#anon again im not sure if you thought that i was gettkng shitty about neil but i hope that if you did this ask clarifies

[thesherrinfordfacility]

I would like to know how Neil's interpretation of a scene he didn't write as not being a sex metaphor somehow means he's suddenly decided Aziracrow aren't in love. With how much the Good Omens fandom insists that all headcanons are valid, why does Neil sharing his for one scene suddenly mean he needs to be tricked and bullied into having Crowley and Aziraphale kiss or be otherwise romantic?

Is it because he said a dramatic last ditch attempt at communication in the form of a completely non-sexy kiss is just that? He didn't say it wasn't a romantic kiss, he said it was a non-sexual kiss. He said, to him, the oxrib scene was not a sexual metaphor. He has not said, anywhere, that Aziraphale and Crowley are not romantically in love.

Neil does not need to be bullied or tricked by Michael and David or anyone else to make Crowley and Aziraphale be and show they are in love. He's doing a remarkable job of making them that way all on his own.

hi anon!!!✨ okay, so ive pondered over this ask, and i can't quite parse out from the tone if you might be generally asking/ranting, or if you believe that im - put simply - anti-neil in this whole discourse fiasco? because if it's the latter, i'll happily share my personal thoughts on the matter as to why that is definitely not the case. initially, just to support my point, take a look at my tags on this and this post, because that will give you a little flavour as to my opinion.

essentially, i completely agree with you. first, for full disclosure - i know that there have been quite a few comments that neil has made (in interviews, tweets etc) over the years that have fed into this discourse that i do not have receipts for; so anyone that wants me to take these into account, please feel free to send me them.

okay, now i'll try and summarise my thoughts on this (and some may repeat points you have very rightly - imo - already made):

good omens, and in particular the show, is very diverse, and inclusive. it is a triumph in this respect. specifically, i think aziraphale and crowley's story has been written very cleverly and quite sensitively to provide or reflect representation for a wide array of sexualities, gender identifications, and in general queer experiences.

my second main thought is that there is a difference between author/writer original intent, author/writer interpretation of their own work (retrospectively, as a consumer or critic in their own right), and audience interpretation. none of them have to perish for others to exist; they can exist together, even if they can conflict each other in their conclusion/s. the best stories imo are those that can be read multiple ways.

the ox-scene in ep2 (and im also going to lump 40s minisode in this too... plus multiple other specific Acting Choices throughout the season) can be interpreted sexually. i don't think there are two ways about it, it definitely can. it may not be the author's intent (bearing in mind, whilst likely overseen by neil, ACtO was written by john) to write it sexually, but the direction/acting choices are, i think, undeniably sexual in subtext and tone.

that being said, whether or not this is what the writers had in mind when writing the episode (and im not saying they absolutely did, im not psychic), the literal written narrative is not sexual at all. it's crowley tempting aziraphale into eating, an earthly pleasure that we know aziraphale later enjoys. it is therefore perfectly reasonable for some people, i imagine particularly those that are aspec, to read this scene non-sexually. whether metaphorical for sex or just a complete mukbang on aziraphale's part, i read it as an uncomfortable, intimate, eldritch-like scene. all interpretations are correct, and none are wrong. it caters for many.

the kiss scene is, to my mind, not particularly romantic, and it's certainly not sexual. crowley meant it out of love, no doubt, and hand-in-hand with that love, out of desperation and as an 'everything else has failed' way of communicating. i personally read it as a temptation, as something desperate but almost on the cusp of being possessive and cruel - thats my personal opinion/interpretation. i'll be completely honest, i don't personally see how anyone can possibly read this scene as sexual (imo kisses are not and should not be gatekept by those that are sex-inclined), but where someone does, id be happy to learn why, to try to understand that interpretation. the romantic element is a little more questionable - technically speaking, yes, it probably is romantic, and i do understand how/why people read it as that, but for me it isn't.

the story in totality is however, to my mind, romantic; in my opinion, there is love of the romantic kind between aziraphale and crowley. furthermore, neil has stated that that is the writer's intent; he intends for it to be romantic.

taking the writer intent out of the equation however, for a moment, admittedly i think their story even throughout s2 could be seen as very lovingly platonic, right up until the kiss. but even then - as I said before - the kiss for me doesn't read as completely romantic. i think one could argue that crowley just simply saw it as something he could do because 'humans do it!'. the script itself doesn't confirm outright it is romantic - it strongly alludes to it, sure, but there has been no indisputable declaration of romantic love. therefore (whilst, again, i do not personally think this to be the case - i do see romantic love here) it is entirely possible to interpret the narrative, text and subtext, in completely different ways and those interpretations still be valid.

where the story, and their relationship itself, goes and concludes is unknown. they could have multiple kisses of the romantic variety in s3, or they may never kiss again. they could just hug, or hold hands. they could have a full-on sex scene, or potentially have a scene that could be interpreted as leading to one. they could even have a conversation about being willing to try sex, another human experience, but agree that if neither of them like it, they don't do it again (but will still love each other), and the conclusion is left purposefully ambiguous. there may be a love confession, an outright declaration, or something could be said in a subtle way such that can be interpreted as both platonic and romantic.

i agree that neil doesn't need to be bullied by anyone into writing the story he's going to write... there will however be jokes about it, mainly from the hyperbolic perspective of michael being quite vocal that he too sees aziraphale as being in love with crowley. michael has admitted (jokingly? professional research?) to reading fanfiction that helped inform him on this personal confirmation, and this may have informed him on his acting. there are some of us that joke about the 'feral-ness that is michael in being hellbent on getting a sex scene' etc., and i know some have taken that joke further in saying that michael should essentially campaign for one, but i think we can all safely say that neil will write what he writes, and michael will continue to play aziraphale absolutely perfectly, and according to the script and direction offered to him. they are professionals, colleagues, and im fairly certain are definitely friends; the jokes are jokes (on this blog at least, anyway).

final point; i think neil has a fairly difficult task - whether he actively pays a deliberate mind to this or not, or it just comes naturally - in continuing to write a story that can be representative of everyone. he has his intent, sure, and his later own interpretation, but he has provided something amazing; characters and a story that is supernatural in setting, but entirely human in nature. that can speak to so many people, of so many different walks of life. that everyone can see a bit of themselves in these characters, can recognise parts of them in their own spirit. sees them go through decisions and experiences and joy and pain that each of us have at some point probably encountered ourselves.

that balancing act - again, whether he purposefully does pay this any mind or not - cannot be easy. i do not personally see him as homophobic for what he said in that tweet. i do not personally think he has queerbaited, or led anyone on to think that the characters/narrative is something that it's not. that's my opinion, and i fully respect that others will have theirs (and id be happy to hear them!), but i think he is respectful that people will have their individual interpretations, and leave it at that. he may even agree with some of them - he has said that he has liked metas etc based on merit and effort, out of respect too i imagine, but not necessarily as a veritable stamp of approval that the post agrees outright with his original intent or personal interpretation.

in any case - why would he agree to one interpretation if that could mean that that could upset someone else with a different one? that's not fair on anyone, so i think it's more than fair that he sticks to confirming what he intended in what he wrote, and not comment on how it should be interpreted. its because of this - brass tacks time - that i think any questions about interpretation should be kept out of his askbox... sure, ask about what is literally in the script, or what physically happens on screen, or background 'canon' info, but don't ask him for how you should interpret it, because i think it's fair to say he is only ever going to give back his original intention, or how he personally interprets it.

that doesn't automatically mean that he thinks any other interpretation is ridiculous or inaccurate, or not valid; everyone else's interpretation can exist at the same time too. he might disagree privately, but that's up to him - same as the rest of us✨