#i've seen some people be like 'crowley is just as wrong for suggesting they run away'

[sunderwight]

finally put my finger on something that's been bugging me about people going "aziraphale is allowed to make mistakes!" (totally true) but then almost always following it up with "crowley makes mistakes as well!" (also true, but...)

the thing is, crowley's mistakes are totally irrelevant to the conversation about aziraphale's mistakes.

it feels kind of like there's this tendency to reach over and be like, see, aziraphale's not making a uniquely bad mistake here, crowley has also made mistakes, so it evens out and ergo no one is worse than anyone else! and that's what's important! keeping everything perfectly balanced at all times is the only way to have a healthy relationship!

but a relationship is not only "equal" if everyone's always got comparable successes and failures at all times. even if we give crowley the moral high ground for the last bit of s2, that doesn't mean aziraphale is put in the red in some kind of cosmic ledger system that he subsequently needs to atone for. that kind of thinking is in fact some of the thinking that the show is positing as a problem.

aziraphale can "do the bad thing" and still not be a bad guy. we've seen that throughout history, he's struggled to reconcile himself to his own imperfections. it's in fact deeply uncomfortable for him to contemplate being really, seriously wrong, making a truly wrong decision, because he's learned to equate that with falling. if he does bad things, makes big mistakes, then he should stop being an angel, shouldn't he? that's how it went for crowley, after all. but for crowley's part the worries around doing troublesome is completely different. that's just a fear of retribution if hell finds out, not an internal conflict within himself. not like how it is for aziraphale. crowley's afraid of getting caught, not afraid of what his choices actually say about him.

deep down, aziraphale knows that he's fallible. he knows it better than he'd like to, I think. but he also thinks that he's not supposed to be. so he's terrified of it. it's a big source of anxiety for him, and I think an underappreciated aspect of his dynamic with crowley is that even though crowley also knows aziraphale has flaws and doesn't judge him for them (even likes him for them), crowley is a demon, so his acceptance is also troubling sometimes. the being aziraphale agrees with nine times out of ten and whose judgment he trusts more than anyone else's, is a demon. someone who is supposed to be "evil", who lived through aziraphale's nightmare scenario as a result of his opinions. so what does that say about aziraphale? of course, it's actually really good for him that crowley accepts him. someone should! but it's not easy for aziraphale to accept that acceptance... erm, sort of.

ironically aziraphale's fear of making big mistakes actually leaves him more vulnerable to doing that, because he doesn't fully trust himself or particularly want to introspect either. he's willing to be swayed by manipulative people telling him what he wants to hear. sometimes that's frivolous, like crowley tempting him with something he likes, and sometimes it's serious, like the metatron offering him a "promotion" on a silver platter with an apparent solution to several other dilemmas too.

personally, I think that it's a fitting part of aziraphale's journey if he's just made a big, unambiguous mistake. I think he's overdue for one of those. because that's how we get to the point where he can confront his fear of them. if this isn't another one of those grey area situations like the sword or the many times he's lied to heaven or waffled back and forth over topics like grave robbing and medical advancements, if this just ends up being a fucking disaster of a decision, he will have to go through that and realize that he's still loved. he's still himself. he didn't suddenly become a villain or monster. he just made a bad call in a tough situation. happens all the time!

and none of that ought to be compared with crowley also making mistakes, because it's established that crowley, a demon, has already fucked around and found out. he doesn't need to learn that he can make mistakes, he's not on the same part of this personal journey as aziraphale. if anything, crowley needs to learn that he can actually succeed in changing things for the better sometimes, and that it's always worth it to try.

[twilightcitysky]

Everything Is Meant (long S2 analysis, part 1)

I cannot figure out for the life of me how to make gifs so this will have to be a gif-less essay. If anyone more tech savvy than me wants to reblog with relevant media, please do!

I've seen a lot of people saying how Aziraphale's actions in the final ten minutes come out of left field and are OOC, and when I first watched the episode I felt the same, but now I think I couldn't have been more wrong. And I don't think Aziraphale is being controlled... I think the entire season showed us exactly what was going to happen.

On first watch, what struck me was the number of plot points that seemed disconnected. I couldn't figure out how Job related to the present, or the Victorian era, or the Nazi zombies (still at sea on the zombies part tbh). I didn't know where the Maggie/ Nina subplot was going, or why we were bothering with it. Then I put my "psych hat" on and it was like seeing one of those 3D pictures come into focus. It's a psychological networking rather than a plot-driven one, which is what Neil told us to expect.

