#unnecessary essays

[shhroomer]

I love this orange airpod

[corvigae]

It's funny to me how The Sims 2 still showed up in the top 100 video games tags for 2023 Tumblr Year In Review. Against all odds, we're still relevant. Cockroach ass game.

[ciderjacks]

Wip

[now-you-sound-like-a-jedi]

Star Wars x Classical Mythology

1: Satine Kryze as Dido, Queen of Carthage

"Hedged by the spears of her guards, she throned herself on high

[...] O queen, who, under God, have founded a new city

And curbed the arrogance of proud clans with your justice..."

- Virgil, The Aeneid

Both Satine and Dido were powerful, independent leaders who built their cities from nothing to prosperity following a past fraught with civil conflict and loss. Although both Mandalore and Carthage have been known for their prowess in war, Satine and Dido each managed to sustain a period of peace despite external pressures.

My favourite Dido anecdote is how, when she was looking for a site to found her new city, she was handed an oxhide and told she could only have as much land as could be encompassed by that hide. So she cut it into thin strips, used it to encircle an entire hill and said "cool, my hill now" which is irrelevant except it strikes me as something Satine would do too.

But Dido is consistently referred to in The Aeneid as "ill-fated" and "ill-starred". There is an understanding that she was doomed from the beginning and, much like Satine was always intended to die, her story was over before it was even written.

But the main reason I chose Dido for Satine is because their respective narratives don't actually care about their political accomplishments. They aren't remembered for the good they did for their people or for what they achieved, but for the men they died for (i.e. Aeneas and Obi-Wan). Their respective doomed love stories take precedence over their politics and their ideals.

They are also both the subject of a lot of disproportionate, mostly-unfounded hate, but that's a whole other post.

Bo-Katan

[kooki914]

Did a ship meme like this for spadesgore EONS ago so decided to take a crack at it again! A little introduction to my crackship for anyone that's new here LMAO

[tonydaddingham]

i was rewatching s1 yesterday and i had a thought that is bothering me a bit.

thing is, as much as i love the flashbacks (i dare say sometimes they are my fav part of the episodes), i think they are messing up a bit with the storyline. i love that they show us how their relationship developed over time, but i think sometimes they’re going a bit too far considering the point we find them in different points of history.

you’re gonna tell me that the same aziraphale that went through everything they went through in the land of uz then could bot possibly think of helping crowley with the arrangement? that the same aziraphale that looked like that at crowley in 1941 then was like “heaven will win and it’ll all be rather lovely” when talking about the final war between heaven and hell?

if you think of the events in chronological order, they just, don’t make much sense.

oooooh anon i like where your head's at!!!✨

now, below the cut is a disgustingly long spiel going through each flashback and minisode, that tbh was just simply self-indulgent - a lot of it leans into philosophy and ethics (for which i also apologise but it's a Special Interest) and i realise that that may not have been - at all - what you were looking for in a response.

so, to give a tl;dr - i personally think the way that aziraphale parries back and forth in his character development makes perfect sense. it does seem very much like one step forward, two steps back, at times - that i grant you - but i don't think it was ever meant to be strictly linear as time has gone on. more that it's a delve into how and why aziraphale makes the decisions that he does, what factors might be influencing him to make those decisions/behave the way he does, and what this says to us about his reluctance behind the apocalypse and the events of s2.

pre-fall:

so to my mind, we immediately learn some crucial things about aziraphale, right from the get-go. he's polite, and kind - even without having really gotten a formative impression of the angel who crowley was (AWCW). but once he does (and develops his little crush), he becomes astutely interested in what AWCW's doing, asking questions about his work and its purpose. he shares information about his own work, not realising ahead of time that a) AWCW wouldn't have known the plan for his creation, b) how upset he would be once learning it. he's very cautious when AWCW starts getting lairy about it, intimating that he's prepared to challenge god (however innocuously he meant it) on her plan, and evidently feels - expresses - some kind of fear that it would lead to reprisal.

garden of eden (4004BC):

this is an aziraphale that seems very much to be proven right, when you take the above pre-fall context into account. the fall has happened, and aziraphale now is even more aware of the consequences of stepping out of line. but aziraphale is naturally someone who dances that line, when you consider that he gave away his sword - which he suspects to have been the wrong thing to do. so when confronted with crawly, this person that he used to know as an angel, it only hammers home that aziraphale has to behave, and be in fear of the worst possible outcome, which has now been actualised. the punishment - arguably the worst punishment possible for an angel - has happened, it's irrefutable, and there's nothing to say it can't happen again.

so aziraphale valiantly tries to remain the devout, loyal, upstanding angel - and at this point genuinely believes heaven to be the side of good and light, even if he panics when he acts in a way that shows his own true colours... ones that are arguably not very angelic at all (grey). he counters crawley with heavenly rhetoric when it's clear that he at least thinks crawly has a good point, he even laughs with him over a joke that could literally mean his own ruin, and abruptly catches himself, stops laughing. to me, he's scared and, by all accounts, has good reason to be.

mesopotamia (3004BC):

so here we come to aziraphale in the thick of attempting to be a true agent for heaven; we immediately open with him acting somewhat with unease at the proceedings, even before crawly appears (hands, shifting on his feet). once he has to explain to crawly what's going on, he shares the rumour (rumour, because the line is "from what i hear, god's a bit tetchy...") that god is wiping out the local population. crawly is obviously aghast, especially when aziraphale confirms the children too - but aziraphale is equally, albeit more taciturnly, repulsed by it. his meek, bracing, tight-lipped '...mhm!' pays testament to that.

