realitythroughthelensoffiction

[realitythroughthelensoffiction]

Why do we all overlook Satan?

We all love talking about the different characters in Good Omens. But there is one person that almost never gets analysed as a character. One that even I have been overlooking for a long time, although he is essential for the very premise of the plot of the series: Satan.

Some of the reasons why we tend not to pay much attention to Satan are quite obvious. First, he has very little screentime. He only makes one short appearance at the end of season 1 and even then is quickly sent back to hell by Adam. Another reason is that in the eyes of the viewers, including me, he does not need much character analysis. Because of our general knowledge about Western culture (no matter if we live in a Western country or not), we simply understand him to be the embodiment of evil, no further explanations needed.

And in the context of Good Omens, Satan, like God, mostly stays in the background. It is the demons who act on his behalf, while Satan himself is quite passive. But comparing Satan's and God's roles in the series and treating them both just as the alienated leaders of two opposing sides is actually imprecise. Because, as I will try to show, there are huge and important differences between them.

First, I think that Satan is one of the few characters in the series who are portrayed as utterly and unquestionably evil. Not only that all demons in hell are more or less forced to commit themselves to his evil values, but the way his character is talked about compared to others also points in that direction. Crowley definitely fears him more than anybody else. He is brave enough to stand up against Hastur, Ligur and even Beelzebub, but once Satan appears, he shouts "We are f*cked!" and wants to give up. When Job's son Ennon declares that Satan wouldn't dare to hurt him and his sisters, Crowley seems almost shocked about the implication: "I'm sorry, Satan? Satan wouldn't dare?" This gives the impression that Satan is both way more powerful and way more menacing than the average demon - a fact that is emphasized by his enormous size.

But as powerful as he is, he is still only another of God's creations. That alone makes a huge power difference between them. Satan was the angel Lucifer, who was made to serve God and then rebelled against him/her. But even in his role as the Adversary he can only act within the limits that are defined by God. In order to destroy Job's possessions, for example, he first needs a permit by the Almighty. That's why Satan depends on God in a way God does not depend on him. It goes beyond just 'good and evil need each other', because God is responsible for Satan's very existence.

And that's not the only difference between them. Satan does everything to take away people's free will. An example is the scene in which he gives Crowley his instructions about how to deliver the Antichrist (cf. this post by @vidavalor). He does not simply tell him what to do, but plants the knowledge in his head instead (illustrated by a stream of white mist flowing into Crowley's eyes). In the book, it is explicitly stated how much Crowley despises this, probably because he perceives it as a display of power, a way to remind him that he is nothing more than a tool to enact Satan's will, a tool that is not supposed to make independent choices (cf. Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 32; cited below).

And when Adam, his son, dares to thwart his plans, he becomes furious. It is less the failed Apocalypse that angers Satan than the fact that his own son disobeyed him. Crowley knows that: "This isn't about Armageddon, this is personal!"

For God, on the other hand, there are many clues that he/she is actually very fond of the idea of people having free will, as I elaborated in this post. Him/her not reacting to the averted Apocalypse is a striking contrast to Satan's behaviour. In the book, there's also this interesting scene at the end where Crowley muses about why God, who is almighty, did not simply prevent the rebellion of Lucifer and his followers from happening. And he comes to the conclusion that this is because it is part of God's plan, too: "Anyone who could build a universe in six days isn't going to let a little thing like that happen. Unless they want it to, of course" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 392; cited below).

So unlike Satan, God allows his/her creations to rebel against him/her, because he/she obviously wants them to be able to choose - between obedience and disobedience, between good and evil. That's the biggest and most important difference between the two characters, in my opinion. The implications of both of their philosophies become manifest in Adam and his character arc.

At the height of his power, Adam acts like his father when he takes away his friends' free will. They protested against his plan to destroy the world, so he takes control of them, freezes them so they can't move or speak and thereby express their disagreement with him anymore, and forces them to smile. When he finally releases them again, they run away from him - and Dog follows them.

Brennan Croft (p. 156f; cited below) points out how meaningful this particular detail is. The hellhound was sent to Adam in order to carry out his will. By naming it, Adam was able to give it "its purpose, its function, its identity". And he named it 'Dog', because that's what he wanted - a companion, a real dog. Thus, the hellhound became a real dog, and through Adam training him more and more of his hellish nature was lost (cf. Brennan Croft, p. 156; cited below). And so the hellhound, whose task was to serve Adam, was in fact given free will by him. "He's not your dog, he's his own dog" Pepper shouts at Adam, and she is right - which makes it possible for Dog to turn his back on his own creator because he isn't okay with his actions anymore. As Brennan Croft writes: "Dog has developed a moral life of his own" (p. 157; cited below).

This is the turning point for Adam, who eventually realizes the wrong of his doing. His character arc serves to both illustrate how taking away people's free will causes great harm and how giving them free will is the key to solving problems and to the triumph of good (for more about this topic, see this wonderful explanation about process theology by @haemey in her reblog of my post about Crowley and God).

That means Satan is not only evil because he endorses bad deeds, but even more so because he takes away free will. I don't see how he could ever be redeemed. But since I strongly suspect that both heaven and hell will be destroyed in the finale (see this post), that leaves me with the question of what will happen to Satan. "I don't think fighting him would do any good" Crowley tells Adam in season 1, and I guess he's right. So how does Adam defeat Satan? Well, he simply decides not to accept him as his father, not to give him power over him (cf. Brennan Croft, p. 159; cited below). And maybe that's the answer. Maybe Satan will continue to exist, but it will be people's choice whether they want to give him power over them by doing evil things.

What do you think? How will the finale deal with Satan? I would love to hear your ideas!

Works cited:

Pratchett, Terry and Gaiman, Neil: Good Omens. The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch. London 2011.

Brennan Croft, Janet: Adam's Task. Naming and Sub-creation in Good Omens. In: Giannini, Erin and Taylor, Amanda (Eds.): Deciphering Good Omens. Nice and Accurate Essays on the Novel and Television Series, pp. 151-162.

[realitythroughthelensoffiction]

Wonderful post! There's a lot in it, but I want to pick one point out: Shadwell (he really does not get enough attention in the fandom).

In the book, there's this scene where he falls asleep on Madam Tracy's bed and has a dream about the execution of Agnes. He's floating above the scenery; he does not witness it as a participant, but as an observer who is looking at it from the distance. And this physical change of perspective also stirs a mental change of perspective in him. Because for the first time in his life, he thinks about the cruelty of such an execution, and starts to question its rightness.

This is reinforced by Agnes looking up to him and directly addressing him, and part of the reason why he retires as a Witchfinder at the end of the book. In the series, this scene was not included, and in my opinion, that's a missed opportunity. It would not have taken much time and would have added to the character development of Shadwell (although showing his inner perspective would probably have been challenging, so maybe that's the reason why this aspect didn't make it in the series).

But it illustrates how sometimes people are just to involved in a belief system to see its flaws or the harm it can cause. Nobody of us is completely immune to that, even if we don't run around burning other people at the stake. So it's always good to take a step back and try to see the bigger picture. It can make you a better person. It definitely made Shadwell a better person. And I believe it will make the angels and demons better persons as well.

"For the Greater Good" (or, The Hypocrisy of Justified Violence)

"We're the Good Guys, right? The archangels, the zealots, the true believers who keep things on The Right Path. If someone is impeding 'The Greater Good', shouldn't they be removed from its path? What means shall we use to remove them? If they oppose us, even peacefully, what level of retaliation should we use? When they continue to obstruct us, or "corrupt" our world, or impede our goals, or believe something too different from our beliefs, or look too different, or act too different......"

In Good Omens, the answers to these questions are often violent, horrifying. Death by fire? By Painful Extinction? By guillotine?

Good Omens repeatedly shows us how "Righteous Violence" gets justified. The story challenges us to critically consider some very important ideas, and decide where our own values stand.

How far will The Good Guys go to ensure that "The Greater Good" is accomplished, and that the "evil" is removed? We're shown that when people passionately and self-righteously believe that their cause, their views, their life, is the ONLY WAY things should be, a strange thing can happen. Especially if anger, even a very quiet and hidden anger, is added to the mix. They begin to criticize, to judge, to blame. They start to believe that they are better than those who are "other". They are more worthy. More valuable.

It becomes acceptable to "do what must be done" for "The Greater Good". The Great Plan is what matters, after all. A utilitarian concept of violence. A utilitarian measurement of worth. A devaluing of the lives of others.

An "Us" and a "Them" forms, as people tend to do. If the devaluing, pragmatic, utilitarian core keeps building steam, the group becomes a gathering of True Believers, the self-righteous "Us". "Them" are in the way, and must be removed. The more "They" are devalued, blamed, and criminalized, the easier it is to justify greater and greater harm to them.

Agnes lived quietly, writing her prophesies, curing and healing townspeople, going for brisk runs and eating vegetables to stay healthy. She was different. She was criminalized. She was tied to a stake to die by fire.

