#differences between book and show

[nofomogirl]

Good Omen's problem with having two canons

They're fundamentally different. That's the problem. That's my point.

For quite a while I focused almost exclusively on the new season of Good Omens, but now I am slowly delving into analysis that takes the entire show into account, and I've encountered a little obstacle. Namely, things from S1 can be really tricky to interpret.

Fair warning: this post is going to zig-zag between various points but I want you to trust me and take this scenic route with me. It will take us somewhere eventually, I promise.

The Arrangement

It's one of the core elements in the Good Omens universe and at the same time a perfect example of the issue I want to discuss. So let's have a closer look together.

In the book, the Arrangement is presented to us in two passages:

the first one, where it is first - very briefly - mentioned:

Aziraphale had tried to explain [free will] to him once. The whole point, he'd said - this was somewhere around 1020, when they'd first reached their little Arrangement - the whole point was that when a human was good or bad it was because they wanted to be.

and the second one, where it is properly introduced and explained:

The Arrangement was very simple, so simple in fact, that it didn't really deserve the capital letter, which it had got for simply being in existence for so long. It was the sort of sensible arrangement that many isolated agents, working in awkward conditions a long way from their superiors, reach with their opposite number when they realize they have more in common with their immediate opponents than their remote allies. It meant a tacit non-interference in certain of each other's activities. It made certain that while neither really won, also neither really lost, and both were able to demonstrate to their masters the great strides they were making against a cunning and well-informed adversary. (...) And then, of course, it had seemed even natural that they should, as it were, hold the fort for one another whenever common sense dictated. Both were of angel stock, after all. If one was going to Hull for a quick temptation, it made sense to nip across the city and carry out a standard brief moment of divine ecstasy. It'd get done anyway, and being sensible about it gave everyone more free time and cut down on expenses.

In the show, the Arrangement is presented to us in two original scenes in the cold opening of S1E3:

(I am quoting most relevant dialogues only)

537 AD, Wessex:

C: So we're both working very hard in damp places and just canceling each other out? A: Well, you could put it like that. It is a bit damp. C: Be easier if we both stayed home. If we just send messages back to our head offices saying we'd done everything they'd asked for, wouldn't it? A: But that would be lying. C: Eh, possibly, but the end result would be the same. Cancel each other out. A: But my dear fellow... well, they'd check. Michael's a bit of a stickler. You don't want to get Gabriel upset with you. C: Oh, our lot have better things to do than verifying compliance reports from Earth. As long as they get paperwork they seem happy enough. As long as you're being seen doing something every now and again. A: No! Absolutely not! I am shocked that you would even imply such a thing. We're not having that conversation, not another word!

1601 AD, The Globe Theatre:

A: I have to be in Edinburgh at the end of the week. A couple of blessings to do. A minor miracle to perform. (...) C: I'm meant to be heading to Edinburgh too this week. Tempting a clan leader to steal some cattle. A: Doesn't sound like hard work. C: That's why I thought we should... Well, bit of a waste of effort, both of us going all the way to Scotland. A: You cannot actually be suggesting what I infer that you are implying. C: Which is? A: That just one of us goes to Edingburgh, does both. The blessing and the tempting. C: We've done it before. Dozens of times now. The Arrangement- A: Don't say that! C: Our respective offices don't actually care how things get done. They just want to know they can cross it off the list.

S2 doesn't actually reference the Arrangement. But it does reuse the dialogue about free will where the 1020 date is dropped. We will get back to it.

The challenge of adapting Good Omens

Good Omens shares a certain characteristic with all of Terry Pratchett's solo books I've read - it couldn't care less about "showing instead of telling". Which I love, just to be clear. A book is a written medium. It's made with words and one of words' major strengths is that you can use them to just tell things point blanc.

Good Omens does it a lot and it's fantastic.

Look at that second passage from the book I quoted earlier.