but aziraphale, once again, cannot speak out against god and heaven - he simply can't, the risk is too great. plus... well, he has to have faith in god, that she is good and just, and this is all the right thing to do; what could it possibly mean if god is awful? aziraphale isn't awful, we know he's (by large) a naturally kind and gentle person - so if god is not that, and aziraphale loses faith, what does that mean for aziraphale? doesn't that make him bad? evil? so no, he has to rationalise for god, and heaven, and ultimately himself that this is all for a greater purpose - god isnt wiping out all the locals! she's going to put up a rainbow! promise not to do it again!

uz (2500BC):

okay big section (op note: first of many to come, as it turns out) here. for ease, im going to be writing the following with the below metas in mind:

that god doesn't actually intend/want to hurt the children, but to honour free will will not get involved (X)

an oddly poetic ditty on the lies in job, and seeing through them (X)

slightly unrelated but i think worth bearing in mind: i personally think the s2 minisodes are recounted from crowley's pov (X)

so aziraphale seems to have arrived in order to stop crawly getting up to some mischief, and is countered that crawly (on behalf of satan) has essentially been granted some kind of diplomatic immunity to carry out the destruction, namely, of job's goats, and his children. obviously crawly is going to do no such thing, but places the blame for the whole thing squarely on god. aziraphale, however, does not think that that is in fact what god wants (and tbh, re: the first linked meta, i think he's half-right). so, whilst still thinking that crawly is there to actually do harm, he tries to cajole crawly into doing the right thing. they then work out that, for all intents and purposes, they are actually on the same side by nature of sharing a common agenda. crawly tests him again in the mansion, but aziraphale has seen through him, and they remain united.

where it gets tricky is the ox-rib scene. aziraphale doesn't initially recognise the free will that crawly is acting upon; he's not on hell's side, so ergo he must be on heaven's side. the concept of being on your own side evidently is shocking to aziraphale - above all, it just sounds lonely. aziraphale asserts specifically that he is on god's side (which i think, tbh, is a pretty telling thing in and of itself - he doesn't say 'heaven'). and still believes he is acting by god's true will; however, crawly counters that he's talking about the god that wants him to hurt the children. aziraphale hesitantly agreed that yes, that is the same god he's talking about... "but-".

now, idk how aziraphale was going to end that sentence, but id like to think that he still disagrees with crawly's conclusion - to agree would void everything that he said before, right? everything he said with tentative conviction. so, at best, aziraphale would have argued back that crawly is wrong, and that's not what god wants... but i do think aziraphale sees god's lack of intervention as troubling, at the very least... because if god didn't want it to happen, why didn't she stop the storm above them destroying the house? i think he's now put back in a position of being very uncertain as to what god wants... in which case, how can he possibly argue against crawly's assessment? he can't, because he's literally just borne witness that god hasnt intervened on any of it. ultimately, aziraphale still doesn't quite understand the concept of free will, and how he's just as capable of it as anyone else - in helping to save the children, he wasn't acting in accordance with what he thought god's will was, but instead based on what he himself considers to be the right thing to do.

and then we come to the last couple of job scenes; he helps crawly in the trick to bring back the children to job and sitis, and, on the cusp of their subterfuge being revealed, lies to the archangels under immense pressure, under the weight of the knowledge, even in that moment, that he will fall for it. his fear, stemming all the way back from eden (and arguably before, even if only a fear of consequence), has been brought to its reckoning. at the rock, he is adamant that he's going to fall - he "lied, to thwart the will of god" - and has resigned himself to it. crawly obviously states he's not going to deliver aziraphale to hell (and presumably the fall has some physicality to it; ie. aziraphale doesn't feel like he's fallen anyway). but then crawly reveals that aziraphale might just - just - be more on his own (their? not yet?) side than he previously thought. and frankly, i think that scares the fuck out of aziraphale; he's not crawly, he's not confident/headstrong/convicted enough to do that, and besides - hell seems to be fine with crawly doing his own thing as long as his work is done ("i go along with hell as far as i can")... heaven presumably wouldn't at all let that slide. aziraphale can't afford his own side; there's too much to lose.

golgotha (33AD)

immediately we're confronted with not only a more cynical crowley, but almost - i think - a more cynical aziraphale, and the way they act definitely makes sense to me in a post-job context. crowley immediately jabs at aziraphale, thinking that aziraphale would act righteous in seeing jesus on the cross - and yet, aziraphale counters that he's "not consulted on policy decisions"... which begs the question of what aziraphale would have said or done, if he were. we know he tried arguing back in job against gabriel and michael about what the plan was for job, and i don't think this would have been any different... if he had been given the chance.

this exchange though, i think, is one of the best bits of dialogue in all of s1, and potentially gives really interesting insight into where aziraphale stands at this point:

because... well, jesus is not only the son; he was a good and kind person, attempting to teach others to do the same. isn't that what god and heaven stands for? but no - the policy decision, god's plan - is that her son must die... brutally, and in tremendous pain and suffering. that surely can't be something aziraphale can reconcile easily - and yet, with job in mind, he absolutely can. i think he knows its wrong, that it's not right, but it is - this time - absolutely god's plan. and what happened the last time that he intervened? that fear still lives in aziraphale here, i think; and plays a major part in not only aziraphale having to quash what he thinks is the right thing to do, but also forces him to accept that what god is doing must be right and good. it must be for a reason, that god is allowing this one, and aziraphale is still in a place where he fears acting against god could have dire consequences.

rome (41AD):

tbh i don't think there's too much to say on this; it's clearly a more personal scene than the heavier ones that have come before it. i do think that aziraphale being keen on seeing crowley again does speak to crawly's line about how having your own side can be lonely, and aziraphale is readily seeking companionship from the person who knows how that feels? maybe? to add to that, the callback to tempting crowley into the oysters - all feels very acutely like the events in the job minisode might have been on his mind. we know from the script book that aziraphale is there on a heavenly assignment too (tutoring nero), which might play into the loneliness even more. so whilst aziraphale may not be entirely comfortable with having his own side, i'd like to think this scene certainly indicates he's made some personal reflection on the concept.