Aziraphale came to France for crepes (and a Crowley "rescue"). He looked rich -- an Aristocrat. No one cared that he was gentle and good. He was an obstacle to the society the Revolutionaries desired. He was criminalized, imprisoned, chained. Like all the rest, sentenced without trial, to be beheaded as soon as possible.

When an angry, self-righteous "Us" band together, in a mob, or a violent revolution, for a purging or a confrontation or punishment of the "Thems", things tend to get ugly. There is a shared mentality of violence. Even the people here who don't lay a hand on anyone still share responsibility for the violence. *The mob was chanting for Agnes Nutter's death, and excitedly clustered to watch. *Michael didn't touch Aziraphale, but clearly condoned the violence that was inflicted.

Good Omens doesn't make it easy on us. Sure, it's easy to look at the actions of the Archangels and see that they're not so different from the demons. They're not the Good Guys. But Thou-Shalt-Not-Commit-Adultery Pulsifer doesn't seem like such a bad guy. Fairly handsome, confident, nice eyes, just a little too serious. Until he condemns an odd but innocent woman to death. Shadwell is weird and bizarre and funny, but not to be dismissed. He promotes hatred and condemnation -- if only anyone were still listening. He wants the glamour of a villain's role, but believes he's the hero in his story. He's the glorious martyr for his imagined cause. He wants power and admiration. He wants attention and servitude. He wants unquestioning obedience. He is, and always was, a selfish and dangerous man.

We're also shown that True Believers can be entirely civilians too. No special rank or prestige or religious beliefs. They can just be ordinary folks with VERY STRONG political beliefs. Jean-Claude the Executioner was probably the guy everyone invited to their party. He'd be the jovial fun uncle, or the clever storyteller who makes everyone laugh. The guy who brings brioche and beer.

Yet here he is at the Bastille, contentedly chopping off people's heads without exception, without trial, without recourse. And Jean-Claude is damn proud of it. They're building a new world, after all...

AND THEN THERE'S THE ARCHANGEL F*CKing GABRIEL.

He's not driven by malice. He's got a huge ego, but he's not in it for the attention. He's on a power trip (in S1), but he's not seeking power itself. He is a True Believer. Handsome, charismatic, a charming smile, and enough self-confidence to power a supernova or two.

He's trusting to the point of being gullible-- if you're on the side he believes in, surely you must be trustworthy and Good. Gabriel simply believes that The Greater Good is the only thing that's important. And he knows EXACTLY what The Greater Good IS. Unlike the two Witchfinders and Jean-Claude, this guy would willingly fight and die for his cause. He will also kill for his cause, if necessary. He's been taught from the Highest levels that violence for righteousness sake is justified -- and he trusts those authorities implicitly.

Aziraphale and Crowley are relatable because they are reflections of ordinary people. Unfortunately, these other characters are too.

That's the challenge. That's the choice.

*******

There's one last interesting detail in the show I want to mention. We've seen how Crowley is almost always at Aziraphale's left. It's where he belongs, how they fit in harmony, a matched set. When Crowley is on Aziraphale's right, something is off-kilter between them -- a temptation, a conflict, a serious problem. The left side is the "good side".

In each of these scenes, where a True Believer condemns and is about to harm an innocent, they are behind and to the right of the innocent. They're not on the "good side".

*******

(Yeah, I know what I did here... But let's stick with the metaphor of Good Omens, 'kay? We're hangin' out in our safe little Good Omens space, and it's a kinder, gentler lens to examine the world through...)

*******

(Inspired by a comments thread with @realitythroughthelensoffiction on their post about the Archangel Michael.)

*******

If you enjoyed reading this, you might also like my other posts that tend to wax philosophical:

Reflections & Divisions (Mirrors of Ourselves)

Finding Forgiveness (Text Barrages & Apology Dances)

Forgiveness & Absolution (Holy Hot Chocolate, Jim!)

Good Omens & the Existential Art of Not Giving Up ((When It's All Exhausting)

Thanks for being here!

[realitythroughthelensoffiction]

The Four Horsemen: book vs. TV series

I generally prefer the Good Omens series over the book. But there's one thing that I liked way better in the book, and that is the depiction of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. I think the series handled them poorly, and, in my opinion, even missed the entire point sometimes.

War:

When we first meet War in the book, her truck is having a breakdown in the capital of a small country "which had been at peace for the last three thousand years" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 68; cited below). It is so peaceful that people are still talking about the scandalous occurrence of a fight "in the city square in 1952 between a drunken ox-driver and an equally drunken ox-thief" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 69; cited below). Two days later, there is a civil war going on in said country. This scene was actually shot for the series and can be found as bonus content on the DVD, but didn't make it in the final version.

Instead, we are introduced to War at the signing of a peace treaty. Her presence heightens the already existing tensions, and finally leads to a new breakout of the conflict, with first all of the representatives of the rivaling parties shooting each other and then the war between their countries starting anew. But I must admit that I find the scene in the book better, because it illustrates how violent conflicts can emerge seemingly out of nowhere. Consider War's second appearance in the book, for example: here she is staying in an island that is caught in "a deep religio-political divide, concerning which of four small mainland countries they weren't actually a part of" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 127; cited below). This is a satirical take on the sad truth that many wars are fought over insignificant questions of identity.

So it would have been nice if the absurd causes for some violent conflicts had been stressed more in the series. Still, War is the Horseman whose depiction is the most accurate to the book.

Famine:

Famine is my favourite Horseman in the book, because he's the scariest to me, and I was really disappointed by his portrayal in the series. In his first scene in the book, he's dining with his assistant when a heavily underweight model approaches him and thanks him for the dietary advice in a book that he wrote, stating that he changed her life (cf. Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 71f; cited below). Famine signs the book, while he is secretly calculating how much time is still left before the girl dies of starvation (cf. Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 71f; cited below). This scene made me shiver, and I think it's a pity that they didn't include it in the series. The reasoning behind it was probably that the creators didn't want to give the impression that they were making fun of people with anorexia, but I don't think that would have been the case. After all, it is not the anorexic girl that is criticized here, but men who make money by exploiting the body issues of young women.

Moreover, Famine's food product, Chow, is sold to people as something fancy, although it does not contain any nutrients (cf. Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 159f; cited below). Those who buy it are being deceived. In the series, a recorded message in Famine's restaurant informs the customers that it can make you "lose hair and kidney functions, may cause anal leakage". Why would Famine be so transparent about it? Why would somebody eat in such a restaurant? To me, this subverts the whole criticism of costumer scams.

That's why I think that they wasted a lot of potential with the portrayal of Famine.

Pollution:

Another Horseman with wasted potential in the series is Pollution. When we first meet them, God informs us that "they killed as many people as War or as Famine". But a very important characteristic of Pollution that is mentioned in the book is left out: that "[n]obody really noticed him", because "a casual glance was all anyone ever gave him", and that "he was easy to forget" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 73; cited below). I think God as the narrator should have commented on that, too. He/she kind of does in a deleted scene, where Pollution has drained oil out of a tanker and people are discussing who is to blame for it: "No one gave a thought to Able Seaperson White. Nobody ever does".

But with this scene being cut, the remark didn't make it in the series, although it is crucial, in my opinion. People often overlook or downplay environmental issues, as they are easy to ignore in the short term, while in long term they often cause much more harm than problems that look more dramatic at first glance. The comment on Pollution's nature could have served as a little reminder not to forget ecological concerns over seemingly more urgent issues.

Death:

Now, last but definetely not least, we have Death. He is clearly standing apart from the other three Horsemen. He is the only one the Them are not able to defeat. The book explains why this is case: the other three are born from the mind of humans (cf. Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 359; cited below). We could end war, we could end famine, we could end pollution if we wanted; they only exist because we allow them to exist.

Death, on the other hand, is - as he states not only in the book, but also in the series - not something humans invented: "I am creation's shadow. You cannot destroy me, for it would destroy the world".

The other three Horsemen are aware of this huge power gap between Death and them: "It was like having a tax inspector in your football team. Great to have him on your side, of course, but not the kind of person you wanted to have a drink and a chat with in the bar afterwards" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 344; cited below). The series, however, does not make the fundamental difference between them clear enough, in my opinion.

Death's height is the most obvious indicator of him being more powerful than the other three Horsemen. Which leads me to my next issue with the depiction of Death in contrast with them: their looks. War, Famine and Pollution seem much more human than Death. Yes, War is crying blood, Famine has sharp teeth, and Pollution's eyes resemble puddles of oil, but they still look very human, while Death with his skeleton face and his hooded cape gives quite an intimidating impression.

In the book, it's just the other way round. Death is still a skeleton in a cape, but he is the one who looks the most human, while the true forms of the other Horsemen are pretty repulsive: "There was no more than a hint of human about three of them now - they seemed to be humanoid shapes made up of all the things they were or represented. They made Death seem positively homely. [...] A skeleton, even a walking one, is at least human; Death of a sort lurks inside every living creature" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 356; cited below).

To me, it clearly illustrates how death is not something you should fear, because it is just a natural part of life, while the man-made problems of war, famine and pollution are perversions that need to be fought. In the series, this message is somewhat subverted by the change in the appearance of the Four Horsemen.