From just those few sentences we learn a lot about the relationships between:

Heaven and Hell (opponents and competition)

Aziraphale and Crowley (two individuals in the same position and in direct contact with each other)

Aziraphale/Crowley and Heaven/Hell (field agent and a remote HQ that are not in direct contact)

Aziraphale/Crowley and Earth (two individuals and a space they live in)

Heaven/Hell and Earth (a board where the game is played, only winning or losing matters, what actually happens on a board does not)

It's really an extra condensed worldbuilding gem sprinkled with humor, so it's no surprise it's become one of the most iconic passages from the book.

I mean, just browse through some interviews with David and Michael - especially the ones from 2019 - where they explain what Aziraphale and Crowley are about. You'll be hard-pressed to find any where they don't reference that specific paragraph, consciously or otherwise.

But it's only this neat on the pages of the book, where narration like this takes mere seconds to absorb. It's impossible to convey the same information in a visual medium with anywhere near the same efficiency.

The fact that the majority of Good Omens is like this was, in my opinion, a main challenge the adaptation faced. The book is very narration-heavy. It's full of fun facts about characters, side jokes, hilarious comments, etc. Some of that precious material was salvaged by introducing God as a narrator, but there was only so much of it you could squeeze into a TV show. The rest had to either be fit into dialogues or lost in translation from the written medium to the visual one.

Obviously, in the case of the Arrangement, it was the dialogues.

Book canon and show canon

We all know they're not the same. Neil Gaiman also pointed it out several times. But I think our mistake is that we still tend to think about them as complementary.

Look at the Arrangement again. The show canon seems to merely expand on the book canon. Add extra details and fill in the blanks. The Arrangement works the exact same way, except now we also know more about how it started.

If we compile what we know from the book with what we know from the show, we get a more detailed timeline:

Crowley first proposes the Arrangement in 537 (show).

The Arrangement starts in 1020 (book), ie. Aziraphale finally agrees to it (show - deduction); we don't know for sure if it's a "basic version" (not getting in each other's way), or a "full version" (doing each other's jobs) but we can assume it's the former.

In 1601 "full version" of the Arrangement is in place for some time (they've done it dozens of times) but Aziraphale still objects and needs convincing.

But read that description from a book once more.

Does it really fit into the version of events shown in the TV series?

The Arrangement in the book is something that just happened. A natural, and in a way inevitable result of Aziraphale and Crowley's circumstances. We are never told who came up with it first because it doesn't matter. Because it could have been either of them. Because after five millennia on Earth, they were both ready to do it. They were both of the same mind. For all we know it might have been an unspoken agreement all along!

But for the show, the creators had to come up with a good reason for the Arrangement to be discussed out loud. And what could be a more natural situation for someone to describe and explain an idea than trying to sell that idea to someone else?

For that practical reason - among many others, no doubt - the Arrangement is not only explicitly Crowley's idea, but an idea Aziraphale vehemently rejects at first. He needs to be convinced and even when he finally relents he's never entirely comfortable with it. He keeps objecting and it requires Crowley's constant effort for them to keep cooperating in any way.

The fact that Aziraphale is reluctant gives Crowley a perfect reason to keep convincing him ie. talk about the Arrangement. But the fact that he needs to explain and keep convincing Aziraphale means that Aziraphale is no longer a person who understands the same things and feels the same way.

That is a huge change.

Of course, you may say that what I've written about the Arrangement in the book is just my interpretation. It's true that technically there's nothing there that would contradict the events from the show in any way. The thing is, the events in the show aren't very compatible with the overall characterization of the ineffable duo in the book.

Evolution of Aziraphale and Crowley

You might have read that our leading pair was originally conceived as a single character that Neil and Terry eventually decided to split into two separate individuals.

My reaction when I first learned about it was: "Of course they were! That makes so much sense!" Because honestly, as a person who watched the show first and then read the book, I was surprised at how few differences there were between the two in the original text. If you squint your eyes really tight, you can see how book!Aziraphale and book!Crowley are two versions of the same character. They're far more similar than their show versions.

Most importantly, their attitudes toward Heaven and Hell are pretty much identical. Perfectly mirrored in every regard. What Hell is for Crowley, Heaven is for Aziraphale. What Hell is for Aziraphale, Heaven is for Crowley. In. Every. Possible. Way.

