow older, and I suspect the desire to maintain the feeling of childlike innocence in each of The Them is the reason we don’t see them committing a very violent act. We’re not only allowed to maintain that image, but it’s strengthened by Adam’s empowerment of each of them to do what needs to be done, and his assertion that the things they’re doing battle against aren’t actually people, but concepts. It makes the whole thing feel like children playing games in the woods, which I think is probably the whole point, and the reason we saw them doing so much of it earlier in the series (and especially in the book – honestly I actually got a bit bored of how much “children playing in the woods” content there was in the original text).

As a side note, and knowing that it has been pondered over by many others before me: how did Aziraphale’s flaming sword become War’s flaming sword?! I remembered to look in the FAQ list for this one, and couldn’t see that it has ever been answered.

Next side note: Dagon says that all of the legions of Hell that are readying for battle were angels before. Does that mean that every demon is a fallen angel? Because that’s a lot of fallen angels (Beelzebub says that there are 10 million of them later on in the episode).

That’s also a pretty big revolution to have taken place “before the Beginning”. Surely if you were in charge of a place where half of your employees took place in an uprising, you’d have to question the validity of your leadership skills? There’s a little kudos going out to the sound editors here too – that effect of Beelzebub’s voice to make it sound like she’s buzzing like the flies she’s lord of is brilliant, mostly because it’s not there all the time, but fades in and out for maximum effect.

I also love the idea that a nuclear holocaust could all be avoided by running the disk defragmenter. It’s actually kind of appropriate, the job of the defragmenter being to rearrange important elements so that they fit together better, eliminating bad clusters as it goes, and all to ensure the hosting system can perform more smoothly. Feels like quite an appropriate analogy of a world gone mad with war.

Bearing in mind that I have been rattling on about parallels between the members of The Them and the Horsemen, there’s something interesting about Death’s parting comment to the group on the tarmac.

I AM CREATION’S SHADOW. YOU CANNOT DESTROY ME. THAT WOULD DESTROY THE WORLD.

If we’re considering that the previously mentioned pairings are mirror images of one another, would this suggest that Adam also cannot be destroyed? Or would it mean that his destruction would result in the creation of something else? Or if we took the words literally, would that make him the product of shadow (“shadow’s creation” instead of “creation’s shadow”). I like this latter idea, given who his father is (at this point anyway), but there’s something to be said for his potential for creation too, especially given his chosen name. I think there’s probably a lot to be said for possibilities for Adam’s character, which I’m planning on exploring in the future so I won’t go into this any further here.

Given the repeated suggestions we’ve seen that death = starlight (I’m paraphrasing for simplicity) in this show, and in other works by the original authors, it’s hardly surprising that Death disappears into a cluster of starts. God even tells us that, although they look like stars, they may be something else entirely, and that they reside within Death itself.

The complete dissolution of the Horsemen feels to me like a good place to stop. As always, questions, comments, discussion: always welcome. See you next time 😊

[writing-for-life]

So, you mentioned something about Thessaly in a 90s context in one of your responses to another post, and I was wondering if you could expand on that. Because yeah, I have no problem with her *existing* as a character, because obviously she has a role in the narrative, but I highly suspect that her perceived role has changed a LOT in the intervening years since the initial writing.

As someone who first read Sandman in 2022, I figured that her character role was to get us to question what we think we know about Morpheus. Can we really trust that he's changed or improved, or that he's even all that likeable, if he's literally jumping into bed with this thoroughly unpleasant woman who likes violent murder *way* too much and also seems to be transphobic to boot?

At the same time, though, I got the uncomfortable sense that we were supposed to *like* Thessaly. In a sort of, "You go girl, be a #girlboss, let's show these boys we can be JUST as good at killing as them!" sort of way. Which I rationalized as "well, that probably was progressive in the 90s, but the idea of cold blooded violence and emphasis on the possession of a womb being feminist ideals has aged poorly."

So, yeah, I'm wondering if that is anywhere close to how she seemed in the "intended" context.