These are all reasons why I prefer the book version of them. What about you? Have you read the book? If yes, how do you like the depiction of the Four Horsemen in the series in comparison to the book?

Work cited:

Pratchett, Terry and Gaiman, Neil: Good Omens. The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch. London 2011.

[realitythroughthelensoffiction]

Why angels are like bees

When Crowley enters heaven in season 2 and Muriel worries about him being caught as an intruder, he reassures her and explains why this won't happen: "Angels are like bees. Fiercely protective of their hive if you're trying to get inside. Once you're in..." He then proves his point by wandering around in disguise without drawing attention to him and even being able to access confidential files because he still knows the passwords that heaven, as he states, never changes. Only Saraqael cannot be fooled by him, but that's a topic for a different post.

My point is that this scene demonstrates that heaven clearly has a security problem - and one that extends far beyond an actual demon strolling through their corridors.

Angels in the series are shown to be very trusting and naive. Aziraphale gets tricked by the Nazis and does not become suspicious when members of Shadwell's Witchfinder Army have names like Officer Milkbottle. Muriel truly believes that Aziraphale and Crowley are bluffed by her performance as Inspector Constable and that they will tell her everything about their private conversation afterwards.

Angels also usually appear to always tell the truth. As far as I remember, Aziraphale and Muriel are the only angels that are ever shown lying. Even people like Gabriel and Michael seem to avoid it. Their tactic seems to be to just withhold certain things instead of blatantly telling untruths. Gabriel, for example, did simply not answer Michael's question why he was against a second Armageddon.

And when angels like Aziraphale and Muriel lie, they do it so awkwardly that it immediately becomes obvious - unless you're an angel yourself. The whole trick with the ox ribs in the Job minisode is so clumsily improvised that even Michael notices that there is something shady about it. But once Aziraphale gives Gabriel his word that the children are new, all suspicions are allayed, because the other angels cannot even imagine that one of them might be lying.

This naivety transfers to the internal organisation of heaven. Unless you openly disobey, they will not check what you are doing. In hell, there were rumours that Crowley and Aziraphale "were an item ninety years ago". In heaven, it is only Aziraphale's insistance on avoiding the war that gets them thinking. And again, it is Michael who senses that there is something strange going on and finds out about the connection between Aziraphale and Crowley.

The fact that it is always Michael who is the first to become suspicious suggests that he is a bit more experienced in the art of deceiving than the other angels. In one of my previous posts, I explained why I think that Michael is a traitor who is actually working for hell. But the thing is that if my assumption were true, the angels wouldn't notice it! They aren't able to recognize a murder hornet in their beehive, because they aren't looking for one in the first place.

And this attitude does not only apply to the recognition of actual traitors, but also to that of people who do not act in accordance with the virtues of heaven. Because they're convinced that all angels are inherently good and cannot do wrong, they tolerate any kind of unangelic behaviour without questioning it: greed for power, bullying, and even the blunt sadism of someone like Sandalphon (for more about Sandalphon, see this post).

There's also a certain hubris to the belief that all evil does come from the outside, and that your security system is so flawless that it is not "even faintly possible that an unauthorized demon might be just wandering around in heaven unescorted".

So you could say that not only evil, but also good in its most rigid form, "contains the seed of its own destruction". A little bit more mistrust and a little bit more questioning the behaviour and motives of each angel, as well as their own security measures, would suit heaven very well. In its current state, it is highly vulnerable, and I think Crowley's little trip to heaven and his metaphor with the bees serves to illustrate that very well.

[realitythroughthelensoffiction]

Parallels: Hastur and Sandalphon

I know the Good Omens fandom loves parallels, so I wanted to add a further parallel that I noticed: one between Hastur and Sandalphon.

Hastur is cruel even in the book. His evil deeds extend far beyond the requirements of his job as a demon. Crowley thinks that both Hastur and Ligur take "such a dark delight in unpleasantness you might even have mistaken them for human" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 257; cited below). But the series made an outright sadist of Hastur.

Now, the scene were he turns into a bunch of maggots that eat the call centre employees alive came from the book. His behaviour was explained by his frustration about being stuck in the answering machine. Moreover, "if he were going to have to face the possible wrath of the Dark Council, at least it wouldn't be on an empty stomach" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 310; cited below).

However, the series added many additional scenes that show how Hastur (and to a lesser extent, Ligur) clearly takes pleasure in torturing people. He pushes Eric into the cell with the hellhound to test if it's hungry - probably just for amusement. In Megiddo, he discorporates all of the three Erics for annoying him with minor things.

He is also the one who announces Crowley that he will be punished for losing the Antichrist. In the book, it is not clear which demon is speaking to Crowley; the fact that he receives a second message shortly after trapping Hastur in the answering machine suggests that it was not Hastur whom he had been communicating with (cf. Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 254f, 284; cited below).

Furthermore, the scene were Hastur burns down the convent of the satanic nuns was altered. In the book, he does not talk to the nuns before doing it, but "[n]o one was badly hurt by the fire" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 52; cited below). He sets the building on fire to destroy all records and thereby all evidence of the baby swap.

In the series, of course, this plays out differently. Here the nuns believe that they will be rewarded for their help and that their order will continue to exist. When Sister Theresa protests against its dissolution, Hastur kills her with a single wave of his hand. The camera shows her dead eyes. Hastur then recommends the abbess to inform the other nuns about the dissolution of their order unless she wants that "they all perish in the fire". The convent then bursts into flames, with the nuns screaming and running for their lifes while Hastur is laughing maniacally.

These changes from the book to the series clearly show that the creators wanted to give Hastur's character even more shape.

Sandalphon is a sadist, too. Aziraphale remembers him for his crucial role in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, an event Sandalphon has very fond memories of, as his expression implies. In the scene were he, Michael and Uriel corner Aziraphale, he punches him in the gut without necessity (Aziraphale wasn't trying to flee or to physically defend himself) and without preemptive warning. He's also eager for the war between heaven and hell to start.

You get the impression that Sandalphon will take any possible pretext for himself to use violence. Under the guise of enacting God's will, he acts out his sadistic desires. That's why I've always perceived him as the angelic counterpart of Hastur who also takes advantage of the fact that as a demon, he is expected to do evil, when he would even enjoy it if it wasn't required.

The fact that they both wear long beige coats even intensified this impression for me. I don't know whether this was a conscious choice by the costume designer, but I thought it was an interesting parallel.

That being said, I'm curious whether these two will return in the finale. I think Hastur's character was explored well enough in season 1, so if he makes an appearance, I believe it will rather be in the background. But there have been rumors that Sandalphon, who was originally supposed to be in season 2, but was replaced by Saraqael due to the actor being involved in a different project by the time, will make a comeback for the movie.

If so, I hope they will make an effective use of his sadistic nature. He may not be as appealing as the other angels, but I think he's interesting enough to dive a little deeper into his character and thereby to expose the hypocrisy of heaven, who call themselves the good guys while committing the same atrocities as hell. It could also tie nicely into the "heaven and hell against humanity" theme if Sandalphon came to the conclusion that he does identify himself more with demons like Hastur than with heaven's values, and decided to join forces with them in order to destroy the earth and all living beings on it.

Do you think that Hastur and Sandalphon will return? And what will their roles be?

Work cited:

Pratchett, Terry and Gaiman, Neil: Good Omens. The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch. London 2011.

[realitythroughthelensoffiction]

My favourite part of season 1, episode 3: the thirty-minute cold open

My second favourite part: Aziraphale expressing his sadness about the death of Officer Milkbottle

Honestly, this angel is so naive it's cute.

[realitythroughthelensoffiction]

Am I the only one who thinks that Michael is a traitor?

I'm using he/him pronouns for the Archangel Michael. The character is played by a female actress, but Michael is traditionally a male name. And since I'm not a native speaker of English, I struggle with the use of they/them for single persons, so I avoid using these pronouns unless they are canon for a character.

The Archangel Michael is my favourite character after Crowley and Aziraphale. I love the mixture of greed for power, deviousness and imcompetence. He is also not as blind as Gabriel when it comes to certain things - he was the first in heaven to notice the connection between Crowley and Aziraphale and the one who suspected that the angels were being tricked in the Job episode. But I get the impression that the fandom vastly underestimates him and his possible role in the finale. So, especially in the light of a recent interview with actress Doon Mackichan (the interview contains spoilers, my post does not), I wanted to share a theory with the fandom that I've had for a long time. The starting point for my theory is this scene with Dagon:

Dagon hisses at the angels, to which Michael subtly shakes his head, with the effect that Dagon immediately draws back and looks below herself. For shippers, this scene has been a delight. But I think there's evidence that Michael's connection with hell actually goes a bit deeper than a personal relationship with Dagon.

Now first, there has always been some communication between heaven and hell. Even God and Satan used to talk to each other, like when they came up with the bet about Job. Gabriel's and Beelzebub's first meeting in a café was semi-official; they were meeting in their roles as the leaders of their respective sides to figure out what steps to take next.

