#shades of gray

[zu-is-here]

★ Dark Cream week ★ is timed to coincide with the story's anniversary and Cross x Shattered Dream ship ♡

Choose 1 of the 3 prompts from each of 7 lines (days) ☆ You can use the name and/or the color itself! (๑˃̵ᴗ˂̵)

You're free to skip or alternate days (later ones will be reblogged on the corresponding day). Any form of art is welcomed! ♪( ´▽｀)

The week is focused on dark cream ship (Cross and Shattered Dream). Dream and/or cream ship, as well as other characters are acceptable as long as the main pairing is dark cream ˚✧₊⁎

Prompts don't have to be tied to Dark Cream story only: other genders & designs, humanization, crossovers and so on are welcomed as well!╰(*´︶`*)╯

No n/sfw or lemon works here, please (ùwó)

Use the tag #dark cream week and/or tag me so everyone can see your wonderful works! ♡

Cross from xtaleunderverse by jakei95

Shattered Dream from shattereddreamsau by galacii / galacii-gallery | Dream by jokublog

If you have any questions, feel free to ask (*´∀｀*) Good luck and have fun! ☆

[warpfactor9]

"those great android reflexes of yours" geordi. geordi PLEASE.

[daily-dose-of-danno]

Danny warping/distorting himself requested by @ectospacecadet :)

Season 1, Episode 1 - Mystery Meat

Season 1, Episode 4 - Attack of the Killer Garage Sale

Season 1, Episode 10 - Shades of Gray

Season 1, episode 16 - Lucky In Love

Season 1, Episode 18 - Life Lessons

Season 2, Episode 3 - Pirate Radio

Season 2, Episode 8 - The Fright Before Christmas

Season 2, Episode 12 - Beauty Marked

Season 2, Episode 16 - Double Cross my Heart

[countesspetofi]

[pommedepersephone]

You Say Potato, I Say Excellent! Or blocking, accents and legacy of morality tales in ‘The Resurrectionists’ minisode PART II

Alternate title: how Aziraphale’s naivety in this episode was supposed to make you a bit outraged

I have to shout out to @bowtiepastabitch for their AMAZING historical analysis of this minisode - it prompted me to finish this long ramble that has been drifting in my notes. Anyway, I have a major obsession with the ways blocking and dialogue interplay in Good Omens - you can check out my analysis of the blocking in the flashbacks in S1. But The Resurrectionists is really something special. This got so long I am splitting it into two parts. 

What we see in this minisode is a morality tale - a genre of children’s literature that was extremely popular in the early 1800s where the minisode is taking place. Catch up on the historical background in Part I.

When looking at this minisode, it is really important to look at two complementary narrative tools - Crowley’s accent and the placement of Aziraphale in relation to Crowley. Through the minisode, Crowley switches between his standard English accent and a delightful Scottish accent. But the switching isn’t random!

Scottish lines =  character Demon Crowley, who moves the plot of the story along

English lines = Crowley, the moral guide leading Aziraphale

Additionally, the two of them swap sides in their blocking frequently in this episode. Their standard placement is A/R + C/L but the swap to C/R + A/L is almost the norm in this minisode.

Analyzing Blocking and Dialogue

We open in the graveyard, with Aziraphale and Crowley in their standard placement, observing the statue of Gabriel. But then they notice Elspeth, digging up a corpse. When Aziraphale approaches Elspeth to inform her that her actions are Not Good, he actually ends up swapped with Crowley and finds himself on the left because what he is doing - making moral judgments on the actions of Elspeth with no understanding of what led her here - is doing Good, not good.

The next scene finds Crowley helping Elspeth cart the corpse away from the graveyard, while the trio debate all the other ways Elspeth could make money - Aziraphale suggests running a bookshop, farming, weaving, giving the standard Good party line about hard work blah blah blah. Aziraphale remains on the left - after all, those supposed options are completely unrealistic, unobtainable professions for someone in Elspeth's socioeconomic position. They aren't remotely helpful suggestions.