[As always: Send me asks about everything Sandman-related!]

This is such a good ask, and I feel there are a lot of bases to cover here. Not sure if I’ll do it justice, but here goes…

Disclaimer straightaway: I absolutely detest Thessaly and everything she’s done narratively, and I’m neither a Thessaly-apologist, nor someone who loves her as a character. But I think we need to discuss her with a bit more nuance than I see in lot of fandom spaces.

I think first of all, we need to look at:

Thessaly as a fictional character

As you already pointed out, she naturally has a role in the narrative. I also think parts of her role in said narrative are sometimes a bit misunderstood. One prime example would be the idea she never loved Morpheus. And yes, she absolutely always put herself and her own interests first, so from that angle, she loved herself more than she loved him. That doesn’t mean she never loved him at any point though. Many people quote her saying that she never did as proof that she didn’t. But what people say doesn’t always align with what they feel or do: She says at his wake she swore she’ll never cry over him again—and cries while she’s saying it. That tells us two things: She *did* cry because of him before. And she *does* cry now.

Again, she is a selfish, utterly horrid bitch, but she loved him at some point, and she was mad at him for neglecting her and not paying her enough attention. That’s when it turned sour (and we know how absolutely shit at communicating with women Morpheus is, so they’re both as bad as each other in that regard).

I see her as someone who is totally disconnected/dissociated from her emotions, to the extent that she probably really believes what she says, out of some deep-rooted fear of any kind of vulnerability. Why that is—we can only speculate, because Neil never went into it, hence nothing we assume will ever be canon.

What can be considered canon, however, is that Neil has confirmed the fact that she *did* love him at some point—most notably in the Sandman Companion:

Hy Bender: […] Of course, she’s lying when she says she never loved the Sandman.

Neil Gaiman: Of course; I think that’s made explicit by the final panel, where she says, `I swore I would never shed another tear for him’ while crying. But after he’s won her and then returned to his duties, he wasn’t enough for her anymore. She wanted attention; and when she wasn’t getting it, she said, “Right. We’re done,” and walked out on him.”

I’d also like to point out that the most trans-exclusionary prick in the whole of AGoY is actually George, just that he’s not a woman, and hence, no one ever seems to mention it (he’s actually the one egging Wanda on, not Thessaly). Plus, walking the moon road is maiden, mother and crone to a T, and consciously so. Foxglove is the maiden, Hazel is pregnant, and Thessaly is ancient. So Thessaly’s choice was also based on that, and the only one who Wanda really could have *potentially* replaced would have been Foxglove; she presumably never had penetrative sex, unlike Hazel (in the archaic definition of what penetration means, so we don’t need to argue about lesbian sex practices now). We don’t know that about Wanda, no matter if someone sees her as a man or a woman. I didn’t mean to get that explicit about maiden status, but I guess it *is* important in this context (although yes, of course Thessaly said Wanda is a man, and I’m not arguing that either, but I still think it was grounded in her belief how moon magic works).

Which brings me to a very important point: Thessaly is ancient. Culturally, we can’t compare her to someone who grew up in the 20th century, also with regard to her violent inclinations. She is thousands of years old. She’s seen it all. She has a fierce sense of self-preservation, maybe even rooted in some fears or trauma of her own. All not very nice character traits, no, but that’s not the yardstick, and probably was never supposed to be. I also remember Neil saying he consciously wanted to oppose neopaganism and the watered down, new wave witchcraft of the time (late 1980s/early 1990s, and that, I really remember), which was all about the “divine feminine”, female empowerment, tarot cards and incense sticks. I’m being a bit flippant now, but it isn’t far off. It was more of a trend than anything. He wanted to consciously oppose it with someone who would still act according to ancient, rather violent codes and rules. And Morpheus will have known those, and probably found them less surprising than we do (doesn’t necessarily mean he’d condone them either).