wessex (537AD):

another (we presume) heavenly assignment of fomenting peace - and i don't think aziraphale and crowley have seen much of each other since rome (going by aziraphale's slip, yet again, in his name). but what transpires is the realisation that their respective head offices essentially have them cancelling out the other's actions, resulting in crowley putting forward the idea of the arrangement. aziraphale isn't immediately opposed to it, not outwardly - but he does poke holes in the viability of it. he initially baulks at the prospect of lying to his superiors (given job, it's fair that he'd be pretty reluctant to chance doing that again), and then finds out that the surveillance that heaven seems to keep on him is not a risk that crowley feels from hell; "...as long as they get the paperwork."

so immediately, we're shown that the chance of discovery is higher with aziraphale, and the associated risk of that will again drum into him that he needs to toe the line very carefully. i don't think the arrangement necessarily offends him on a personal level - im sure that the logic appeals to him, as well as the chance to slack off - but that crowley would... almost tempt him into it? or at least try to talk around his concerns, and still try to push him? at the very least, it scares him off. though, frankly, i think it did work; not only by 1601 does it transpire that they have in fact done favours for each other since this scene, but even the dialogue... the below screams to me somewhat 'lady doth protest too much':

globe (1601):

a few things are apparent in this; that aziraphale is pleased to see crowley again, that they are meant to be meeting in clandestine/crowded settings to avoid detection, and the arrangement has been in effect - in all but name - for some time. the latter is interesting; aziraphale clearly doesn't have an issue personally with the premise of doing favours for each other, but he draws the line at making it an official thing. if heaven ever asked why aziraphale was doing what he was, he presumably knew he could at least attempt to talk his way out of it, retain some semblance of plausible deniability, but if it were acknowledged that he and crowley have a formal arrangement, that increases the risk.

but it's no longer just the risk associated with heaven; it's the risk associated with hell. compared to 537AD when aziraphale indicates that his reluctance is complete to do with the potential repercussions from heaven, this time he seems more preoccupied with the repercussions crowley could face from hell. now, it could be that aziraphale is using it as an excuse - a cover for his true concerns that lie with his own safety - but i don't think so; over a millennium has passed since wessex, and they've clearly met "dozens of times" since then. i think aziraphale's concern does shift over to what would happen to crowley should they be found out. again, he looks happy to see him, and it's crowley that first remarks that the globe was meant to be busy. if crowley presumably is the one more worried about detection, aziraphale would understandably take that to be a reason for concern (despite what crowley says, "[they] don't actually care how things get done, they just want to know they can cross it off the list"), but nonetheless he agrees to the arrangement.

paris (1793):

this time, we learn that aziraphale is actually being monitored relatively closely; heaven is keeping an eye on his miracle usage, claiming that a sufficient number of them are frivolous to warrant a strongly-worded note from the supreme archangel himself. it therefore stands to reason that whilst he still absolutely could miracle himself out of this situation, he attempts to talk his way out of it first. but it also, once again, reinstates that discovery of the arrangement, and their affiliation, is very possible.

crowley turns up, freezes the guard, and 'rescues' aziraphale, who then learns that crowley is taking advantage of humanity coming up with their own atrocities, and claiming credit for it (and initially - and mistakenly - taking that to mean that the reign of terror must be crowley's doing) - but when that's been cleared up, and he thanks crowley for the 'rescue', crowley counters that expressing that specific thing out loud could lead to consequences from his bosses (ie the arrangement doesn't matter because the job gets done, but actively helping the opposition on a personal level? big no-no... which makes me wonder how crowley is possibly able to separate the two... by doing blessings etc., surely he is helping the opposition?). both of them vocalise very clearly that they're aware of the risks - both expressed and subtext - of them interacting with each other closely, but equally they both have no intentions of stopping it, or holding off until things have died down. they're both under scrutiny, and yet still proceed to play with fire by going to lunch.

in terms of what this means for aziraphale's own character development, i personally think it indicates how his feelings for crowley have been emerging since around 1601; the threat of discovery is real, but the friendship, companionship, and the feeling of being understood and known is more and more compelling. but aziraphale isn't stupid, he still knows that there is danger involved with the two of them associating so closely, but i think at times he loses a grasp on how very real that danger is, because of the feeling that crowley gives to him instead (maybe not love, on either part, just yet - but certainly a sense that crowley is very important to him).

edinburgh (1827):

i'll readily admit that i found this minisode a really difficult conundrum when trying to reconcile its events with aziraphale's character development so far, but i think ive at least gotten part of the way there? maybe? (and a small reminder of my... hesitancy... in whether or not this minisode is from aziraphale's perspective).

so aziraphale seems to still be very much set in the black-and-white perspective, right? more than that, he's stating that angels and demons do not have the free will to choose to be anything other than what they're meant to be - good and evil respectively - whereas humanity gets to choose. and stating the obvious, but aziraphale doesn't understand that the reality of being human (poverty, in this case) means that morality doesn't always have a place in survival, and therefore free will gets slightly skewed in that you end choosing to do something you perhaps wouldn't otherwise do, if you felt you had a true choice.

you could argue that this is a regression from the previous history that we've already looked at - and initially i would agree... but i think we have to consider that throughout all of this, aziraphale considers himself - and tbh, he is - a good person. so far, his actions have proven that, bearing in mind the overarching 'threat' (however far you want to extend the scope of that) of heaven, and he extends his empathy to those that are also good on their own merit (including crowley!). but what aziraphale is now having to contend with is what happens when circumstances mean you don't have much room to be a good person; does that condemn them? does that make them worthy of punishment? how can it, when everyone just doing their best with what they have?