Aziraphale only finds himself back on the right when he and Crowley are introduced to Wee Morag, and have some time to listen and observe the reality of their situation.

Then, off we go to complete our journey to sell the body. Aziraphale and Crowley find themselves having a debate about morality, but Aziraphale is again ON THE LEFT as he waxes poetic about the virtues of poverty - doing Good, not good again. What I loved here was you saw the clear purpose between Crowley’s two accents as he switched mid-line -

Crowley: (SC) Oh, I'm down with wicked! (EN) Anyway, is it wicked? She needed the money. 

Upon reaching the lodging of Mr. Dalrymple, FRCSE, Crowley and Aziraphale take their standard places but this scene has one really important moment that I want to highlight. When they open the barrel to find the rotted corpse, the look on Crowley’s face is so telling. He often finds Aziraphale’s machinations amusing even when they are annoying, but here he looks decidedly disappointed. Aziraphale might have done Good by rendering the body unsellable, but what good did it do? The body is still been un-interred. Elspeth has wasted her energy, and has made a terrible first impression of the surgeon whom she needs to pay her for her services. It looks like Crowley wants to say something, but he stops himself and clenches his jaw. The PATIENCE he is showing to Aziraphale - this is a quality that Crowley has in SPADES but we really see him exercise it here.

After the discussion with Mr. Dalrymple, in which Aziraphale realizes the importance of dissections for educating medical students and thus leading to better care for the living, he asks the right question - why should the poor have to risk death to obtain bodies? But he let's himself get sidetracked by a blatant appeal to his emotions...

At this point, Aziraphale goes all in on body snatching being Good. Which... it still isn't because it is based on a broken system that disadvantages the poor? FOCUS, angel. He even goes as far as to offer to help Elspeth and Wee Morag in obtaining another corpse but note that again, he is on the LEFT -

Remember, Wee Morag is deeply conflicted about the morality of body snatching, and instead of explaining anything to her (like, that having your body dissected won't keep you out of heaven would be start) Aziraphale just sort of joins Elspeth in pressuring her to join in - which is pretty awful and coercive, but gee if that isn't just heaven's playbook for doing Good, not good.

So we return to the graveyard, and this is where everything goes sideways. Aziraphale spends basically this entire sequence on the left. First, he notices the ingenuity of the grave guns but fails to acknowledge the travesty of so much energy being spent on protecting wealthy corpses while the poor suffer. Then, the tragedy strikes. After Wee Morag is shot, Aziraphale wastes time justifying saving her, resulting in her dying before he can act. And after all this, after the heart break of seeing her partner die, we see Elspeth come to the logical conclusion. If body snatching is Good, then might as well take Wee Morag off to Mr. Dalrymple, right?

What shouldn't be overlooked is what takes place when Elspeth gets Wee Morag's body to Mr. Dalrymple. Because while Aziraphale is very clearly illustrating the dangers of black and white morality through religion, Dalrymple is showing that black and white morality through science is just as bad. Dalrymple has unshakable belief in the power of science and knowledge to alleviate human suffering and sees his work at Good. He cares about preventing illness, but ignore his role in perpetuating poverty - an unfortunate side effect of rigid belief systems of all shapes and sizes. He is downright cruel to Elspeth.

This is already getting real long, so we won't go into the absurdist comedy of the scene in the tomb - suffice to say that the surreal nature of Crowley's bargaining with Elspeth smacks of a fantastic tales of pacts made with the devil. It's delightfully unhinged.

The one line I think worth pointing out?

"Do I sound like a goat?"

I think this line is key in the narrative connection between the three minisodes in S2. All three flashbacks show Crowley and Aziraphale engaging in acts of deception, but they all have important differences:

In A Companion to Owls, the two work together, and they manage to pull off the trick and evade punishment.