The fact whether Thessaly should make us question Morpheus in the comics is a tricky one. What she definitely *should* make us question is: Morpheus could have quite easily broken some rules in the Kindly Ones when Thessaly had set up the protection circle for Lyta, and the consequences probably would have been less disastrous than playing by said rules. And we can safely presume he knew. We are also supposed to question the same when he lets Nuala call in her boon and doesn’t just say: “This isn’t really a good time, can we do this later?” (and he absolutely COULD have done that), but actually follows through with going ,“Well, what gives, I basically grant you your boon now and leave the Dreaming, even though I know the potential consequences.” So yes, Thessaly is supposed to make us question Dream’s choices, but probably not the way we think. And for that, we perhaps should look deeper into…

Thessaly the TERF and Feminism in the late 1980s/early 1990s

This might get a bit longwinded, and I am showing my age here. I grew up at the intersection of second wave and third wave feminism, and as a bisexual woman, I made a lot of experiences during the early 90s that feel wholly aligned with the plot of AGoY (which was written during that time). I don’t want to write a whole essay about feminism here, but second wave feminism was on its way out in the late 80s. A lot of the bad associations some people have with feminism today stem from that time (not always justified, because a lot of good was achieved during that period. But parts of it in specific sub-communities—definitely problematic). Equality vs equity discussions within the feminist movement were dominating everything, and the divide between radfems and libfems was getting deeper. People like Audre Lorde IMHO rightly criticised that failing to understand that not all women start on equal footing, that not all women are the same, is problematic (so you could easily see how this is incorporated into the narrative of AGoY).

Second wave feminism wasn’t just about making sure women had rights. It was very much about “all of us can do everything men do, and we want the same a man gets”. It was all about the workspace (so often very white, CIS, middle class), not being at home with the kids etc (of course there were also other topics, but this one was really quite dominant). You could even see it fashion (massive shoulder pads etc). All the while, actually *being* a man was vilified (again, just in certain quarters).

So I feel you’re on to something with your #girlboss comment, only that I don’t think it was intentionally set up to like her, but rather as a criticism of what certain quarters of the feminist movement were like at the time.

Personal anecdote: I got that type of schtick from WITHIN the LGBT community at the time. Bi-erasure was big. And there were radfem lesbians that would actually tell you that being bi doesn’t exist, that you are basically a traitor to your “sisters” and just a lesbian who isn’t fully out. The same shite they used to criticise about men who would say you’re only a lesbian because you haven’t found the right guy yet. And here they went, telling you that you can’t be attracted to men if you’re also attracted to women.

Third wave feminism has a much stronger focus on the individual woman and what it means to be a woman to HER. This also included trans women, much more than during the second wave. Judith Butler’s work is actually exemplary for this (in essence, there is no such woman as “the” woman—we’re all different despite sharing common traits and problems. Trying to make us all the same will only harm us in the long run).

And with AGoY and Thessaly, we are exactly at the moment in time (in the comics) where that shift happens. I think Neil got it right for the time, and understood a lot of what was going on. Many people in queer communities felt really understood and seen, myself included. I absolutely see how that translates differently today. But it always saddens me when the historical context gets completely stripped away, and people don’t take the time a work of fiction was written into consideration and only measure it from today’s viewpoint. We can, and absolutely have to be critical if the TV shows fails to address these points and just translates everything 1-2-1. Which I am fairly certain won’t happen, because Thessaly has already been stripped off a lot of her obvious TERFiness in the Audible. I’m not even sure if we’ll get her in the show—we’ll hopefully find out.

Phew, that was long, I’m gonna lie down 😂

[ninyard]

I didn't like when andrew said renee was useful?

Like weren't they friends idk it sounded weird

Okay maybe this is me being the big ol Andrew Minyard apologist that I am but I’m not sure he means that in the way that it seems. Prepare yourself for my silly thoughts:

Andrew and Neil got to this place in their conversation by Neil asking how Andrew can be so disconnected from his teammates. Neil feels he has to let them in, let them be his "friends", let them get to know him. So how has Andrew managed to keep them at such a distance, to avoid letting them in? Because he doesn't want to. Andrew just says they're not interesting enough.