when we get to the conversation with dalrymple, the surgeon explains the reason why the bodies are needed in the first place. what i think is also interesting about aziraphale's rationalisation of this whole quandary is the following:

because aziraphale has a point. he's understanding where dalrymple is coming from, acknowledges it, but it's the exploitation angle here that he's now unable to reconcile. sure, fine, you need the bodies for medical advancement, but you're using people who will do anything to earn money to survive, encouraging them to put themselves at risk - both physically and spiritually (from aziraphale's unique perspective) - to do so? that's wrong! ...but dalrymple also has a point; wouldnt it distract him, a surgeon, from the greater good? bodysnatching is at best quasi-legal, and faces sentences up to and meeting execution; why would he risk getting himself so directly involved? and by-the-by; isn't this something that aziraphale, in his own situation with heaven, could empathise with?

aziraphale then learns why the bodies are the in-demand commodity that they are - he's confronted with the consequence of insufficient medical education, and that actually the work may be, whilst through immoral action, working towards a greater good. before, it was just simply for the purpose of better understanding the human anatomy, but the tumour puts in perspective the bigger picture; that a series of objectively immoral actions leads to arguably the greatest moral achievement possible: eradication of preventable and needless suffering. i think that this is where it starts to really resonate that morality is not absolute, and that right and wrong are intrinsically linked by nature of the context* and consequence upon which you judge them. (something something about stepping away from the deontological and instead towards the more consequentialist - perhaps even utilitarianism?*).

***

slight tangent but: if we look at this very thing*, for a moment, with two other scenarios in mind, we know that aziraphale still struggles with separating morality in terms of action and consequence... or is it just simply very intricate? he did struggle in job; he felt he was condemned to fall because he sinned in lying to the archangels - an immoral action - but ended up choosing to lie because it would mean preventing three needless murders, of children no less - ie. a moral consequence. at surface level, a very consequentialist decision.

then, in 2019 with the antichrist; crowley tries to persuade aziraphale into killing warlock in order to stop the apocalypse; in this instance, *the action poses a significantly more serious and graver moral dilemma, even if the end result would be to save the entirety of humanity - the context is very different. in this, aziraphale doesn't budge, and consistently rebuffs crowley's attempts to get him to do it, even when he acknowledges the greater good killing the child could bring. this is more deontological. now, it could be a question of whether aziraphale is reluctant because it would disobey heaven's orders, or because of his own personal moral code, or perhaps even both - but regardless, aziraphale strives instead to find a way around avoiding killing warlock/adam, and come up with a different solution that would bring about the same outcome.

***

but back to the resurrectionists; aziraphale then arrives at rather a misguided conclusion - when he returns to elspeth and morag to offer his assistance, he says:

suffice to say, that is absolutely not what elspeth's angle is here - so again, aziraphale seems to fumble the point entirely. i have toyed with the contrary idea that aziraphale in fact does now understand elspeth's motivation, and does now understand what crowley was saying to him earlier, but has to 'pretend' somewhat that the only reason he wants to help is because of the 'alleviating human suffering' thing (so that essentially if heaven asked why he was encouraging immorality, he could explain it away as being for the greater good), but idk how far i see that... it's possible, but when they move to the graveyard, and crowley points out the advantage that those with money and privilege have in preventing the interrment of their bodies (and the poor "just have to lump it"), he asks aziraphale pointedly if he's alright with this. aziraphale evidently isn't, his face says that enough, but he doesn't voice it.

but then morag gets blasted; she's not even meant to be there, but is just so they can get the job done easier and quicker, and out of love for elspeth - because elspeth asked her to. aziraphale's penultimate moral quandary lies in whether he saves her or not; by his own admission, it's against 'the rules', so to speak, but he can't stand to see something so preventable happen because he chose to follow those rules - not to act. harking back to immoral action leading to moral consequence, that dilemma is put in a very personal context to aziraphale; sure, disobeying the rules might be wrong, but if the consequence of the obedience is far worse? i won't confidently say that he fully learns from the experience, but i do think it sticks with him.

what i feel is worth noting about aziraphale, when they come back to the mausoleum, is that it seems that aziraphale is the first to spot the laudanum on the tomb. not only that, but he can't barely keep his eyes off of it. (*suicide tw*) the interaction that follows immediately feels that aziraphale enters the role of negotiator; his tone is level and calm, he positions himself very warmly and openly, but slowly edges closer to her, and keeps her talking. crowley similarly edges around the room, trusting aziraphale to keep her distracted, so he can swipe the laudanum for himself. obviously crowley then controls the rest of the scene, and used a more dramatic approach in deterring elspeth from taking her own life.

part of that however is by getting aziraphale to give elspeth the contents of his wallet, so she can immediately find herself in a better position in order to make better choices; had she been turned back out onto the streets, and without morag, it probably would result - as crowley said - in her continue to risk her life to earn money, or killing herself before she even gets that far. (*end suicide tw*) aziraphale looks suitably chastened at carrying a substantial amount of money all this time, i think in part recognising the privileged position that must place him in in elspeth's eyes, and shakily hesitates about giving it to her. i do think he knows that the argument he gave at the beginning of the minisode has crumbled somewhat (now that he has seen the full consequences of being in that position), and he looks to crowley in askance to reinstate the holes in that logic as crowley previously said them - and he doesn't argue any further.

elspeth promises to do good, and aziraphale hands it over. it harks back to one of my beginning points; having the free will to choose to do good is only really possible when there isn't an external factor that prevents you from doing so. alleviate, or remove, that hardship - as the 90 guineas did - and there's no reason to think that elspeth won't, in fact, choose to do the good and right thing. before, she was considerably compelled to do bad things - but now she truly is in a position where she can choose. ultimately, aziraphale and crowley have no guarantee on her promise, there's no threat of repercussions if she lied or ends up going back on her word, but ultimately that is free will; the best they can do is put her in a position where she is able to make a choice. that is the right thing to do.