Detailed analysis under the cut, with spoilers:

I went back through the season in my head and started asking myself: why is this element there? What does it contribute?

1. Start with scene one. Why include it? Does it matter for the climax that Az knew Crowley as an angel? YES. It's actually huge. Angel Crowley was joyful, he was bursting with delight at creation, he was idealistic. He wanted to be a part of everything rather than run away from it, and that's still how Aziraphale feels. He loves being a part of things. He's a joiner. He's a landlord. He dances at clubs and he makes human friends and he learns magic. Crowley the demon doesn't seem to want any of that, and I think that's hard for Az. He wants Crowley to be free of the cynicism he thinks prevents him from enjoying life now. At some level, I think he senses that Crowley is depressed (empathy's not his strong suit but I'm sure he's aware that Crowley's in a "what's the point of it all" kind of mood; see the eccles cakes scene). He wants to fix it. Aziraphale is a fixer. Metatron offers him a chance to do that.

Another thing is that Aziraphale knows Crowley ended up Falling just for asking questions that seemed innocent. That's not okay with him. He thinks that with the two of them in charge they can actually MAKE the changes that Crowley wanted to see way back at the beginning, starting with a suggestion box.

2. Okay, now Jim. Obviously Gabriel/ Jim is the central mystery, but why does he matter? First and foremost: he's there to show Aziraphale that angels can CHANGE. Gabriel terrorized and threatened Aziraphale. Az has been terrified of him. He ordered Aziraphale's execution. And now here he is, drinking hot chocolate, doing noble self-sacrificing things, with morals that suddenly align with Aziraphale's. What an absolute game-changer that must have been! He thought Heaven was unfixable, but here's Gabriel in his shop for weeks, slowly convincing him otherwise.

Then two other things happen. First, they find out that this all happened to Gabriel essentially because he fell in love. He was fired and his memories were stolen and the only reason he recovered was because Beelzebub happened to give him the one thing that could save him. That must have seemed like incredible luck. Now, how does Aziraphale feel about memories? He lives in a bookshop that is stuffed to bursting with the records of all of human history, essentially. His memories of his time with Crowley are incredibly precious. He sees, there at the end, that everything he is can be taken from him as a punishment for falling in love. Aziraphale doesn't have a magic fly container. He'd be forever robbed of Crowley, his life, himself. It's a very real threat in his mind when Metatron intervenes.

Which brings us to the second thing. Metatron saves Gabriel. Not only that, he prevents him from being punished for loving Beelzebub and lets them both go. What better way to win currency with Aziraphale? HE doesn't want to go off to Alpha Centauri, he never has, but suddenly he sees that Metatron might protect his relationship. And he's probably the only entity with the power to do so.

So we come to two conclusions: Aziraphale, when he goes off to talk with Metatron, is feeling like maybe it's not intrinsically bad to be an angel. He believed all the angels sucked, and only God was good... but now he sees that even Gabriel can change. He met Muriel, and he likes them. (He also had a huge crush on angel Crowley, which is neither here nor there but he loves Crowley in all his forms.) So if Crowley became an angel again, would that really be so bad? In his mind, it wouldn't change who Crowley is. It would just make them both safer and allow them to be together. (He's wrong! And Crowley doesn't see it that way! But this is a key miscommunication. Aziraphale doesn't really believe that becoming a demon changed Crowley. Back to the first scene, which Aziraphale references during the Job minisode. In his eyes, Crowley is the same person (just more cynical because of what's happened to him)-- so why would it matter if he's an angel again? I truly don't think he was trying to save Crowley, or saying that Crowley would be Better as an angel. To him, it doesn't matter what Crowley is. Which is reductive and harmful, but not the same as thinking Crowley needs rescuing from himself.)

Second conclusion: he sees that an angel and demon can be in love, but they have to run away to be together. Gabe and Beelz couldn't go home again. Earth is Aziraphale's home, but after the attack on the bookshop he learned that without Heaven's protection he can't really keep them safe there. Metatron says: "Come with me, do this thing, and you can have guaranteed safety AND be with the love of your life". Poor Aziraphale wants this with every fiber of his being. All he's ever wanted was for Crowley to be safe. He's never been able to offer it. Over the past four years, he thought they were safe, but he's just learned that he was wrong.

This is getting long. Continued in Part Two!

[ineffable-endearments]

I was rethinking the bookshop meta I wrote a while ago and realized I was not thinking big enough.