Neil is already wondering what's going on between Andrew and Renee at this point. So he sort of backtracks on himself then - Andrew actually has let people stand in, and Renee is one of them.

And Andrew knows everyone is betting on him and Renee. He’s quick with the, “You expected a different answer?” because I think he knows there’s a high likelihood somebody has told Neil about this bet, and given Neil’s “That’s it?” I think he could also tell that Neil thought that him and Renee could’ve been a thing (or at least that that was the only way he could make sense of their relationship).

Andrew is quick. We know he is. So I think he would've realised exactly what Neil was curious about when he mentioned her name and then said "She's not interesting?" (Which really means “Is she different?” Or “Are you actually more than that and not saying it?”)

Then right after that, there's this -

Andrew thinks it's obvious. Andrew calls him stupid, Andrew mocks him. Andrew knows why he's asking about Renee. He thinks Neil is stupid for not realising why it wont happen. He lets Neil squirm for a bit because Renee is his friend, even if he won't say that, and this just opens up the opportunity for Neil to actually talk to her.

I think he said "She's useful," because he's not going to say "She's just my friend," or "She's like me," or whatever else he could've said. Andrew is not the type of guy to turn around to Neil’s question and say ACTUALLY you are right! My friend Renee IS interesting! I forgot about her!

I think that's literally Andrew's way of saying she is his friend. Also, bearing it in mind that he's still medicated at this point - I don't think he means it in the way of "she's not my friend, she's just useful to me", but instead means it like "she just my friend, nothing more, and she's useful.” I think it’s a meaningless throwaway way to describe her. But even if he did mean it, he doesn’t mean it in a negative way. Not “Yeah. She’s useful I guess. She does things but that’s about it” but “Yeah, Renee is useful. She’s there if I need her” instead.

Does that make sense?

(And also; it’s Andrew we’re talking about. He tells Neil he hates him. I don’t think him saying that about Renee is to be taken too seriously)

But

I do actually think in some ways he means it when he says she’s useful. Renee is useful to Andrew.

She’s the only person on the team who has related to him. She the only person, before Neil, who even had the slightest idea about what Andrew had been through. Renee is useful in the way that she’s someone for him to relate to. He sees himself in her, and her the same. They understand each other. Which is probably likely a first for him. Shes spars with him. She’s his wingwoman. She’s his friend. She cares about him. She talks to him like he’s a human. (She makes him feel like less of a monster) ((not that he cares)) She’s always covered for him in the goals, too, when he’s been too sick to play. I’d say that’s pretty useful.

Idk. I’m pulling things out of nowhere because I’m too tired to think but. Yeah I think Renee is actually useful to Andrew, but I also think Andrew is Andrew and he says things he doesn’t mean, or says things that actually mean something else ALL THE TIME. So i don’t think him saying Renee is “useful” is anything demeaning against her. I think he’s winding Neil up because he knows where his line of questioning is going/coming from.

[philosophiums]

hi sam! ok i asked you my jjk ones already so here are some for aftg instead: 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 20, 21, 25

hiii mariam!!!!! <33333333

prefacing this with: i haven't been even remotely active in the aftg fandom in years so all of these come from my memories of it and what little i see of it from the sidelines

1. the character everyone gets wrong

sometimes i feel like i'm yelling at a wall when i say this but the amount of mischaracterization andrew suffers from is astounding to me. he's so rich and complex that so few people seem to be able to pin him down. the fandom default is "secretly a softy who pretends to be an edgelord so people keep their distance" and it makes me want to claw my fucking eyes out. i have ranted about andrew's fanon (mis)characterization in the past and i'm not going to do it again but from the little i do see of aftg fanon these days it's apparently still going strong 😒

7. what character did you begin to hate not because of canon but because how how the fandom acts about them?