In season 1, Heaven was informed about the arrival of the Antichrist and Crowley's involvement in it. And heaven and hell worked together for the execution of Crowley and Aziraphale. Dagon points out the irony of this scene by calling it "cooperation with our old enemies" - the same crime our angel and demon are to be punished for.

And it makes sense that there would be at least some cooperation between heaven and hell. After all, they both want their war. However, in season 2 the flow of information between heaven and hell appears to be suspiciously unidirectional. And that's where Michael comes into play.

At the beginning of season 2, we see Michael talking to someone from hell through his phone. I didn't recognize the voice of his interlocutor, so I'm not sure who he was talking to, but it doesn't really matter. What's important is that Michael is speaking about Gabriel being missing and heaven being prepared to use "extreme sanctions". Why would a loyal Archangel give such an information to hell? Not even the lesser angels were supposed to know about Gabriel's disappearance. The Metatron forbade Saraqael to "sound an alert".

And why would Michael expect hell to help them? Shouldn't hell be more than happy if the leader of their enemies was missing? I know that Michael's mention of the Book of Life could be understood as a threat should hell really be responsible for Gabriel's disappearance. But you would expect his interlocutor to be at least hesitant about helping him. You would not suppose them to instantly tell him "I'm on it", nor Michael to respond with "I appreciate it".

Said scene is not the only instance in which Michael is talking to someone from hell via phone. In season 1, he calls Ligur to ask him about Crowley and Aziraphale. He starts the conversation by simply stating "It's me" and not "It's the Archangel Michael", implying that they talk regularly and that Ligur knows who is on the phone. After Ligur's death, the demon seems to have been replaced immediately by someone else as Michael's contact in hell. So I suppose that the fact that they have been communicating is not a secret in Satan's realm, especially since the phone Ligur uses is standing in a room where other demons are working as well.

Heaven, on the other hand, seems to be unaware of Michael's connection to hell. Gabriel is genuinely confused when Michael mentions "back channels", and Michael does not explain what he means by that, but simply gives him a wicked smile. Then, after looking over his shoulder to check if anyone is watching him, Michael hides in the staircase and calls Ligur. When another angel walks past, Michael temporarily holds the phone away from his ear and laughs nervously.

Ever since I saw that scene, I've suspected that Michael is a traitor who is secretly working for hell, and his little interaction with Dagon only intensified my impression. Moreover, if you pay attention to the other characters in that scene in the bookshop, you can see that it is not only Dagon, but also FurFur who is meticulously watching Michael, while the angels are looking in different directions.

It has also always struck me as odd that Michael is the one who comes to hell for Crowley's execution. Hell sent the disposable Eric for the killing of Aziraphale, so it's a bit strange that an Archangel does not equally send one of the lesser angels to do the same service for hell, but does it himself.

Furthermore, Michael is the only angel whose name is mentioned in the Book of Revelations. He is the one who leads the fight against Satan (Rev 12:7). In Christian iconography, Michael is also often depicted holding the scales to weigh the souls in the Last Judgment. Now, this particular image does not come from the Bible, but was taken from ancient Egyptian art instead (cf. this article). In the Bible, it is the Book of Life that is used to separate the saved from the damned (Rev 20:15; 21:27). But it is Michael who mentions the Book of Life twice in the series, although he is obviously not authorized to edit it. So if we take all these facts together, I think it's not preposterous to assume that Michael will play an important role in the finale, whatever that role may be.

And since Michael is the one who fights Satan in the Bible, it would be a cool plot twist if he turned out to be an agent of hell in Good Omens.

It's pretty obvious what the benefits of working together with Michael would be for hell. It would be useful to have an ally in heaven who waits until the right time to help you to secure your final victory. Hell still seems to be cautious about trusting Michael, though; he has to assure Ligur about his trustworthiness during their phone call, and Beelzebub openly voices their mistrust in the scene with the holy water.

As for Michael himself, it is not that clear what his motivation for a cooperation with hell could be. We know that he is seeking power, and maybe hell promised him a high position as a reward for his services. He might also consider a deal with hell a smart move to save his life in case that they win the war. And if heaven were to win, he could still draw back and insist that he had been a loyal angel all along.

In any case, I've always believed that we as a fandom are too focused on the Metatron as the only villain in the finale, and that the real danger might come from a different place. Michael might be the murder hornet in heaven's beehive and an even bigger antagonist than the Metatron to Crowley, Aziraphale and humanity. If my assumption turned out to be right, it would also be very interesting to see how Michael's role as a link between heaven and hell could play into the concept of "heaven and hell against humanity".

I think there's no doubt that Michael is hell's no. 1 informant. The question is whether he acts as such as a part of the normal exchange between heaven and hell or whether he is actively working for them.

I would love to read your thoughts on that. Do you think that my theory about Michael as a traitor makes sense? Or am I reading too much into his odd behaviour?

@kimberleyjean

[realitythroughthelensoffiction]

I have a crazy theory on this: what if Adam and Eve return in the finale? Gabriel's prophecy about the dead leaving their graves already implied that we will see some deceased people again, and the very first human couple might well be among them.

And about the inscription on the gravestone: yes, it is a quote from Death to Adam Young, but it could be applied to the first Adam as well. Heaven and hell use the earth as their chessboard and humans as their chess pieces to battle each other, something that shall finally result in the apocalypse. So it is true that the very existence of Adam (i.e. of men) "requires the ending of the world".

Bringing Adam and Eve back would also create the opportunity to point out once more the importance of Crowley tempting them to eat from the Tree of Knowledge and thus giving them free will, as well as the unforeseen consequences of Aziraphale providing them with a weapon and bringing violence in the world. Both was somehow necessary; the whole state of humanity is basically the result of a joint effort between an angel and a demon.

What was that about Adam's gravestone again...?

I finally got my hands on a 4k copy of the opening credits of GO S2. So, before I write up the huge dissection post, let me just say something extremely fishy is going on in the graveyard portion.

Thanks to some help from my friends over at @ineffable-detective-agency, we've managed to manipulate the footage enough to read Adam's green gravestone, with some with suspicious results. (here's a closeup, and the transcription I was able to pull off the footage, click to enlarge).

here lies.... ADAM "I do not understand, surely your __________________ requires ________________________ of ___________." If your senses are tingling, that's because this phrase is actually pulled from Good Omens the novel, helpfully provided by @somehow-a-human's copy below:

They made is very hard to read indeed, but it does seem that despite Neil Gaiman's sneaky misdirections, this grave is in fact about Adam Young.

So this gravestone *is* about Adam Young, and yet we know that he's also fine. To reconcile the two, what if we took a lateral approach. After all, there are at least 2 meaning of the word "lies"....

When we see the words "Here lies" on a gravestone, we're given heaps of cultural and contextual information to infer that the first meaning of the word "lie" is meant. But if you're using language games and puns all over the place, who's to say that "Here lies..." doesn't mean something entirely more sinister.

With love, Your Ineffable Detective Agency Our other active members include: @embracing-the-ineffable, @kimberleyjean, @theastrophysicistnextdoor, @maufungi, @somehow-a-human, @lookingatacupoftea, @havemyheartaziraphale, @dunkthebiscuit, and @251-dmr

[realitythroughthelensoffiction]

Hot take: Crowley and God share the same philosophy

Of all characters in Good Omens, Crowley is the one who criticizes God and his/her actions the most. And I find that kind of ironic regarding the fact that their take on free will and morality appears to be essentially the same.

The fandom appreciates Crowley for his own special way of doing evil. He does not try "to spread misery and panic among the humans" like Shax or manipulate people into sinning like Hastur and Ligur. Instead, he relies on humans' tendency for self-destruction. Crowley creates minor inconveniences, like by shutting down the mobile phone network. Inconveniences that could just be shrugged away, but in fact lead to people lashing out on each other. Or he gives individuals with evil deeds on their mind the opportunity to carry them out, like when he turns the paintball guns of the office staff into real ones.

And he is succesful with that. The series does not make it that explicit, but the book clearly mentions how Crowley is far more efficient at collectings souls for hell than demons like Hastur and Ligur. You could say that Crowley is simply doing what he is obliged to do. But his proud face when he tells Hastur and Ligur about the bit with the mobile phone network, when he talks about giving the office staff machine guns, or when he presents his design for the M25 in hell suggests that he is actually enjoying what he does.

Moreover, although Crowley does not do real evil, he still contributes to it, because, as Waller puts it, "[a] person is infinitely more likely to pull the trigger if they are handed a gun" (p. 23; cited below). Does this mean that Crowley is far more demonic than we admit? Not exactly; I think Crowley actually has high moral standards. He is completely opposed to letting innocents - like the kids during the Flood or Job, Job's children and even Job's goats - suffer.

But the thing with people with high moral standards (and I know this from myself) is: they can be pretty cruel to anyone who does not live up to these standards. Crowley firmly believes in "free will, including the right to murder". But in his opinion, that also means that you have to deal with the consequences of your actions. He does not seem to mind the paintball players being arrested for trying to shoot each other, nor does he seem to have a problem with people going to hell for their evil deeds.