1862:

and so we're back to another dilemma, this time of the more personal kind; crowley asks aziraphale for holy water. ive entertained multiple theories on whether crowley has been in hell since 1827, whether he's been pulled into hell on multiple occasions since 1827, or something entirely different has happened, but all have the same result - crowley is paranoid, he's standoffish, and he's asking for something that he says won't be used to destroy himself, but instead as 'insurance' (which tbh, despite what he said, reads very much like it could be used against other demons or himself). furthermore, aziraphale is cold and distant; marking that something potentially has happened between the two of them, or that aziraphale is aware that they are very much out in the open, and he has to watch how familiar he is with crowley.

the holy water seems to be very much a line that aziraphale is unwilling to cross; and his first reason to not do so is because of the risk it poses to crowley. i don't think it can be denied at this point that even if it's not romantic love - not completely, anyhow - they definitely care for each other. aziraphale is positively vehement that he won't be responsible for crowley's destruction, deliberate or otherwise, and i think a lot of his reaction comes from the fact that crowley would even ask this of him in the first place (and this is of course presuming that aziraphale knows nothing of what prompts crowley to ask for it in the first place).

when crowley retorts that that's not his plan for it, aziraphale is still resistant, and instead adds the further risk that it poses to him personally - that if heaven got wind of it, their arrangement and relationship (of whatever nature it is) would be discovered. it is, doubtless, a substantial risk to aziraphale, but given that he manages to get his hands on it in 1967 without much trouble (at least, that's the impression given), i think that the first reason he gives - that concerning crowley's safety - is probably the truest one.

regardless, it's definitely a line that aziraphale is unwilling to cross, so much so that it descends into them throwing words that evidently hurt the other, and seem to lead them to not even speaking to each other for nearly 80 years. and this time it's not even because the action itself is immoral - aziraphale doesn't indicate that gaining holy water itself is forbidden or difficult - after all, you can visit your local church and odds are that you can nab some pretty easily - but because the potential consequence would be losing crowley forever.

i don't know how far i take this particular interaction to be one deeply concerned with aziraphale's general ethics or sense of morality; more that he just simply cares for crowley a great deal. maybe that informs on his moral alignment more than im giving credit for, idk. we could look at it that aziraphale should absolutely trust crowley - trust his word that he isn't intending to use it on himself - and that perhaps is true, but the sheer fact that aziraphale would be giving crowley something so inherently dangerous to his own person is a very valid reason not to do it, morally or sentimentally - especially as it appears to be a very sudden request without much explanation behind it, to make aziraphale understand why it would be necessary.

1941:

starting with the s1 snippet of 1941, we learn that aziraphale is double-crossing the nazi operatives. to give a rundown of the events that i think likely led to the church scene, aziraphale would have initially denied (or stalled) the nazis' request to find and deliver the books, despite the offer of quite a lot of money (which, let's face it, we know is frankly inconsequential to aziraphale; even without the element of being a celestial being that can miracle up money, we know he's a landlord of some tasty real estate in soho - he's hardly strapped for cash); aziraphale is not stupid, nazis are the bad guys. but because he denied/stalled them, they send in greta posing as a british MI agent to encourage aziraphale to do as the nazis asked - as she likely put it to aziraphale - so that 'british authorities' could take it as an opportunity to apprehend them.

i don't think the above is a stretch - why else would greta have been involved, posing as a home agent, if aziraphale wasn't initially reluctant? - and gives a clear situation in which aziraphale would simply not do something that could help the axis effort. he's not avaricious, and certainly doesn't need wealth, so money holds no sway for him in this; but regardless, he likely stands personally, morally, opposed to the nazis entirely, without hesitation. furthermore, to aziraphale's mind, they are the antithesis of everything that heaven also stands for; he lives in the heart of london, and (as s2 shows quite literally) is surrounded by the destruction caused by the blitz campaign.

moving on to when crowley arrives in the church, i know it's a point of contention that aziraphale assumes that crowley must be involved with the nazis' set up, and that's a fair point. i too find it hard to reconcile, especially given the parallel assumption during 1793 was shot down immediately. however, if we presume that aziraphale and crowley haven't seen each other since 1862, it could be aziraphale still reacting very personally as a result of their argument (i daresay that, for these two, 80 years isn't really that long a time to hold a petty grudge)... but to be honest? crowley still takes assignments from hell, and if there is anything - to aziraphale - that seems like a hellish creation, it's the nazis. as hell's earthly representative, it's not an illogical conclusion to arrive at. but, of course, as crowley rightly says - some of the worst things are purely humanity; free will is a double-edged sword, and humanity has capacity for great evil as well as great good. and aziraphale does know crowley; if crowley had confirmed that he was involved, i think aziraphale's reaction would have been that much more visceral.