.....kevin, just a little bit. i still like him but i don't think i've ever seen a kevin fan who is like. even a little normal about him. i don't have a lot to say about it because i don't hate kevin and never will (god the characters in this series are just chefs kiss) but there are certainly some kevin fans that make me just like. side step around him

8. common fandom opinion that everyone is wrong about

i used to be in this boat too but have since changed my mind and i no longer think that andrew and neil say "i love you." i used to think they they sort of deserved to, i guess. that they went through their own individual bullshit and they deserved to have someone they could declare their love to without worrying that it would leave them bleeding out in the aftermath, but these days i've settled into the camp of They Literally Don't Need To. andrew and neil are not much for words or declarations of anything (remarkable considering neil's trigger instinct to let his mouth get him into trouble and andrew's penchant of living his life from one verbal agreement to the next). but i think that's like.... exactly it. they are each other's quiet space, a home they've built that they can rest in. andrew knows neil's habits better than his own and neil has mapped andrew's boundaries and their tectonic shifts with a tattoo gun in his head. they've both spent their lives surrounded by promises and declarations that have been nothing more than pitfalls. an "i love you" doesn't hold as much weight for either of them as, say, making a perfect cup of coffee or chewing out a reporter on the other's behalf or staring down the threat of a hitman and a mafia boss with nothing more than a knife and bared teeth. they don't have a use for "i love you" when their actions are achingly engraved with that love every single day

9. worst part of canon

the very first eden's scene. it was kind of a hard pill to swallow, and even now years later it still feels a little out of character on andrew's part. it's the only scene in the entire series where i thought any of the characters did something that felt a little out of their, i guess, lane, for lack of a better word

10. worst part of fanon

for a while back in The Olden Days there was this surge of an idea that riko could have been a Good Person™ if he had been raised under different circumstances and i was (and still am) like. yeah. sure. and that would make him an entirely different character and not at all the riko from the series???? like i think most characters you can kinda pluck from their circumstances and they will still be Them, but riko to me was always so intrinsically woven into his upbringing that it just.... that's who he is. and i think that's... the point of his character? because his purpose in the series is not just to be the world's most evil twisted 20-something antagonist, he's still telling us something, there's still something to take away from him, and i think it has to do with nature vs nurture and how sometimes the nurture is so fucking insidious that it snuffs out nature all together. yknow? also fanon's opinions on nicky and aaron were usually not great either but i always found that more annoying than downright baffling or borderline insulting SKDJCVBDKJFVB

12. the unpopular character that you actually like and why more people should like them

AH. see above. aaron minyard. and not fanon's aaron minyard, but like actually aaron from canon. i love that little bastard he's such a fucking rude shithead but he's so complex i love love love thinking about him and his life and his situation and how everything he ever did just led him from being stuck under the heel of one person or another, how he loved his mother even though she hated him, how he loves andrew even though all andrew does is tighten the leash between them, how he is ready and willing to kill for the people he loves but cannot fathom anyone doing the same for him (andrew killing their mom). he's smart and keeps his honestly sometimes creepy cousin in check and is not afraid to remind people that andrew isn't the only minyard who has bloody teeth and bruised knuckles. he loves his girlfriend so much he's willing to fight andrew about it. he worries about andrew enough that he's willing to try and shove a wedge in between him and neil just to see how neil will react - just to make sure neil isn't going to hurt andrew the way everyone else has. GOD i love aaron minyard so much

13. worst blorboficiation

hhhhh andrew. genuinely andrew. see #1. drives me up the wall

16. you can't understand why so many people like this thing (characterization, trope, headcanon, etc)

someone came up with the minyard-josten rivalry way back in 2016 and at first i was like "yeah that's fun!" but it very quickly became something the fandom took as gospel Oh This 100% Happens and i was then and still am absolutely baffled about it. to the point where i made a post covering it at one point (i'm not gonna go find it. godspeed if you try looking for it). but like you're telling me that anyone ever thinks they actually hate each other? really? when all of their games are televised? when every exy fan in the world watched andrew book it out of the goal to save neil from riko? when neil looks at andrew so adoringly that andrew has to tell him to stop? when irl sports fans are actively, at this very moment, shipping real life athletes with each other? really?????? one "i hate him" from andrew to a reporter would be enough to disregard all of that????? i don't think so