To be fair, Crowley acknowledges that sometimes the circumstances force people to do bad things. That's why he saves Elspeth, since he does not want her to "be damned forever" for committing sins out of poverty and desparation.

But apart from that, he sees testing people's morality as his job. Again, this is not explicit in the series, but in the book he considers demons to "occup[y] the same position as tax inspectors" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 275; cited below) in the universe. And although he does not want innocents to suffer, that's exactly what happens as a result of him tempting people to do bad things, of giving them the opportunity to hurt others.

But if people pass the test, then that's fine for Crowley, too. We can witness this with Jesus. Yes, Crowley even tried to tempt the son of God by showing him all the kingdoms in the world. But Jesus resisted the temptation and Crowley did not seem upset about it. Actually, he seems to respect Jesus a lot for his good character. He possibly even suspected beforehand that Jesus would resist his temptation and saw it more as doing Jesus a favour, because "his travel opportunities are limited".

And although Crowley is convinced that people should deal with the consequences of their actions, he draws the line where said consequences become to harsh or irrevocable. He expresses this when talking to God in season 1: "I know you're testing them. You said you were going to be testing them. But you shouldn't test them to destruction". Crowley does not want to test people to destruction. That's why he made sure that nobody would actually get hurt or killed in the shooting (if you want to read even more about Crowley's moral philosophy, see this and this post by @linipikk and @ilarual).

What does this all have to do with God? Well, I believe God is doing pretty much what Crowley does: he/she is testing people - by setting up the plan for Armageddon, by allowing Satan to destroy Job's wordly goods and kill his children.

And I think the reason why God does this is quite obvious, if you think about it. Because if someone does good things just because God told them so or because they fear punishment if they don't, then that does not make them a good person, it just makes them an obedient one. To really judge the morality of a person, you need to give them the chance to do evil things. I think Aziraphale got this quite right: "They cannot be truly holy unless they also get the opportunity to be wicked".

Giving people the opportunity to be wicked is what Crowley does when he turns the paintball guns into real ones, and it's also what God does when he/she makes the Apocalypse part of "the Great Plan", thereby offering both heaven and hell a justification for their intent to wage war against each other. The same goes for him/her telling angels and demons alike that "Satan and his diabolical ministers may destroy everything Job owns, no questions asked", assuring them that they won't be punished for harming the poor man or not preventing him from being harmed.

By basically giving them free pass with everything they want to do, God creates an opportunity for people to really show whether they're moral persons or not. And like Crowley, who made sure that the paintball players would not die when shooting at each other, God left a backdoor for saving what is worth saving; he/she is not testing people to destruction. Adam has the power to destroy the world, but he does also have the freedom to reject it. Crowley and Aziraphale have the right to kill Job's children or let them be killed, but they also have the right to refuse to do so.

Nevertheless, God also lets everyone face the consequences - may they be good or bad - of what they did. Again, I find it ironic how much Crowley complains about the injustice of his fall, when it was just the logical result of him joining Lucifer's side. You can clearly see his double standard here - he is fine with the notion of actions having consequences when it comes to others, but not when it comes to himself (for more about Crowley struggling with unintended consequences, see this post).

But back to God: God does not only allow evil to happen (like Crowley does), he/she is also responsible for its existence in the first place. If God created everything, then he/she did also create evil. This does not have to mean that God wants evil to happen, but simply that it is necessary that evil exists so that people can make moral choices, just as Aziraphale explains.

Speaking of creation, there's one last possible parallel that I noticed between Crowley and God. The fandom often refers to Crowley as "The Starmaker". But Crowley didn't create stars, he created "a star factorer". And he seemed especially proud of the fact that it would allow the stars to develop on their own, while most stars would "come pre-aged". He did not determine how they should be, but provided them with everything they needed to grow and then simply wanted to watch them unfold before him.

My suspicion is that God did a very similar thing when he/she created humans (and angels, some of them who would become demons). He/she does barely talk to anybody and does not tell humans, angels and demons what to do. Instead, he/she provided them with everything they needed - including the ability to do both good and evil - and just watches what path they will take.

I think that God wants his/her creations to be free, truly free. That's why he/she made it so easy for Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, something even Crowley suspected: "What if I did the right thing [i.e. what God wanted] with the whole 'eat the apple' business?" And freedom does necessarily lead to some people misusing said freedom and causing harm to others. But that's the price that comes with it.

Does this make God evil? Well, that's the core of the question of theodicy believers have been struggling with for millenia. I would answer: at least it does not make God any more evil than Crowley.

And that might indicate that some sort of reconciliation between these two characters is possible. In my opinion, there's a high chance that Crowley will come to the conclusion that his and God's take on free will and morality are not so much different and that he will finally be able to make his peace with God.

So, what do you think of my theory/analysis? Do you agree with me about Crowley and God? Or do you interpret the characters and their motivations in a different way? Let me know!

Works cited:

Pratchett, Terry and Gaiman, Neil: Good Omens. The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch. London 2011.

Waller, Rhian: Avoiding a contemporary Apocalypse. Examining the Effects of Shifting Good Omens from its Cold War Context. In: Giannini, Erin and Taylor, Amanda (Eds.): Deciphering Good Omens. Nice and Accurate Essays on the Novel and Television Series, pp. 11-29.

[realitythroughthelensoffiction]

The implications of Crowley being able to stop (and start) time

In the very first scene of season 2, we see Crowley asking Aziraphale for help with "cranking up the engine". Aziraphale's job is to hold a piece of paper with overlapping circles drawn on it, and Crowley uses a hand crank to rotate the circles. After that, he proceeds to create the nebula. The part with the crank seems to have been a prerequisite to that.

Angels using hand cranks to set the universe in motion is not something Good Omens invented; you can find depictions of very similar scenes in medieval art (for an example, see this post by @tenderlywicked).

It is not clear, though, what "cranking up the engine" exactly means. It could just mean getting the mechanics of this part of the universe to work. But many fans have suspected that it also served a different function.

We know that Crowley can stop time. From what we've seen so far, he is the only supernatural being with this ability (except maybe God). But how does he do it? In the scene in the Bastille, he is not shown on screen when he stops time; when he restarts it, he does so by snapping his fingers. Snapping his fingers is also the method he uses to restart time in the scene with Mr. Dalrymple. At the airbase in Tadfield, he throws his hands up to stop time. But when he restarts it, he uses a hand crank. And although the crank is not visible in the scene with Mr. Dalrymple, Crowley does a very similar movement with his hand when he stops time there.

People have discussed whether the crank he is having at the airbase is the same crank he uses at the beginning of season 2. I'm one hundred percent convinced that it is. If the crank in season 1 was just an ordinary starter crank for the Bentley, Crowley couldn't start time with it. Plus, the series made sure to put an emphasis on the significance of the crank by showing it in a close-up shot when the Bentley explodes (for the possible symbolism of the shot, see this post by @erme-maererme).

The official Funko Pop! figure of Crowley is holding the hand crank, too, just as the Funko Pop! figure of Aziraphale is holding the flaming sword (you can find an image on Pinterest). Angels traditionally are depicted carrying attributes; I think the crank was (or maybe still is) Crowley's (for a wonderful analysis of Crowley as an engineer, see this post by @joycrispy).

So, assuming that the crank is indeed a tool to start time and was used thus in the 'Before the beginning' scene, what are the implications of that? Well, to answer this, we have to take a closer look at the concept of time - and of eternity. We know that heaven is eager to "begin eternity", as Michael proclaims in season 2. And we know from their drunk conversation in season 1 that neither Crowley nor Aziraphale are very fond of this idea.

But what exactly does eternity mean? I've always thought of eternity as an endless amount of time. But, theologically speaking, that's not what eternity is; instead, in classical theology, eternity is regarded as the complete absence of time (cf. this encyclopedia article; challenges to that classical concept in more recent theological approaches are also discussed there). For Good Omens, this notion is confirmed by Michael in the aforementioned scene, and also by Ligur in season 1, when he states: "Times are changing. They're coming to an end, for a start".

Now, the absence of time does not necessarily mean that everything is static. But in Good Omens, it seems to signify exactly that: no change, no progress, just repeating the same thing "over and over and over... and over and over and over".

This is very likely one of the main reasons why Crowley is so opposed to it, since he appears to be a fan of progress. Again, take a look at the aforementioned post about Crowley as an engineer. He even seems aware of things that are ahead of his time, like when he suggests to Mr. Dalrymple to wash his hands, because "it's gonna be over age in a few years". Not only that, but he even links progress to the concept of time. In season 1, when he drives his car towards the burning M25, he tells Hastur: "You know the thing I like best about time is that every day, it takes us further away from the fourteenth century [...] Didn't have any cars back in the fourteenth century. Lovely, clever human team inventing cars, and motorways, and windscreen wipers..."

And if time is connected to progress, and Crowley is able to start time, then that links his character to progress, too. You could go as far as to say that Crowley embodies the change and progress heaven fears.