In Nazi Zombies from Hell, Aziraphale comes up with a plan and Crowley goes along with it, and they barely manage to evade punishment.

In The Resurrectionists, Crowley comes up with a plan and Aziraphale goes along with it, and Crowley is sucked down to hell.

I think it's worth noting just how silly Crowley is in the first two minisodes. Bildad and Scottish Crowley are FUN even when dealing real heavy shit. Just a complete joy to watch. And we never see that level of silly from him again. Whatever happened in hell was clearly really bad since the next time we see him in St. James Park he is asking for holy water. He may have moments, but he is never the same.

Questions, comments, additional thoughts? Lay them on me. I'd love to dig into new lines of inquiry on this minisode because I just love it so much <3

[a-love-like-yours]

I love everything about this scene. It is all so very dear to me, it’s almost unbearable.

But as much as I love the admittance of loneliness, the very beginning of the formation of the team, the side, the group of the two of them ™️, I love even more what was unsaid here.

For all that was said of loneliness, going with their respective offices only so far as they can, being separated by the line of “good and evil”,

This was the moment that each said, in their own loving and unspoken ways, that despite the loneliness, neither was alone in it. They were together.

Involved.

That the other was not alone in their wanderings of the shades of grey between who they were meant to be as a demon and an angel.

And I think that is very beautiful.

[beebopboom]

something about God kicking Adam and Eve out of the garden for gaining the knowledge of good and evil

and Angels and Demons having very black and white thinking about the subject

and Aziraphale’s and Crowley’s character arc being about leaning into those shades of gray

[crime-scene-psychic]

Rip Hawkeye Pierce you would've loved the song Shades of Gray by Billy Joel

[cevansbrat0007]

Would you say growing pains Andy is dark or is he more Grey? I LOVEEEE HIM

If I had to choose, I'd have to say that Andrew Barber is gray. Afterall, his world is all about navigating through shades of gray. While he doesn't necessarily believe in doing everything by the book, he does like rules.

Especially his own.

Andy craves order. He needs discipline. And, most of all, he desires your submission.

He doesn't make friends easily because he doesn't always play well with others. But once that man lets you in, the moment he deems you worthy of belonging in his circle, he is loyal to a fault.

Andrew thought his life was over until he met you. He'd lost everything - his son, his ex-wife, his only shot at happiness. But then he saw you from across the bar, laughing with your friend. For a moment he was convinced that you were too beautiful to be real.

He knew right then that you were going to be his - that he would be willing to do anything to keep you. To hold on to the woman who single-handedly brought color back into his life.

Which also means that he can occasionally be a little...overprotective. He's also got a quick temper, which rounds out his jealous and territorial streak rather well.

But at the end of the day, he loves you - the one woman who colors his entire goddamned world.

[gigglingauspice]

I’m so sorry you can’t vote for more than one. Also please tell me why it’s your favorite in the tags if you can….

[tlmtwelve]

11/15/2024: Crosshair

[warpfactor9]

data worrying about him...

[daily-dose-of-danno]

HI YES.

I would like more draw it in your style (DTIYS). Please grant more screenies, o' benevolent runner of DDOD, for the artists to lose their shit with.

(Please help I’m being held hostage by @underforeversgrace, @hannahmanderr, and @duchi-nesten)

ABSOLUTELY!! :D DTIYS round 2!

Season 1, Episode 10 - Shades of Gray

[winethorn]

a spectrum ✨🩶

black n’ white, in the night! (just made these rhymes up, don’t judge haha)

🖤🤍

[pommedepersephone]

You Say Potato, I Say Excellent! Or blocking, dialogue and legacy of morality tales in ‘The Resurrectionists’ minisode PART I

Alternate title: how Aziraphale’s naivety in this episode was supposed to make you a bit outraged

I have to shout out to @bowtiepastabitch for their AMAZING historical analysis of this minisode - it prompted me to finish this long ramble that has been drifting in my notes. Anyway, I have a major obsession with the ways blocking and dialogue interplay in Good Omens - you can check out my analysis of the blocking in the flashbacks in S1. But The Resurrectionists is really something special. This got so long I am splitting it into two parts. See Part II here!