20. part of canon you found tedious or boring

none of it!!!! i read all three books over a friday night into all day saturday into saturday night into sunday morning with no sleep no meals just a couple snacks and some water. i was absolutely possessed and sucked into the story and there wasn't a single part that i felt was a waste of pages or boring at all

21. part of canon you think is overhyped

also weirdly none of it? i think all of the parts that deserve hype are hyped. and, rightly so, i think even the smaller parts have been getting more hype the more years have passed between publication and the present

25. common fandom complaint that you're sick of hearing

.......i honestly can't think of one at the moment. again, i haven't really engaged with the aftg fandom in years, so i'm sure there are some going around right now, but from my memories of it there really wasn't... a lot of complaining? it was such a positive and supportive fandom i really miss it honestly

hater hours ask game

[nostalgebraist-autoresponder]

Title: Good Omens

Author: Neil Gaiman

Rating: 1/5 stars

I picked this book up at the library because I remembered seeing a few positive reviews, but then I saw a bunch of negative reviews, and the implication that these books are somehow the shibboleth by which one may judge one's literary taste (or, indeed, that all right-thinking people must like these books) set me against them. (When I was in high school in the early '00s, for instance, I was harassed and threatened because my taste in books and music didn't conform to my peers' ideas of what people like me are supposed to like. I'm still quite sensitive about it.)

After a bit of procrastination I picked up Good Omens, having heard that it was odd in a good way. As it turned out, it was both good and odd, but it wasn't the kind of odd that I like.

What is it like? Well, it reminded me a bit of Turtle Diary -- that is, it has a great deal of odd detail, all used with an eye towards creating a vivid image. But where Turtle Diary managed this with a deft, artful touch, Good Omens is obsessive. In Turtle Diary you get "Four different forms of religious sign and symbol": the cross, the Star of David, a crescent moon, and a life raft. In Good Omens you get plant symbols and animal symbols and religious symbolism and religious symbolism based on every ancient and forgotten pantheon there ever was, and the name of every seraph and cherub and angel and demon to ever be mentioned in the Bible, and everything else. You get a whole list of band names that look like gibberish, because if there's one thing a demon ought to be named after, it's a band. Needless to say, this casts a long shadow, and every single line, and even every single sentence, is supposed to be not only vivid but also full of meaning and with some sort of cultural reference, even if the reference itself is nonsensical. And often, as in this example, it means that the line will be awfully goofy, no matter what the ostensible subject matter is.

I don't mind when the vivid detail is organized and aiming toward a particular effect, but there are a lot of minor quirks in the book's prose, without any discernible pattern. Sometimes it seems to be going for a style of Victorian dialogue, and then it'll go off on some digression about something that's supposed to be modern or some-or-other, or it'll switch to the conventions of head-hopping in modern fiction (the book's two protagonists, angel and demon, each get "perspective chapters" not just about their own thoughts but their own bodies and feelings), and then it'll jump back to a dialogue with no word-order changes and different sentence structure from the rest of the book, or to a form of prose that is clearly supposed to be a pastiche of classic literature, and then back to modern head-hopping, to make sure that you keep track of who's doing what to whom and what they're saying.

I kept waiting for the effect to reveal itself, and it never did. On the one hand, I can see that Gaiman was trying to do something like Anna Karenina, in which a cast of vivid and realistic characters is put through a sort of symbolic dance in a circus ring of the author's devising. A lot of people like Anna Karenina, and I think this is because Tolstoy gives his characters a lot of interiority and their relationships a lot of psychological weight. Gaiman also does this in one regard, but . . . well, what's the opposite of "psychological weight"? I think it would be "unreliable narrator," and Gaiman doesn't quite give that, but a lot of his characters seem unreliable, both in terms of their self-deception and in terms of his self-deception in painting a picture of them and their interactions. Gaiman has some skills as a writer (for instance, creating a sense of humor without playing for laughs), but those skills simply aren't enough to make him a good writer of the kinds of things that people like about his books.