Lastly, fans (for example @crowleysgirl56 in this post) have wondered whether Crowley is also able to manipulate, especially turn back, time. And while that would fit the recurring theme of altering reality in Good Omens (see this post), I'm pretty sure that turning back time is not something Crowley can do, because if he could, he would have already done it.

@sendarya and the people in the comment section of her character analysis of Crowley on Youtube have pointed out how often he uses the words "(it's) too late", and one time even "it's always too late": when the unicorn escapes Noah's son, when Wee Morag dies, and when he realizes the pointlessness of threatening Jim.

According to the video, Crowley uses "it's too late" to express his feelings about how "actions often have unintended consequences" that cannot be undone. And truly, Crowley is an expert when it comes to unintended consequences. As his entry in the Good Omens Wiki puts it: "many of his own plans end up backfiring on him". He shuts down the mobile phone networks in London, only to realize that this means that he isn't able to make calls either. He creates the M25 just to end up trapped inside it. The most important example for actions that had unintented consequences for Crowley are probably the ones that led to his fall. So I believe that him being able to stop time, but not to turn it back, is actually part of the tragedy (or irony?) of Crowley's character.

That being said, I assume that Crowley's abilty to stop and start time will be brought up in the finale again. Not in a game-changing way, but in a way that emphasizes how it is significant for who he is as a character and what time represents for life on earth. Actions cannot be undone, no matter how bad their consequences are. Progress, like time, can briefly be held up, but never be stopped or revoked, because it is an essential part of life itself.

[realitythroughthelensoffiction]

Good Omens Movie predictions: Jesus, Adam and their possible roles in the finale

I'm quoting some things Neil Gaiman said in this post. Please do not take this as me condoning his actions, but just as properly citing my sources. For further explanation, see this post.

The ending of season 2 of Good Omens left us with a cliffhanger that hinted at the Second Coming as a part of the plot of the finale. Fans have been wondering since then whether we will actually see Jesus in the movie. Some have suggested that he won't appear because the creative team behind the series would not want to depict him in a negative way.

There have also been discussions about whether Jesus even is the son of God in Good Omens. But the series doesn't state otherwise, so I think it is in line with the Christian belief here. And I don't really get why people think that Jesus would be portrayed in a bad light. His depiction in the series so far has been a very positive one. He has been established as "a very bright young man" whose only crime consisted in telling people to "be kind to each other".

Moreover, Terry Pratchett himself wrote in an article that although he never liked the Old Testament, he did like the New Testament and thought that "Jesus had a lot of good things to say" (you can read the full text here). So I'm convinced that if Jesus is featured in the Good Omens finale, he will be nothing but a nice guy.

But will he be featured? In 2005, both Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman talked in Q&As with fans about the Good Omens sequel they had planned. You can find summaries of these Q&As in two old Livejournal posts, written by @irisbleufic (links here and here). Neil Gaiman revealed that the book would have opened with Jesus landing in an airplane and then getting lost in Times Square. Both authors also said that if they ever decided to publish the sequel, they would have to change much of the plot, because people's worldviews had changed, too.

However, since Terry Pratchett is no longer around, they did not get the chance to draft a new plot. And the announcement of the ninety-minutes-finale on the website of the Terry Pratchett Estate mentions that it "will bring to life a serendipitous conversation from almost 35 years ago". So I think we can assume that the plot of the Good Omens finale will pretty much follow the story the authors had originally discussed. This would include the beginning with Jesus landing in an airplane (in Times Square or more likely somewhere in Great Britain, since shooting takes place there). And indeed, an airplane with the inscription "Thy Kingdom Airways" is visibly featured in the title sequence of season 2, as spotted by @ennas-aesthetic (cf. this post).

Prediction No. 1: The Good Omens finale will - maybe after a prologue - open with Jesus landing in an airplane.

And after that? The summary that was teased for the plot of season 3 - now the 90-minutes-finale - reads as follows: "Now in Season Three, we will deal once more with the end of the world. The plans for Armageddon are going wrong. Only Crowley and Aziraphale working together can hope to put it right. And they aren’t talking" (cf. this article). Jesus getting lost would pretty much fit the definition of "the plans for Armageddon going wrong". And maybe Crowley and Aziraphale will (reluctanctly, as they are still angry at each other) go searching for him and talking to him about why the Apocalypse shouldn't happen.

Meanwhile Jesus will perhaps travel around a bit to look at the current state of the world, and will probably discover that humans haven't changed for the better since he's last been on earth. I've always imagined a scene where he meets some Christian fundamentalists (you know, the hardcore ones who believe in Jesus as a warrior and Armageddon being a good thing) and tries to bring them his message of peace and charity. And then they get angry and Jesus is like "I'll better leave before they crucify me again".

Since the title of the Good Omens sequel was supposed to be 668: Neighbour of the Beast, there's also the possibility that Jesus will quite literally become the neighbour of Adam in Tadfield.

Speaking of Adam: both the book and the series imply that he retained some of his powers after the events around the averted Apocalypse, as shown by him being able to miracle a hedge away to escape his garden.

And frankly, that's one of the things I didn't like. Because if Adam changed reality so that Satan isn't his father anymore, then this means that he is no longer the Antichrist. I thought the whole point of the ending of the book and season 1 was that Adam used his powers to give up on said powers, because supernatural forces shouldn't mess with humans' lives.

But anyway, the authors decided to leave the door for Adam to become relevant once more open, and since the title of the planned sequel suggests that he would have played a role in it, and because he was one of the main protagonists in the book (though not so much in the series), I think chances are high that we will see Adam again in the finale.

People - for example @idliketobeatree in this post - have also pointed out that Jesus and Adam meeting would fit the theme of opposites coming together (although, again, they technically aren't even opposites anymore, because Jesus is the son of God, but Adam is no longer the son of Satan).

Prediction No. 2: We will see Jesus and Adam together.

But what will their roles be? I've explained in this post why I am almost certain that the finale will feature the Last Judgment. This would for sure be the climax of the movie and happen in the third act of it. In classical three-act structure, the third act makes up for the last 25% of a movie (cf. this article). So with a total length of 90 minutes, this would mean that we have a bit more than one hour to build up to that moment. This building up would include the trouble with Jesus being lost. But since we also need time to get to know what is happening in heaven and hell as they're preparing for the final conflict, I think the part with Jesus exploring the world will be the one that will be shortened the most due to time restrictions.

Nevertheless, I believe we will somehow get to the bit with the Last Judgment, and that raises some questions. Will Jesus be reluctant to judge people? Or will he come to the conclusion that it is inevitable, because humans simply cannot be convinced to "be kind to each other"? It will also be interesting, as @flameraven pointed out in this post, how they will handle the fact that in Christian belief, Jesus is the son of God, but he also is God (God became human in Jesus). So does Jesus know what the ineffable plan is? Or is he trying to figure it out just like the rest of the characters? How much independency does he have?

And what role will he play in the final resolution of the conflict? I don't think that his contribution will be game-changing. Since he is the son of God, that would be a little bit too much of a deus ex machina. But then again, Jesus was human, so maybe he will team up with the other humans against heaven and hell. In any case, I believe that Jesus will have a hand in finally averting the Apocalypse (otherwise, they would probably not include him in the story).

Prediction No. 3: Jesus will play a role when it comes to averting the Apocalypse, but the main agency will still come from other characters.

A scenario I could imagine is this: Jesus begins to judge people, including angels and demons, sorting them into the saved and the damned. But they object to it, finally standing united. And Jesus takes this as a prove that the earth, its inhabitents, and both angels and demons are not as depraved as they seemed to, that they are still capable of love, and that the things that unite them will always be stronger then the things that divide them. So he retreats from judgment, and as a consequence of it all heaven and hell cease to exist, ruling out the possibility of Armageddon forever. The conflict is thus resolved by humans and maybe even angels and demons displaying unity, with a little help from Jesus (you can read more about why I think that love/unity will save the day in this post).

So, what do you think? What will Jesus's (and Adam's) role in the finale of Good Omens be?

[realitythroughthelensoffiction]

I agree with both opinions!

Heaven as a system clearly operates with fear. The fear of falling keeps the angels obedient. It's the same tactic Crowley uses to get his plants to be the most beautiful in London, as @ineffable-suffering explained in this post.

But there are ways to escape the system. It happens when an angel experiences something that is stronger than their fear of falling. In Gabriel's case it's his love for Beelzebub, in Aziraphale's case his love for the earth and for Crowley. Gravity is what "happens when objects are pulled together". Angels are pulled down, and their demonic counterparts are pulled up. They meet in the middle, on earth.

I take the conversation about gravity as a further indication that heaven and hell will cease to exist, because angels and demons belong together, on earth.

About the point of gravity!

One of the first things we see when Gabriel arrives on earth, is tomatoes, falling. He sees it, and he steps over it. I adore this detail because:

There’s this whole scene where Gabriel keeps dropping a book, all confused. And I can write essays about the ease with which Crowley helps him (he answers an unasked question, because he knows angels Dont Ask! He doesn’t get upset when Jim doesn’t blindly accept it. He goes ‘good point, not quite sure’ when questioned himself, *as a parent should* instead of getting mad and kicking your kids out of heaven!)