The bookshop has always been Aziraphale's version of Crowley's plants (his trauma reenactment), but also, absolutely everything Aziraphale does in Season 2 is a re-creation of Heaven's role. Crowley's behavior also encompasses everything, not just his plants.

I've seen it suggested that centering Aziraphale and Crowley's trauma histories is reducing their characters to behaving like just reactive victims instead of survivors with agency. Or worse, it's "excusing bad behavior." I don't agree with either of these, because I feel that part of Good Omens is about how large, powerful systems affect individuals, and so the context of every character's decisions matters a lot to the overall themes of the story. Everyone starts out working within a system they believe to reflect reality and then has to learn how to break free of it. You cannot really illustrate that without having the characters start out being genuinely trapped with different ways of coping with their reality.

This is an attempt at a pretty big-picture meta. Although it isn't a plot prediction, it's how I think some of the series' themes are going to progress. It starts out perhaps a little grim, but in the long run, it's how Aziraphale's character growth and relationship with Crowley can simultaneously be massive for them as individuals, a crucial part of the overarching narrative message of the series, and symbolic of a change in all of Heaven and Hell, all while allowing the themes to continue to prioritize human free will.

In short, it's about Aziraphale's problems, but it's also meant to be an Aziraphale love post.

All of the below exists in tandem with Good Omens as a comedy of errors. Just because there are heavy ideas does not mean they will not also be funny. Look back on how much of Season 2 seemed silly until we started to pick it apart! One of the amazing things about Good Omens is how it manages to do both silly and serious at once! (I feel like that's maybe a little Terry Pratchett DNA showing through. "Laughter can get through the keyhole while seriousness is still hammering on the door," as Terry himself said.)

Aziraphale has really embraced his connection to Crowley in Season 2, and he has also become considerably more assertive toward Heaven and Hell. These are both major growth points compared to the beginning of Season 1.

However, again, we have the concept of growing pains...Aziraphale is starting to re-create Heaven's role in his relationship with Crowley and humanity. It's really obvious with the Gabriel argument and the I Was Wrong Dance, but I think we see it all over the place: he seems to feel any serious dissent is a betrayal. He also seems to assume there's a dominance hierarchy and he, of course, is on top. Now that he's decided to take control of his own future, then surely that does mean he's the one in control, right?

With all that said, he still seems to have trouble being direct about the feelings that make him most vulnerable. He manipulates people and engineers situations in which he can try to get his emotional needs met rather than saying things outright (case in point: the Ball).

Like I pointed out in the bookshop meta: subconsciously, he's playing the role of God, modified with what God would be if She were everything he wants Her to be. He's generous, almost infinitely sweet, always does what's best for people...or, at least, what he believes is best for people. During the Ball, Aziraphale influences the people around him to be comfortable and happy even when they're not supposed to be, and he limits their ability to talk about things he thinks are too rude or improper for happy, formal occasions.

Doesn't this pattern sort of make sense for an angel who's just discovering free will? Like, at the end of Season 1, he made an enormous choice to stand against Heaven and realized he could survive it. Now he's gone a bit overboard with exerting his own will. Unfortunately, while he's learned to question upper management, he's still operating on a fundamental framework of the universe where there have to be two sides and there has to be a hierarchy. Also, since Aziraphale is on the Good side, he of course has to gear his desires into what's Good rather than just what he wants, so he sometimes thinks he's doing things for others when really he's doing things for himself. (For example, matchmaking Maggie and Nina started out as something he wanted to use to lie to Heaven, but by the time he was commenting "Maggie and Nina are counting on me," he seemed sincere, like he had genuinely convinced himself this was for them and not for himself.)

Aziraphale knows Heaven interferes in human affairs, ostensibly on God's behalf. He thinks She should be intervening in ways that are beneficial. What I believe the narrative wants him to learn is that God and Heaven shouldn't be manipulating people at all, not even for Good, and in fact there is no real meaningful hierarchy.

Anyway, a top-down, totally unquestioned hierarchy is the primary social relationship Aziraphale has known, and it's certainly been the dominant one for most of his existence: you're either the boss or the underling, and if someone seriously questions you, they don't have faith in you - they don't respect you.

No, his relationship with Crowley has not always been like that, but they've been creating their relationship from whole cloth, so how would he know it shouldn't become that way, now that it's "real" and out in the open?

No, human relationships aren't like that, but Aziraphale clearly does not see himself or Crowley as human. As the relationship approached something that seemed like it must be "legitimate," Aziraphale would naturally look for a framework to fit it to. And again, the only one he has is the shape of "intimacy," or what passes for it, in Heaven. What has "trust" always meant in all his "legitimate" relationships? It has always meant unquestioning obedience, of course. What have the warm fuzzies felt like in Heaven? Well, praise from the angels above him is nice, so that must be it, right?