then we get the Epiphany that is aziraphale realising he's in love with crowley, and - i'll say it repeatedly - i think he possibly realises that crowley feels something for him too... which sets the whole tone for the continuation of 1941 in s2. i don't think (my brain is like soup at this point, so im sure anyone reading will correct me here) we get much more in 1941 that speaks to aziraphale's moral code until we get to the end, when they're back in the bookshop:

because it's a culmination of everything that they've been through so far, right? that doing the right thing and doing the wrong thing, that good and bad, are interwoven with each other, that one can sometimes define, necessitate, and validate the other, and that everyone - including them - are capable of doing both good and bad things. looking back over their history to date, it's one of their main commonalities - their respective non-conformity to the assumed attributes of their respective sides - and one that binds them together. obviously the irony lies with heaven itself hardly being 'the good place', even if it's meant to be, in the first place - but these are two beings that are unique in their experiences on earth, among humanity, which have led them to developing very complex moral codes that recognises (to varying degrees) that good and bad are not absolutes.

which ultimately leaves us a little confused when we get to 2008, right? as you said, anon - how do we reconcile this aziraphale with the one that is hesitant to stop the apocalypse? well, i think it's almost certain that we've got a missing scene here, one that will be answered in s3; but even looking at s2 - aziraphale's assessment of hell being the bad guys has been cemented in 1941. not only are they in cahoots with the nazis (as far as aziraphale sees it), but they have posed a danger to crowley personally. aziraphale saves the day, but all his concerns about the arrangement have been supported by this one event in the dressing room.

so whilst the black-and-white conversation seems to leave 1941 off on a happy note, take into account any possible imaginings of what happened afterwards, and we'll probably end up with not only the reason why aziraphale chooses to acquiesce to crowley's request for holy water... but also why it appears that they have somewhat cooled off in their association with each other right up until 2008. the risk - originally completely hypothetical - of being caught out in the arrangement has now been made manifest by hell, and there is likely a remaining associated risk with heaven also catching wind. as such, it's not inconceivable that aziraphale retreats back to being incredibly hesitant to cross the company line, hesitant to once again get caught up in this little bliss that has started to emerge (ahhh, love), and instead puts his stock back in at least acting like he is a scrupulous angel of heaven.

1967:

tbh, ive kind of covered that above; there has to be something that develops out of s2-1941 that would cause the tonal shift from the candlelit bookshop, to the alienation in 1967. aziraphale is curt, and short, with crowley - after hearing that crowley has chosen to source holy water by some other means - but is convinced enough to get it for him, and prevent any accidents in crowley acquiring it himself. personal theories aside, i think something must happen that hammers home to aziraphale that having a weapon with which to defend himself, even if there's the further risk to crowley by possessing it, is more important than allowing the risk of crowley being dragged to hell by demons to await whatever Bad Thing/s happened whilst he was there (either in 1827, or at some other point between then and 1967).

so against his clearly-set boundary, aziraphale gives it to crowley. he has to trust that crowley isn't going to use it on himself, or be reckless with it - even going so far as to hand him a flask in his own goddamn tartan pattern* - and still firmly draws the line that whilst maybe one day in the future they'll be able to interact with each other, be together (however romantically-intended or not you want to read that), they can't right now. at the moment, the main reasons that im reading into 'you go too fast for me' is a combination of aziraphale being concerned for crowley's wellbeing (and the risk their association places on that, if we consider 1941), but also because aziraphale himself isn't ready to fully step away from heaven. bear in mind that a lot aziraphale's identity is wrapped around being an angel, and being good - if he were to shirk all of that off, stick it to heaven... where does that leave him? what does that make him? what consequences would that have? in this respect, amongst others, aziraphale is still very much trapped in that same fear as he had in job - but now there's the added context that he's actually in love with crowley, only serving to raise the stakes of all that he has to lose.

*i cannot for the life of me remember where i saw the meta; but someone made the connection that giving someone your tartan, or dressing them in it, is essentially to say that they are your family/clan - uniting in a side - and that they are important to you. it's particularly eye-opening when you take into consideration that aziraphale starts wearing the tartan - as far as we see - after 1827, and when you look at instances of when aziraphale further bestows the tartan on crowley (the bike rack, the jacket collar). perhaps it wasn't ever intended to have that connotation, and it's purely hc, but as a way of aziraphale, potentially, wordlessly telling crowley that he recognises that they are on their side, that devotion and care is still there, even if they now can't risk being seen together? magnificent

modern day (2008-2023):

i promise im getting near the end of this

so the end of 1967 brings us up to present-ish day, and whilst im sure crowley and aziraphale have met up since 1967, i honestly don't think it's been incredibly often, not judging by their first interactions with each other in 2008 as we're introduced to them. but the first major issue - as you pointed out, anon - is that aziraphale is reluctant to stop the apocalypse happening. he hangs on to it being god's plan, and that he can't interfere with it. it does seem, on the surface, to be a regression of his character development, but tbh i don't see it that way at all.

aziraphale is still dancing a very thin line where he has to not only go along with heaven as far as he can, but also has cling to the idea that heaven represents good and light. he hasn't broken away from this yet, and honestly - how could he? what would it mean for him, what could he stand to lose, if he accepted that god and heaven may not be wholly good? what does that make him? it's a safety blanket that, sure, we can observe is one he should have abandoned long ago, so what is stopping him? imo, it's a combination of his self-identity being wrapped up in his being an angel, but also i think a good helping of fear of what could happen if he walked away (nod to omelas); the fear of the unknown is often more frightening than the known.

aziraphale might suspect that the archangels are the corrosive influence in heaven, but he still clings to belief that heaven in the first place was always intended to be good and right. but was it? heaven was once just... heaven. it wasn't good, it wasn't bad, it wasn't really anything - the creation of the fallen, and their descent into their domain (conjecture here; we still don't know what actually happened in the fall), was the element that defines that divide... the fallen challenged/abandoned god, and continue to corrupt her creation, and so they must be the Bad Guys. doesn't that therefore make... heaven the good? it's easy to see where aziraphale arrives at this conclusion - how all of the host arrives at this conclusion, frankly - but angels, i don't think, were ever good in the first place, nor was/is god. they just... are. but produce the concept of an opposite, in every way conceivable, and naturally it becomes a split between good and evil, too. aziraphale is an angel; he is good. crowley is a demon; he is bad. aziraphale is an angel who is just enough of a bastard to be worth knowing. crowley is a demon who is, at heart - just a little bit - a good person. to aziraphale, they may subvert the expectations that their kind would indicate, but it is still who they are at their core.