Allow me to present some evidence from the book.

Exhibit #1: the end of the scene where Crowley convinces Aziraphale to interfere with Warlock's upbringing

'You're saying the child isn't evil of itself?' he said slowly. 'Potentially evil. Potentially good too, I suppose. Just this huge powerful potentiality, waiting to be shaped,' said Crowley. He shrugged. 'Anyway, why're we talking about this good and evil? They're just names for sides. We know that.' 'I suppose it's got to be worth a try,' said the angel. Crowley nodded encouragingly. 'Agreed?' said the demon, holding out his hand. The angel shook it, cautiously. 'It'll certainly be more interesting than saints,' he said. 'And it'll be for the child's own good, in the long run,' said Crowley. (...)

When Crowley first points out that good and evil are just names for sides, and then insists it's something they both know, Aziraphale doesn't react in any way. That's because these aren't things that book!Aziraphale disagrees with. He does indeed know it and doesn't deny it.

Also, please note just how cynical the angel is here with his comment that influencing the Antichrist would be a more interesting project than influencing saints!

Both would be rather OOC for show!Aziraphale.

Exhibit #2: the scene just after Warlock Dowling's birthday party, when it becomes evident he is not the Antichrist

'You said it was him!' moaned Aziraphale (...) 'It was him,' said Crowley. (...) 'Then someone else must be interfering.' 'There isn't anyone else! There's just us, right? Good and Evil. One side or the other.' He thumped the steering wheel. 'You'll be amazed at the kind of things they can do to you, down there,' he said. 'I imagine they're very similar to the sort of things they can do to you up there,' said Aziraphale. 'Come off it. Your lot get ineffable mercy,' said Crowley sourly. 'Yes? Did you ever visit Gomorrah?' 'Sure' said the demon. 'There was this great little tavern where you could get these terrific fermented date-palm cocktails with nutmeg and crushed lemongrass-' 'I meant afterwards.' 'Oh.'

Can you imagine this kind of exchange in the TV series? Can you imagine show!Aziraphale being this realistic about Heaven, and show!Crowley so naive about it? There's no way.

Show!Aziraphale genuinely believes that Heaven is good at its core.

Book!Aziraphale knows Heaven isn't any different than Hell and would punish him just as ruthlessly and unfairly as Hell would Crowley.

Show!Crowley understands both Heaven and Hell on a very deep level and is highly aware of their true nature.

Book!Crowley buys a piece of celestial propaganda about ineffable mercy and actually expects Heaven to be forgiving.

Let the magnitude of that difference sink.

Exhibit #3: same scene, a bit further

'So all we've got to do is find it,' said Crowley. 'Go through the hospital records.' The Bentley's engine coughed into life and the car leapt forward, forcing Aziraphale back into the seat. 'And then what?' he said. 'And then we find the child.' 'And then what?' The angel shut his eyes as the car crabbed around the corner. 'Don't know.' 'Good grief.' 'I suppose (...) your people wouldn't consider (...) giving me asylum?' 'I was going to ask you the same thing. (...)'

This is just a cherry on top, really.

Yes, in the book, when things go pear-shaped, both Aziraphale and Crowley consider seeking asylum on the opposite side.

Do you need more proof that book canon and show canon really aren't as compatible as they may seem?

Free will

As promised, let's get back to that dialogue because while it may not be obvious at first glance it really illustrates perfectly the problem arising from balancing between two canons.

Here is the full quote from the book:

Aziraphale had tried to explain [free will] to him once. The whole point, he'd said - this was somewhere around 1020, when they'd first reached their little Arrangement - the whole point was that when a human was good or bad it was because they wanted to be. Whereas people like Crowley and, of course, himself, were set in their ways right from the start. People couldn't become truly holy, he said, unless they also had the opportunity to be definitively wicked. Crowley had thought about it for some time and, around about 1023, had said, Hang on, that only works, right, if you start everyone off equal, OK? You can't start someone off in a muddy shack in the middle of a war zone and expect them to do as well as someone born in a castle. Ah, Aziraphale had said, that's the good bit. The lower you start, the more opportunities you have. Crowley had said, That's lunatic. No, said Aziraphale, it's ineffable.