Aziraphale even describes being in love as "what humans do," separating out that relationship style. Someday, I think he'll realize he favors the shape of love on Earth, something that's more inherently equal, more give-and-take. Look at how he idealizes it from afar at the Ball. But I think that, like Crowley before Nina pointed it out, Aziraphale maybe hasn't 100% grokked that it can and in fact should work that way for him and Crowley, too. Just like people can desperately want to dance without knowing how to dance, or can desperately want to speak a language without knowing the language, Aziraphale does not instinctively know how to have the kind of relationship where he can be truly vulnerable and handle Crowley's vulnerability as well.

Aziraphale is downright obsessed with French, known as the "language of love." He's trying to learn it the Earthly way. He's not very good at it, but he wants to be.

This pattern is still present during the Final Fifteen even if we assume Aziraphale is asking Crowley to become an angel again out of fear (and I find it very hard to believe that fear doesn't factor in at all). He's still building his interactions off of that Heaven-like framework: he asks Crowley to trust him blindly, he tries to assume a leadership role with a plan Crowley never agreed to and couldn't follow anyway, and he tries very hard not to leave room for an ounce of doubt. He also suggests making Crowley his second-in-command and obviously does not register that this could possibly be offensive. Again, I think this is because for Aziraphale, there has always been a hierarchy in Heaven, it's started to transfer to his relationship with Crowley, and breaking out of that assumption about relationships is going to take more processing than a single argument can do.

As I mentioned in another post, I don't believe Aziraphale had a real choice about whether he accepted the Supreme Archangel position. I think he could sense that he was not getting out of it and chose to look on the bright side, to see it as an opportunity. And instead of looking realistically at how that would feel to Crowley, he tried to sweep Crowley up to Heaven with him using toxic positivity, appeals to morality, and appeals to their relationship itself. Again, mimicking what Heaven has done to him.

To me, "they're not talking" is a big clue that Aziraphale's approach with Crowley is going to be the mistake the narrative really wants him to face. "Not talking" has, thus far, been presented as the central conflict of Season 3! After losing the structure and feedback Heaven gave him, Aziraphale started creating Heaven-like patterns in his relationship with Crowley, and breaking out of those patterns is what he needs to do. Discovering first-hand that Heaven's entire modus operandi is bad no matter who's in charge is how he can do it.

Look, either you're sympathetic to Aziraphale's control issues or you're not. Personally, I am. He's trying so, so hard to be good. I think trying to figure yourself out (which Aziraphale is clearly doing) is hard enough, and when you start balancing what you want for yourself, what you think are your responsibilities, and what other people are actively asking of you, you're bound to fall into the patterns that have been enforced for your whole life or for millions of years, whichever came first.

It is very easy to assume that people should Just Be Better, but it's not actually that simple to be a thinking, feeling person. My anxiety tends to move in a very inward direction and Aziraphale's moves outward. But I'd imagine the desperation and exhaustion are the same.

Unlike Nina, Aziraphale became a rebound mess. I don't think it occurred to either him or to Crowley that there could be any soul-searching, anything but carrying on with the new normal after their stalemate with Heaven and Hell.

Now, instead of getting rejected by Heaven and surviving it, Aziraphale needs to be the one to reject Heaven. It needs to be a choice. And that choice is going to come from realizing that Heaven isn't just poorly managed but also represents a bad framework for all relationships.

How could this happen? Good question. We're obviously not supposed to know yet, although I think picking at existing themes within the narrative could possibly give us hints.

It's possible Aziraphale's character development trajectory will be akin to Adam Young's in Season 1. Please see this stellar post by eidetictelekinetic for more thoughts about it, but basically, in Season 1, Adam saw that the world was not what he wanted it to be and decided his vision was better; as he ascended to power, he took complete control over all his friends and then soon realized that's not what he wants because there's no point in trying to have relationships with people who can't choose you. It's that realization that leads Adam to conclude he doesn't want to take over the world and to reject the role he's expected to play as the Antichrist. Maybe Aziraphale's trip to Heaven is an attempt at a control move during which he'll realize he's defeating his own point.

Aziraphale clearly wants to be chosen. From the very beginning, he's wanted to be special and cared for - just like Crowley has.