but back to 2008; aziraphale starts off asserting that heaven - "we" - will win, and it'll all be "rather lovely". i don't think aziraphale has any choice but to believe this, even if he knows what he stands to lose if it happens; crowley waxes on about everything that aziraphale enjoys and will disappear with the apocalypse, but it doesn't convince him. (there's a split second where he seems to have a Moment at the mention of the bookshop, which - yeah, he loves the bookshop and his books, but also everything that the bookshop has represented? hm.) crowley continues on as they approach the bentley, and aziraphale is clearly dithering, almost like it's wearing him down (bc, of course, crowley is right) and making him considerably uncomfortable (and fearful?), to the point that he snaps at crowley to stop.

once they're in the bookshop, aziraphale's guard comes down, and you can tell that he's lamentable about losing aspects of earth/what he can expect from eternity in heaven as crowley points them out. aziraphale becomes a little more candid; "even if i wanted to help, i couldn't. i can't interfere with the 'divine plan'." now look, read into the first bit that aziraphale doesn't actually want to stop armageddon, but... on a personal level, he absolutely does? he doesn't want to lose everything that crowley is pointing out to him, and certainly doesn't want to be subjected to the sound of music on repeat for all eternity - aziraphale absolutely does want armageddon to not-happen, but equally wants to keep his nose clean where heaven and god are concerned. and frankly, when crowley gives him a plausible excuse of chalking aziraphale's efforts to prevent the apocalypse up to it being a ruse to thwart The Demon Crowley... aziraphale practically crumbles like a wet paper bag.

im going to stop at 2008 because honestly this response is obscenely long as it is, and i think how his character develops through s1 and s2 is a lot more apparent (i also think ive talked about it in other asks somewhere, too). but ultimately my personal assessment of aziraphale through the flashbacks/minisodes is that whilst he hasn't had a huge overhaul of his character, his ethical and moral identity has developed and deepened, and remains very complex. there are also, imo, a lot of extenuating factors that influence what he considers to be right and wrong: the threat of heaven, and of hell, the fear of falling and/or losing the identity that he has (and fearing what would happen if he adios'd that entirely), his faith in god, his evolving sentiment and love for crowley, and his fondness of humanity. he may not have made great leaps and strides, resulting in becoming a completely different person, but i don't think that the moral dilemmas posed in the flashbacks wee necessarily meant to do that? more that they are an exploration of the intricate moral code that aziraphale possesses, and how each of these experiences inform on how he chooses to act - or not act - in others as time goes on.

[kaladinsspear]

ahhhhhhhh!!

I need to write a 4 page essay for class by tonight but my brain is full of cosmere rot and I can't seem to focus of cyber security to save my life. This is so frustrating! Just focus! I could be done with this by now if I could just do it!

[repurposedmeatlocker]

Suddenly remembered with that previous post I reblogged about a time I reblogged a post (or made a post I don't remember) referring to rpf and one of my followers went into the comments like "I hope this isn't condoning real person fiction : / it is actually really inappropriate and bad." I was like lol dw it is all in jest, but actually no. Who cares. At least as far as these people are concerned, they are major huge celebrities. They are not gonna care if I make some jokes about them kissing on tumblr.com. They have other things to worry about like idk being famous.

[reitheist]

Do you think bucchigiri is a yaoi because I would love it I ship Matakara and Arajin and Senya and the other genius a lot?

i think that bucchigiri is sort of in that BL/BL-adjacent original anime spectrum (yuri on ice<-sk8 the infinity<-free!) based on the director's previous shows and general vibes. I think bucchigiri is kinda with sk8 in the middle of the spectrum of 'canon' queerness.

the way sk8 and bucchigiri are specifically formulated is to fall within sports anime genre conventions (which appeal to male audiences) while showcasing attractive and charming male characters with deep, near romantic bonds (appealing to a female demographic). (this isn't to say that boys like this and girls like that fyi, that's just how marketing generally works in the anime industry) this garners more of a fanbase than if the show were to market exclusively to one or the other.

unfortunately, this means shows like bucchigiri are unlikely to fully confirm anything due to the potential of stirring up controversy or alienating male viewers

similar to sk8, bucchigiri has and I think will continue to code matakara's and ara's relationship (and probably senya and ichiya's too) as somewhat romantic. i don't think they're going to make it canon, though.

the only chance I could see of having a canon queer relationship (or breakup, rather) is mayyyybe between senya and ichiya, since they're not the main characters and bucchigiri hasn't been especially afraid of being blatantly homoerotic lol

[bpdanakins]

it has taken the dragon age fandom 0.2 seconds to be annoying i guess

[tyrannuspitch]

Hello I have baked cookies. For the sleepover. And I’ve packed ALL my sylvanians. Would you like to play toys with me?

Making you choose (/would you rather): high budget Loki spin-off movie and it Gets Him BUT it’s like an artsy A24 two and a half hour film that is a slog to get thru. Or, fun Thor stage musical with a great script, BUT they use the original actors rather than getting proper theatre actors who can sing and dance.

I forgot what questions r on the post. I’d like 2 know what chocolate bars/sweets ur buying as ur three for £1.20 :) assuming they did that in Scottish corner shops!