I should start with three important caveats that brought me to this analysis -

If we accept that S1 is narrated by God, then I propose that S2 is being told from the viewpoint of our Ineffable Man Shaped Beings - and they are NOT reliable narrators.

All three minisodes share a feeling of being… stories. They feel like a slightly exaggerated version they might be told between two old friends sitting in the back room of a bookshop, soused off wine and whisky. Like a journal entry that you don’t actually expect outsiders to see.

All three minisodes have some relation, in style and structure, to film and literature. I'm focusing on the lit aspect here. A Companion to Owls is very illustrated bible. Nazi Zombies from Hell is a pulp fiction master class. So what is The Resurrectionists? A morality tale.

My first thought when we opened on the romantic graveyard date in Edinburgh was “OH it’s like a penny dreadful!” but it didn’t take me long to reassess. Morality tales are a genre of children’s literature that was extremely popular in the early 1800s where the minisode is taking place. But THIS morality tale itself is a more nuanced version of these stories, more along the lines of what an author important in the Good Omens universe would pen. So, first, a little bit of history behind morality tales and a very important author to know, then we get to the blocking and dialogue!

Morality Tales for Children

There had long been differing views in European circles of thought about the nature of children - were they born innately tainted by Original Sin, or were they born as blank slates? In the late 1700s to early 1800s, the view of the blank slate was winning with the help of highly influential educators like Friedrich Froebel (who coined the term kindergarten and emphasized the importance of play in learning.) 

At this same time, there was a rise in literature produced specifically for children. One of the most popular children’s genres? The morality tale. These stories showed Good triumphing over Evil and the importance of leading a respectable, Christian life. The stories were extremely binary, black and white in their presentation of morality, something which deeply influenced many authors who were raised reading them. Authors like G.K. Chesterton.

G.K. Chesterton 

Over his career, Chesterton wrote several plays, 80 books, 200 short stories, 4,000 essays, and several hundred poems. He’s an interesting guy, but suffice to say for our purposes - he was deeply Christian, and his work contains a lot of religious themes and symbolism which he used to write serious commentary on politics, economics and philosophy. If you haven’t read the book, you should know that it the dedication reads thus: 

The authors would like to join the demon Crowley in dedicating this book to the memory of G.K. Chesterton. 

In fact, Crowley says in the book that Chesterton was “The only poet in the twentieth century to even come close to the Truth." So it is probably relevant that Chesterton had opinions about children’s morality tales. He once wrote -

Many people have wondered why it is that children's stories are so full of moralizing. The reason is perfectly simple: it is that children like moralizing more than anything else, and eat it up as if it were so much jam. The reason why we, who are grown up, dislike moralizing is equally clear: it is that we have discovered how much perversion and hypocrisy can be mixed with it; we have grown to dislike morality not because morality is moral, but because morality is so often immoral. But the child has never seen the virtues twisted into vices; the child does not know that men are not only bad from good motives, but also often good from bad motives. The child does not know that whereas the Jesuit may do evil that good may come, the man of the world often does good that evil may come.

In summary, we know that children’s morality tales were supposed to teach important lessons about Good and Evil. We also know that later authors like G.K. Chesterton were aware of this genre and it influenced their writing (which in turn informs the Good Omens universe). So why pick this framework for this minisode? Because it is FRUSTRATING to watch, on purpose. We are meant to be annoyed with how Good has so little relation to right, to see how complicated doing real good can be, and it lays out a strong case for the complete inadequacy of black and white world views - and not just religious ones.

So (grabs gloves and a knife) let’s dissect the blocking and dialogue, shall we?

Part II: Blocking and Dialogue