Incidentally, I think Aziraphale and Crowley are going to represent pieces of the bigger picture here, and this - first imitating and then rejecting Heaven's relationship style - can both symbolize Heaven's transformation and directly start it (probably in an amusing, somewhat indirect way, like when he handed off the flaming sword to Adam).

If I'm right - which I may very well not be - I think this would all be so, SO cool. Like, "An angel who is subconsciously trying to be a better God" is a concept with so much potential for both tender kindness and incredible darkness. Add to that the comedy-of-errors aspect of "...but even deeper down, he'd much rather just be super gay on Earth" and you have, in my opinion, a perfect character.

I think this could work for Crowley as well. It's obvious that in the Good Omens universe, at least so far, Hell is all about detesting humans and punishing them; Satan seems to genuinely hate humans (unlike in some of NG's other works). Our perspective on this could change, but it potentially puts Crowley in a complementary position to Aziraphale, as a demon who is trying to be "better" than Satan. But this isn't about being "morally better." It's about things having a point. Crowley's exploits usually have a point: they test people. And you can pass his tests! He sincerely likes making trouble, but Crowley doesn't live to punish.

But, once again, the above paragraph would describe a transient phase for this infinitely charming character. Because, again, I think the point will be that in the end, Crowley's deeper-down desire, moreso than testing Creation, is watching it grow with a glass of wine in hand.

[tthael]

Hi, english is not my first language so if I don't make any sense you know why. I'm sorry if i gave you the wrong impression with my ask.I've never read the book so "the shape" of these characters for me personally comes from the movie where Richie is gay. I've recently found out that people that read the book consider him bi. That's why when i read a fic where it's not explicitly stated i always wonder. I saw that you have a tumblr so i was like why not ask.

Hi nonny! Thank you for coming back to clarify, I’m sorry for the defensive tone of my response. Thank you very much for reading my stuff. Nothing about the phrasing of your question was what made me respond that way, just the topic, because I know it’s a hot button issue in fandom at the moment. Nobody wants to be responsible for erasing a sexual minority or a canonical sexual identity--and while in the book Richie’s sexuality is only coded, I’ve been told that André Muschietti explicitly stated that the film portrayal of Richie is gay. So of course, I think that film!Richie is portrayed as gay, and if I were to write Richie based on the film alone, I most likely would write him as gay.

The thing is, I don’t really write exclusively film!Richie. I think that there’s a very rich vein of characterization to be found in the book, which is of course door-stoppingly long, and compared to the limited amount of screentime the movies could spend on each of the Losers, not to mention the changes to their backgrounds the films made (looking at you, tween!Ben who suddenly morphs into adult!Mike), I like to pull from the greatest evidence pool available. That’s why I like to include the teenage werewolf, I like to include Stan’s bird book of North America, I like to include Eddie’s fascination with cars and trains and other mechanical transportation, I like to include Bev’s mother as having been alive during Bev’s childhood, I like to include Ben’s outrunning the track team out of spite, I like to include Bill’s uncanny charisma and his compelling nature, and I like to include Mike with a kinder more curious childhood than he’s allowed in the film. Also, I studied literature in college and I’m just more comfortable with analyzing that than I am analyzing film.

I also really liked the film casting for the adult Losers! It’s very shallow of me but I like how they look, I think they’re all very attractive, and I’m more interested in writing with their physicalities in mind than I am in, say, the actors for the 1990s miniseries. This is a personal preference, just because I myself do not enjoy Bill’s ponytail or Richie’s mustache or Bev as a brunette. I’ve also only ever seen clips of the miniseries. And honestly, I like Bill Hader as Richie in glasses, despite book!Richie wanting to wear contacts as an adult; I find without glasses I have difficulty perceiving him as the character. So I can’t claim to be a book purist--I like writing about the 2016 setting and those are mostly the faces of the Losers I see in my head. I tweak them sometimes--I don’t think I’ve written Richie with blue eyes yet, for example.

So I blend the canons when I decide what to draw on for the fic. That means that, for me, unless it’s explicitly stated, I probably don’t have an intention one way or the other when I write Richie’s sexuality. So far I’ve always written him as a man who loves men, and always as involved and in love with Eddie. I know that for some people that won’t be good enough, that for some people it’s very important to them to see their characters explicitly identify as one label or the other, but I’m afraid that just isn’t a priority for me in my portrayals.