‘What’s the point?’ Jim asks.

And Crowley goes ‘so things don’t go wandering off and stay put.’

‘But it doesn’t stay where I put it’, Jim frowns. ‘It falls down.’

… and that IS the whole fucking point isn’t it? Without gravity, without the *threat of falling*, the angels above wouldn’t stay put at all. They’d wander off! It’s about fear, and sacrificing half of the lot to keep the other lot in place.

[realitythroughthelensoffiction]

Very well observed!

So, to sum it up: Neil Gaiman, author of bestselling novels and comics, obviously sexually assaulted multiple women. The first allegations came out in July 2024. Due to them being published in smaller media, they did not yet gain widespread attention.

A few days ago, Vulture magazine finally brought out an article that reached a wider audience and also added more horrific details about the abuse. People who hadn't known about the accusations before quickly jumped to the conclusion that fans of Gaiman's works, including fans of the series Good Omens, had only heard about them, too.

This conclusion was wrong: Good Omens fans had been mostly aware of the allegations since they came out half a year ago. They even successfully demanded for Gaiman to be removed from the production of the final season of the series, which led to season 3 being cut down to a 90-minute movie without Neil Gaiman being directly involved in production.

This, however, did not stop some people from attacking the Good Omens fandom for... talking about the series (often with quite homophobic undertones, as @taron-egertons-hotpants pointed out in this post). Some even spread the rumour (or should I call it the lie?) that Good Omens fans were actively defending Neil Gaiman and calling his victims liars, which, apart from some unfortunate exceptions, had never been the case, not even last year.

Good Omens fans, who had been discussing the latest accusations while also continuing to share Good-Omens-related content, then found themselves the target of massive criticism for not abandoning their favourite series. They immediately went to defend the fandom, explaining how they had known about the allegations against Gaiman since July and had found a way to separate the art from the artist.

But this only made the situation worse, because now they were accused of only talking about themselves and the series instead of Gaiman's victims. Ironically, the people who reproached them of that completely overlooked the fact that they were the ones whose first instinct was to attack the fans of one of Gaiman's works instead of him - shifting the discourse away from the real problem of men like Gaiman abusing his power to the perceived problem of fans still enjoying Good Omens.

The main argument was that continuing to watch the series and to share even fan-made content about it will still earn Gaiman money. And that is true, somehow. But there are two points that I would like to mention:

First, Gaiman, from what I've seen, seems to be a guy who enjoys being in the spotlight and being revered by people. So I would assume that the loss of reputation that comes with the allegations is far worse for him than the loss of money.

Second, the question of the ethics of our choices as consumers is not limited to the work of 'problematic' artists. Good Omens fans are attacked for being responsible of an abuser still getting money. Meanwhile, people, probably including many of them who criticize Good Omens fans for watching the series, buy chocolate and clothes produced from child slavery. This is causing much more real harm than Gaiman still getting money from one of his works.

But questioning one's own behaviour as a customer and taking measures against the exploitation of workers is hard. Tossing away a series you don't even watch and comdemning people who do watch it is much easier. It gives you the opportunity to pat yourself on the back, telling you what a good person you are, while ignoring the moral implications of your own life choices.

None of us is guilt-free; we all have to carefully overthink the consequences of our actions. And although I am certainly not happy with Gaiman still getting money from me, it is not as if it will result in any real harm. Like: the more money he gets, the more women he will be able to assault in the future. That is simply not true. So instead of attacking fans who simply want to talk about a piece of art that brings them joy, people should probably focus on the real perpetrators of crimes.

Besides that, Good Omens fans have been discussing how to deal with the situation since the allegations against Gaiman first came out. Some have indeed decided to not watch the finale at all. Some have already donated to victims of sexual assault as a compensation. Some have expressed their intention to pirate the finale.

I, personally, am not a fan of pirating, because that means that all the people who work on the movie won't receive money either. In my opinion, it is a cheap way to be able to watch the finale without paying the people who made it possible - just to avoid funding an abuser. But that's just my take, I am not telling anyone what they should do.

That being said, I will watch the movie and continue to create Good-Omens-related content. If I quote something Gaiman said in relation to the series for the sake of interpretation, I will mention his full name and not call him "you-know-who" or something like that, because I think it is no use denying that he wrote it. But for the most part, I won't mention him at all, like I did before.

I support all of Gaiman's victims and wish them all the best for their future. However, I think that this and my love for Good Omens do not contradict each other.

We can continue to have (respectful!) discussions about the relationship between art and artist. But above all, we should have discussions about the societal issues that give a man like Gaiman the opportunity to sexually assault women in the first place. And we should acknowledge that none of us are free of morally questionable consumer choices and that there is more harmful behaviour in the world than watching a TV series that was created by an abuser.

so let's see if I've understood the process:

-person makes a post calling a whole fandom problematic, saying all the fans are crazy and doing this and that;

-all the people not in that fandom take the post as godspell truth and make it go viral;

-not-in-the-fandom-people start harassing said fans with insults, clogging the tags of that fandom with unnecessary hate, threats, insults, kys etc.

-Peak Tumblr Activism Reached!

[realitythroughthelensoffiction]

Good Omens Movie predictions: love will save the day

Everyone who watched Good Omens will probably agree that love is depicted as something very important in the series. But in this post, I want to show why I think that it is not only important, but also a powerful force that might be the key to saving Crowley, Aziraphale and the world in the finale.

The first thing that springs to mind in regard to the power of love is the 25 Lazarii miracle Crowley and Aziraphale performed together. But there's also the moment when Beelzebub and Gabriel take each others hand and all the candelabras in Aziraphale's bookshop light up (as for example user Mystic_printer_ on Reddit pointed out - I wouldn't have noticed it otherwise).

Since both couples consist of an angel and a demon, we cannot be sure whether it is love that causes this strong effect, or just people from two opposing sides coming together. But in any case, it shows that unity, not separation or hostility, is what produces a powerful outcome.

Crowley and Aziraphale try to do "the tiniest, most insubstantial fraction of half-a-miracle", yet it ends up being strong enough to rise 25 people from the dead, "a miracle only the mightiest of Archangels could have performed". Beelzebub and Gabriel are not even trying to perform a miracle, they're just holding hands and heading off to Alpha Centauri, and yet the lights in the bookshop react to it. So we can deduce that love/unity is one of the greatest - I would dare to say the greatest - powers in Good Omens.

@sendarya has a very cool video on her Youtube channel where she compares Good Omens to the movie A Matter of Life and Death (also known as Stairway to Heaven). She points out the many parallels between this movie and our beloved series (if you haven't seen the video yet, I would definitely recommend you to watch it, it's great). Moreover, she draws attention to the hints in season 2 that some of the themes and scenes in A Matter of Life and Death will be mirrored in the plot of the Good Omens finale.

She specifically mentions the trial at the climax of the movie, where the defence counsel says "nothing is stronger than the law in the universe, but on earth, nothing is stronger than love", and this statement allows for the resolution of the conflict. I believe that something similar will happen in Good Omens.

I have already mentioned in my previous post that I think we will see a trial - and not just a trial, but the ultimate trial, the Last Judgment. And I have also explained why I assume that the theme of reality and the ways in which it can be altered will continue to be important in the finale. So what if the love between Crowley and Aziraphale, the love of both them and the humans for the earth, or the unity between a great deal of angels and demons finally working together to avert Armageddon will give the Last Judgment an unexpected outcome? What if it will create a new reality without heaven and hell, because love is stronger than law?

Prediction: Love/unity will save the day.

In a future post, I will explore different scenarios of what exactly might happen during the climax of the Good Omens movie. But I'm very confident that love/unity will play a key role in it. This would not only fit very well the themes of Good Omens, but also a quote from the New Testament, more precisely 1 Cor. 13:13 (the most beautiful quote from the Bible, in my opinion), which establishes love as the greatest power in the universe:

"And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

(In some versions, it says "charity" instead of "love", so even the Bible allows for both readings: love as the highest form of affection, or love as kindness towards other people).

[realitythroughthelensoffiction]

Good Omens Movie predictions: the Last Judgment

Of course we can't know the plot of the Good Omens finale, but there have been enough clues along season 1 and 2 to make some predictions about at least important elements of it.

The majority of us agree that there will be a happy ending. That would include Crowley and Aziraphale getting together and finally living their lives unbothered by heaven and hell. Some have suggested that this will be achieved by the two of them simply turning their backs on their respective sides - mainly Aziraphale, since Crowley has already done so in season 2. But I don't think it will be that easy.

Because season 2 has already shown that they won't be able to live peacefully as long as heaven and hell still exist. Even before Aziraphale went back to heaven, they weren't truly free. Crowley was painfully aware that it was a "fragile existence" they were leading, and the events surrounding Gabriel's disappearence proved him right. As soon as the trouble with the missing Archangel began, Crowley was dragged back to hell by Beelzebub and Michael, Uriel and Saraqael showed up at Aziraphale's door to demand an explanation for the miracle that had been performed at his bookshop.