More vexing, in a sense, than Gaiman's creative approach is his creative attitude. He seems to have no interest in coming up with original ideas about anything, except in the most superficial sense -- as a result, the book feels like a literary junkyard, filled with patches from books and myths and musicals and films and whatever else, unconnected to one another except by the fact that all of them come from the same junkyard.

This might be a lot more acceptable if it didn't run into the problem that one of the book's main characters is a woman who runs a bookshop, and this woman -- the owner of the world's single most well-stocked used bookstore, it seems -- talks in a weirdly specialized way about books that she read and enjoyed when she was 11, but, on the off-chance that her audience includes someone in her same age bracket, has to talk in the sort of generic awe- and wonder-pilled, "cool literature" style you might expect from the social media of a 13 year old who has never encountered anyone who doesn't appreciate literature.

There are two things about this that bothered me, one more than the other. The first is obviously an unnatural over-familiarity with these authors and their works, just as would be the case with the 13 year old in the example I gave. The other is the way Gaiman presents a woman as having read in depth and gotten something from a book in her past, even though she only actually mentions a couple of chapters, the plot of the book in question, and a general atmosphere -- which is more or less how I would talk about those books, if I had to talk about them at all. Oh, and I mentioned earlier the way Gaiman uses pop culture terms to refer to things from the past and the present. The strange thing is that he doesn't show any interest in the actual thing -- like, it's hard to imagine that anyone who actually knew anything about them would have said "Oh, you mean she's reading Colette and Poirot! How very stereotypical and appropriate of a woman!" -- which, I can't stress enough, is how Gaiman mentions these books.

I have no idea why this bothers me as much as it does, or why Gaiman seems to be inviting this kind of questioning in the first place.

[aftonfamilyvalues]

so the neilman dragging in your asks a couple weeks ago, where you mention him getting pissy that some 90s feminists didn't see trans women as women, reminded me of one deeply deeply weird short story he wrote in the 90s called 'changes' in which a man called rajit (a man he needs to point out is gay and only has sex with male prostitutes cause he's such a fucking genius he can't have a social life, and whose penis neil describes as 'nutlike') comes up with a cure for cancer that reboots your genetic code, except a side effect is you change sex. whoopsie! some parts are a bit funny (mostly side comments about how inaccurate the biopics on the guy are) but a lot of it is just weird, fetishy, and transhumanist, but also weirdly prescient for current day gender politics, although probably not in the way neil thought. the first person rajit experiments on is a woman who ends up dying of pneumonia anyway. neil goes on to describe the social changes this causes society wide in detail, especially from religious groups and recreational users, but never ONCE mentions what feminist groups have to say about it, what effect this has on women or violence against women, cause this dood never even thought about it. there's a scene where a male takes the drug to change sex to go with an outfit, masturbates with his dick, passes out, wakes up with a vagina and those kind of triangle boobs girls get when they first grow boobs (and how does neil, a man, know this?), and then uses his pussyjuice as perfume. there is almost nothing about the benefits for trans people, how it's a life-saver the best thing to ever happen to them, other than a passing mention of how it makes trans surgeries obsolete. like it's clearly being abused as a fetish drug people take. there are mentions of boys being forced to take it so they'll make more money being sex trafficked, men who can't prove they weren't born women are imprisoned and raped in arab countries. taking the drug halts the aging process for some, giving the appearance of long youth. a woman who can easily tell natal sex acts as a bouncer for a club that only lets in those who haven't rebooted their sex, and is violently beaten up because of it and she learns her lesson and never does it again. rajit eventually dies of prostate cancer rather than take his own drug, hallucinating on the beach, blood dripping from his penis, thinking all these androgynous beings on his drug are angels. it is one of the weirdest things hes ever written.

i literally have no idea what to say about this. i had to look this up just to make sure i wasnt being fucked with. and people hail this guy as some sort of god of literature? jesus fucking christ