This is informed by 2 things: 1) I like to write the Losers as 40-year-old adults in 2016, and we know that Richie produces a host of problematic content in his career. This of course shouldn’t mean that my portrayal of Richie /should/ be problematic and that’s not my intention--instead, I’m suggesting that when I write Richie, I write a lot about self-loathing and internalized homophobia, and so I focus a lot more on his attraction to men, which in my fic he’s usually not comfortable with, than any potential/past attraction to women. Of course I don’t feel that self-loathing is the necessary response to same-sex attraction, but I also think of the Losers as adults of a certain age who might not always be accurate or thoughtful in discussing the changing world of sexual identities (finding words for them specifically, filling the lexical gap).

I wrote a scene in Things That Happen After Eddie Lives where Richie runs across a gender non-conforming person and initially reads them as female, but then during the conversation remembers that isn’t always the case these days and switch to trying to avoid pronouns for them or trying to refer to them with gender neutral pronouns. But Richie and Eddie still call Jordan and Sarah lesbians, without asking whether they’re a romantic pairing of two bisexual people, or without considering that Jordan might be a man. Richie even wonders if “girlfriend” is being used romantically or platonically the way that women of previous generations do. I have a bead on Jordan’s and Sarah’s identity--but only because Jordan’s me! I think that, as a man born in 1976, growing up extremely closeted, and never engaging in the wider discussion around LGBTQ culture in a constructive way, Richie might be prone to simplification. This, of course, doesn’t mean I’m opposed to a Richie who openly identifies as strictly gay or strictly bi!

2) The second thing that informs the ambiguity of my portrayal of Richie’s sexuality is my own experience with my sexuality and gender. I am closeted in real life. In recent years I have tried a number of identities that, at the time, I believed to fit, but the labels were never clear-cut for me. I am coming to accept, slowly, that in the same way the physical body doesn’t grow to exact neat clean specifications, I might never be able to describe myself accurately and totally in one term. That’s all that I’m willing to share about my experience at this time. My personal philosophy is much like the one Eddie professes when he comes out in Indelicate: it doesn’t seem important to me that people know my preferences unless I’m a) sleeping with them or b) actively dating and trying to put myself out there.

Again, some people have completely different experiences! For some people being closeted is intolerable and having an identity--a word for what they are--really helps them self-actualize and live their truth! For some people, they’re very excited about their identity and participate in Pride events and take joy in asserting that this is who they are to the world! For some people, they never have the awareness that this or that idle feeling might mean they actually /don’t/ fit with how the world sees them. And while I’m a great advocate of self-exploration (comes of being vain as I am), some people don’t do that, and that’s fine!

I know that ambiguity is not a neutral answer when it comes to these questions. In the summer of 2019 when the Good Omens miniseries was released, many fans reached out to author Neil Gaiman asking for confirmation that the angel Aziraphale and the demon Crowley were gay. Gaiman said, “Theirs is a love story.” He said, “They’re not human and I can’t ascribe human sexual identity to them.” He said, “My coauthor is deceased and I can’t make such confirmations without him.” (These are not direct quotes and I don’t have sources, I’m sorry, it’s been a year.) This was not satisfactory to all parties. For some people explicit confirmation of that gender identity is important. And why shouldn’t it be? Their own is important to them.

But I’m from a school of literary analysis where I welcome different interpretations of my works, which are in this case of course derivative and dependent on evidence from the canons I draw on. I write Richie in love with Eddie, and that’s enough for me. If it’s not for the reader, either I feel there’s ample room to interpret my Richie the way they prefer--not just limited to gay or bi! After the first sex scene in TTHAEL Richie is stunned by how he enjoyed that far more than any other sexual encounter he’s ever had, and I think that’s welcome to interpretations of Richie with demisexuality /or/ Richie just finally having fulfilling sex with a man because he’s gay or bi /OR/ Richie has had good sex before but this was just WAY better because he likes sex better when he’s in love with his partner. And every portrayal of Richie I write is slightly different, so Richie from Indelicate might have different sexual attraction/orientation than Richie from Automatic - Mechanical - Pneumatic or Richie from TTHAEL. BUT I don’t want to say that my interpretation is the only valid one--just know that when I write Richie, I write him as a man in love with another man. If I were to write a story about Richie involved with someone other than Eddie, I would tag for it up front.

Again, I know this is a very long answer and probably not as concise or clear as you might like it to be. Thank you so much for coming back around to explain your logic, I apologize for my wariness the first time around, thank you for asking these questions in good faith. “Why not ask” is of course the simplest way to settle an issue and I don’t want to discourage anyone from asking me questions about my fic. If there are other things you have questions about, please don’t hesitate to ask, either here or by sending me a private message, I  don’t mind either way.