This is why abandoning their sides can never be a true solution to the much greater problem. There would always be the danger of another Armageddon, and heaven and hell could still exercise power over them whenever they wanted. Furthermore, Crowley, despite not having to work for hell anymore, still seems bitter during season 2 and is questioning the whole system: "Heaven, hell, demons, angels - it's all...it's all... nah, pointless".

And I think he has a reason to do so. Jimbriel, Shax and Muriel have already proved that the other angels and demons aren't entirely bad persons, but products of their toxic environments who can grow when exposed to new things (cf. this post by @ineffectualbookseller ; Shax isn't mentioned there, since the post focuses on heaven, but I did include her because I think the same applies for her). So they deserve a happy ending, too. That's why I believe that something huge has to happen in the Good Omens movie, someting that will tear down both heaven and hell in the process.

Prediction No. 1: Heaven and hell will cease to exist.

And what event could be so impactful that it would lead to the destruction of heaven and hell? Well: the Last Judgment.

There have been numerous hints that we will see the Last Judgment in the finale: the Second Coming, the Book of Life (for more about the Book of Life, see this post), Gabriel's prophecy of the dead walking the earth again and the poster with Crowley's and Aziraphale's wings forming yin and yang mirroring the structure of Hieronymus Bosch's painting The Seven Deadly Sins and the Four Last Things (credits to user Oiyouinthebushes on Reddit for noticing this; you can find the link to Bosch's painting for comparison here). So I'm quite certain that it will be featured in the movie.

Prediction No. 2: We will see the Last Judgment.

But Good Omens wouldn't be Good Omens if the Last Judgment went exactly as described in the Bible. So of course there will be a twist to it. I have vague ideas of what this twist might look like, and I will cover them in another post. They all have to do with something that was foreshadowed in season 1. After Armageddon has successfully been averted, Crowley expresses doubt about this being the end of heaven's and hell's efforts to destroy life on earth: "For my money, the really big one is all of us against all of them" - "heaven and hell against humanity", as Aziraphale clarifies.

Prediction No. 3: The main confrontation in the finale will be between heaven and hell on one side and humanity on the other.

Humans fighting angels and demons seems a bit of an uneven battle, as I've seen people point out. What chance would humans stand against immortal, powerful beings who can kill them within the blink of an eye? But humans (and Crowley and Aziraphale) have some strengths that the majority of angels and demons don't have, and love is certainly one of the most important of them. And I think that these strengths will be the key to letting the Last Judgment take an unexpected turn and to bring down heaven and hell.

As I mentioned, I will further explain my theory on the resolution of the conflict of the movie in another post. How do you think the Last Judgment will be stopped? Or do you think that we won't see it in the finale at all?

[realitythroughthelensoffiction]

Good Omens Movie predictions: the Book of Life

I think we underestimate the Bible as a source for clues for the possible plot of the Good Omens finale. A big part of the story is, after all, based on the Book of Revelation. And season 1, while of course taking many creative liberties, still kept some key elements of it: the Antichrist, the number of the Beast 666, Megiddo as the supposed place for the final battle between heaven and hell and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and their items (with Pollution being actually Conquest in the Bible - hence the crown).

So it's only logical to assume that the finale will contain further key elements of the Book of Revelation. We have already been teased about one of them: the Second Coming.

The return of Jesus is central to the events at the end of the world, since it leads to the Last Judgment. I'm pretty certain that we will actually see the Last Judgment in Good Omens, and I will elaborate on that in my next post. But for now, let's turn our attention to an specific item that plays a crucial role in the Last Judgment: the Book of Life.

In the Bible, the Book of Life contains a list of names. This list is used in the Last Judgment to separate the saved from the damned. Those whose names are contained in the Book of Life will be part of the new kingdom of God, those whose names cannot be found in it will be thrown into a lake of fire (Rev 20:15; 21:27).

The Book of Life can also be edited, names can be added or removed. People who act against God's will are threatened with erasure from the Book of Life (e.g. Ps 69:28; here, it is called "book of the living"). The Book of Revelation itself contains a warning that anyone who tries to cut something from St. John's record will be punished with their name being removed from the Book of Life (Rev 22:19).

You can deduce that having your name erased from the Book of Life is considered the ultimate punishment - or, as Good Omens puts it, "extreme sanctions".

Good Omens even intensifies the threat. In contrast to the Bible, being erased from the Book of Life does not only prevent you from being saved, but means that you "will never have existed". This fits very well into some of the central themes in the series: reality and the ways in which it can be altered, as explored in my previous post.

So in conclusion, it is highly likely that somebody removing someone's name from the Book of Life, or at least trying to do so, is something that will happen in the finale. It could be anyone who will be faced with that threat, but in light of the emotional impact of it, I think we can assume that it will be either Aziraphale or Crowley, or even both of them.

Prediction: Someone will erase or at least try to erase Aziraphale and/or Crowley from the Book of Life.

Do you agree with me? What are your thoughts on the Book of Life in Good Omens?

(Funny side note: I watched the Good Omens reaction videos of the channel 7th Hour Films on Youtube. The hosts of the channel, father and son, have great historical and (pop)cultural knowledge - if you like long reaction videos that dive really deep into the material and don't mind frequent anime references :-), I highly recommend checking out their Good Omens playlist.

Anyway, the father used his knowledge of the Bible to guess that the events of season 2 would lead to the Second Coming - in the very first episode of it! So there is really something to be said about the Bible as a source for clues.)

[realitythroughthelensoffiction]

Good Omens: on fate and reality

In season 1 of Good Omens, The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch play a vital role in helping to avert the Apocalypse. Anathema dedicated her life to understanding Agnes's prophecies and thereby helping to fulfill them. But in the final episode of season 1, when the package with the follow-up collection of prophecies arrives, she decides to burn them, because she does no longer want to live her life according to the writings of her ancestor.

This is interpreted by many as Anathema taking her fate in her own hands instead of subjugating herself to something that was foretold. But the fact that she burns the prophecies instead of studying them does not necessarily mean that she changed her fate. It is entirely possible that her life will still take the road that Agnes foresaw for her. Agnes probably even predicted the burning of the new prophecies.

The only difference is that now, Anathema knows that all the decisions she makes are of her own free will, while otherwise she would have always wondered what she did because she wanted it and what she did only because Agnes had prophesied it.

A further indication that people acting according to their free will does not contradict the idea of fate is God's Ineffable Plan itself. At the end of season 1, when the Apocalypse has just been averted, Crowley asks Aziraphale: "What if the Allmighty planned it like this all along? From the very beginning?" Aziraphale agrees that this might very well be possible.

So even though all the people involved made their own free choices, they could still have been acting according to a plan God laid out very long ago.

Conclusion No. 1: Free will and fate are not mutually exclusive.

However, it seems that some things can be altered. Adam as the Antichrist has the power to bend reality. He uses it to change the fact that Satan is his father and to bring back people from the dead, for example Lesley. When Aziraphale expresses doubt about Mr. Young really being Adam's father, Crowley says: "It is. It is now. And it always was. He did it."

So Adam did not only change reality for the present and the future, but also for the past. He was able to make things that had already happened undone.

Conclusion No. 2: In the Good Omens universe, reality can be altered, even retroactively.

And the ability to change reality does not seem to be limited to Adam. Another example, as Goldfarb Styrt (cf. p. 127; cited below) points out, is Crowley being able to get himself and his Bentley through the burning M25, while Hastur gets discorporated. Crowley simply imagines that everything is fine, and by imagining it, it becomes real. Goldfarb Styrt (cf. p. 123, pp. 126-127; cited below) also suggests that it might be the individual's interpretation of reality that matters.

That sounds really fitting to me. Because the Bentley is burning, no matter how Crowley imagines otherwise, and it explodes as soon as Crowley isn't concentrating on keeping it together anymore. And, as @indigovigilance mentions in this post, the people who witnessed the incidents during the attempted Armageddon, like Atlantis rising from the sea, still remember them, even after Adam undid everything again.

But Crowley and the humans interpret the aforementioned events in a different way than you would expect, and their interpretations have an impact.

In any case, reality and the ways in which it can be altered are important themes in season 1 of Good Omens. And season 2 contains hints that they might play a big role in the finale as well. The most prominent example of these hints is the recurring mention of the Book of Life.

I will go into more detail about the Book of Life in my next post, but the important bit for now is that by erasing someone's name from it, you create a version of reality in which "they will never have existed". So the Book of Life is another tool to effectively alter reality.

Conclusion No. 3: Reality and the possibilities to alter it are important themes in Good Omens and will be relevant to plot of the finale.

That's it for now. What are your thoughts on fate and reality in Good Omens?

Work cited: Goldfarb Styrt, Philip: Sola Fide. Ineffability, Good Omens, and the Reformation. In: Giannini, Erin and Taylor, Amanda (Eds.): Deciphering Good Omens. Nice and Accurate Essays on the Novel and Television Series, pp. 120-132.

@kimberleyjean