HELLO THANK YOU i would indeed... my LPS are sadly no longer with us but i have umm. [looks around] i have these lewis chessmen replicas i found in a charity shop. perfect

and this is a conundrum indeed... i mean on one hand. i've slogged. i can and do slog, frequently. how bad can it be. i have literally seen infinity war. but i am also tempted by the musical because. original cast. firstly, they may not be singers but several of them are specifically thespians, *and* they've done fight choreography, so, you know, two thirds of the way there. (maybe.) not completely catastrophic. secondly, and far more crucially, original cast means we can drag anthony hopkins back. we can put anthony hopkins on broadway. you thought you'd escaped marvel's Silly Time, old man? NO!! there's far worse in store!!!

but ultimately i feel like my poor earnest heart might have to go pretentious on this one. just as long as it also gets thor. no thor slander in my household. to paraphrase an interview quote the fandom has been passing around for over a decade, there is no Loki Understanding without Understanding Thor!!

okay i'm normal again. ummm. i'm pretty sure they did but that was never very notable to me bc my local shops were more of a small supermarket, spar-ish situation than real corner shops... i was very into skittles for a long time bc a) vegetarian child, no gelatine, still craves the unnatural colours, b) there is a sour version :}. in general i would eat sour sweets until i burnt my tongue. it breaks my heart that i can't eat lemons like tangerines without making my teeth hurt. these days you're more likely to find me plaiting strawberry laces, but they DO make vegetarian sour gummy sweets now (the specific thing child me was missing), they're just extortionate. £2.75 for a packet of candy kittens? in this economy???

[sojourner-between-worlds]

I can admit: I was a little harsh on my initial watch of Netflix's L&Co adaption. And I can admit that this was because I was watching as I read, which made me hyper-aware of every detail they changed. (This initial criticism really only applied to the first three episodes because I haven't read the second book yet.) Upon re-watch, with some distance between reading and watching, I decided that I really, truly loved it anyway and I am more than a little irked that it got cancelled.

That being said, there is one scene that I just. Really. Dislike. how they decided to change things.

In the Archives.

Maybe I'm still just being too nit-picky, but I really do not like that they gave George's lines to Lucy. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I think she wouldn't also stand up for Lockwood, but... that scene in the book is what made me actually start to like George. So I hope that it's understandable that I'm a bit miffed.

Additionally, it just...makes less sense? George is their researcher, so it makes perfect sense that he would slap Kipps in the face with his own terrible track record because he's the "facts" guy. (It's like the scene with Bobby later -- which I adore and hope is the same in the book, lol -- he's in his element when he has facts and when he can use those facts. Like when he goes to defend Lockwood.)

On top of that, I greatly dislike the fact that Lockwood draws first instead of in defense. It's a change in characterization that just really did not need to happen.

(Had I watched the series first, I probably would have loved this scene, as is, for the record. But. Just in general, I dislike when adaptions make weird changes that have no real purpose, like swapping dialogue.)

[qazastra]

listen. the boston-nick scene was my favorite from the last part of ep 12. I think boston and nick got what they deserved (but also these are complicated characters but I’m also not going to bother talking about the um LEGALITY of some certain actions)

in that it makes total sense for nicks arc to end with him FINALLY breaking it off with ton because he finally really knows that yeah, he deserves better than a guy who can’t give him what he needs in a relationship who’s going to keep hurting him even if he doesn’t mean to.

and Boston’s last shot, him sitting there completely alone on the curb— that’s… I mean yeah! He fucked his friend’s boyfriend, it took him months to admit to an apology, he fucked up his other friends relationship (temporarily but he wanted them broken up) because he couldn’t stand him looking happy (ray) and manipulated them bc he wanted a DIFFERENT couple broken up (top and mew), he lied to nick about fucking top, he made out with a guy while getting HIS boyfriend drinks at a bar….

i mean, yeah! that’s pretty bad! that is the type of stuff that’ll get you ostracized from your friend group and broken up with!

I do think he got what he wanted, kind of. what he thought he wanted at the start of the show. a fresh start without any ties in thailand to bring him down. he doesn’t have any drama to deal with anymore. it’s just sad that it took him so long to realize that that’s not what he wanted, actually (see this post about his costuming and note that he was wearing that see through shirt at the New Years party— just saying) and that things just didn’t line up for him and nick.

also it’s a tv show and I don’t think people need to get exactly what they deserve or what we think they deserve in fiction. this is just how his story ends and it makes sense to me and I do think he’s an asshole and I do think he deserved it and I am still sad for him lol

we could sit here and assign numeric values to everyone’s moral transgressions in the show to figure out who among the cast most deserves to feel bad now. but I think that would be missing the point !

[crepuscularqueens]

is there ever going to be a good video essay about black sails. is anyone ever going to make that.

[crushingway]

room no. 9 is one of my favorite pieces of media and I think it’s a shame that I can’t recommend it to anyone because it’s like 50% p*rn LOL. it’s such an interesting and disturbing story concept and I think a non-explicit version for a (slightly) wider audience would do well. But at the same time I think it’s kind of inextricable from its explicitness.

like, if the characters have privacy from the viewer, then you aren’t really getting the full scope of how horrific an experience they’re having. the explicit scenes are largely really uncomfortable to watch, you feel like you’re seeing something you shouldn’t, and I think it adds to the narrative. But a lot of people might think that makes me sound like a psycho or a pervert, ahaha…

But I’m being so genuine when I say I like it for the narrative. I’m a shamelessly h*rny person and would have no problem admitting I’m just h*rny and like it for the p*rn, but that’s really not it at all. what WOULD happen if you put two extremely close but extremely platonic friends in a room together and forced them to test that friendship to its limit? idk I just think it’s really underrated

[cmlmrbl]

Gillian and Sally —

the only exception