And here, for comparison, is how it was reused in S2E3:

A: There is a stolen body in that barrel! This is wicked! C: Oh, I'm down with wicked! Anyway, is it wicked? She needed the money. A: That is irrelevant. Look, I am good. You, I'm afraid, are evil. But people get a choice. You know, they cannot be truly holy unless they also get the opportunity to be wicked. She is wicked. C: Yeah, that only works if you start everyone off equal. You can't start someone off like that and expect her to do as well as someone born in a castle. A: Ah, but no, no. That's the good bit. The lower you start, the more opportunities you have. So Elspeth here has all the opportunities because she's so poor. C: That's lunacy. A: No, that's ineffable.

I'll be honest with you - I didn't like that scene in the show. It felt jarring and off. Aziraphale was acting like it was his first day on Earth and it was frustrating to watch.

Then, on one of the rewatches, just as I was rolling my eyes at "that's ineffable", a bulb lit in my brain. That line didn't work there because it wasn't created to be there! In the book and in S1 "it's ineffable" was kind of Aziraphale's catchphrase but in S2 it only appears this once. More importantly, in the book and S1, the fact that the angel would say that was all a build-up to the scene when he threw it in Heaven's face at the Tadfield Airbase. Using that word in S2 was like trying to make a running joke that has already reached its destination run again.

And just like that one line the entire dialogue didn't fit because it wasn't meant to be there. It was created for an entirely different context.

What's the difference?

Firstly, book!husbands' conviction was very shallow and it wasn't uncommon for both of them to spout slogans without meaning them. Therefore, book!Aziraphale's words didn't carry that much weight. The very fact that the conversation took place at the same time they formed the Arrangement tells us something about how serious he was. But show!Aziraphale's relationship with his beliefs is different, so when he says things like that it's a much bigger deal.

Secondly, the book explicitly states that Aziraphale and Crowley only developed free will on Earth, due to extended exposure to mankind. The show never really makes a stand on the matter but based on what we've seen so far I think we can safely assume that angels and demons are capable of making their own choices as much as humans do.

In other words, in its original context, the conversation was just Aziraphale talking about a concept he didn't fully grasp, quoting propaganda he didn't fully subscribe to. He was being ignorant and mildly obnoxious in an endearing way.

But using the same dialogue verbatim in the Resurrectionist carried a completely different meaning. Aziraphale who utters it in the show has no reason to be so ignorant about free will. Aziraphale who utters it in the show genuinely tries to defend Heaven. Most importantly, Aziraphale who utters it in the show, doesn't just idly bicker with his friend about general things but is judging an actual human individual that's right in front of them. That, more than anything else, makes it sound heartless and ignorant.

What is the problem with having two canons, exactly?

It's time to wrap things up.

In the opening paragraphs, I've mentioned that I've noticed the issue while interpreting scenes from S1, and yes, that was the case and I do believe that the existence of two canons is especially problematic for S1. That's because pretty much every scene in S1 is potentially like that dialogue about free will in S2, except subtler and harder to spot.

A grand majority of what we see and hear in S1 comes directly from the book. But while words and actions were kept, in some instances things that gave them their original meaning might no longer be valid in the show universe. Sometimes they easily take new meaning, and we don't even notice. But sometimes there's this dissonance that's not as easy to work around.

S1 deviated from the book and created its own canon. But the difference didn't seem to go very deep and it seemed perfectly reasonable to use some trivia from the book to shed some extra light on the content of the show. I used to do it in my head, even though I was aware of the changes that were made.

But S2 expanded the show canon so far beyond what was in the book that I'm really not sure it makes sense to compile them anymore.

There are a lot of things that were only explicitly stated in the book that I keep clinging to. But perhaps it's time to let go...

Thank you for your patience.

I know all of the above isn't exactly a revolutionary discovery, but I needed to get it off my chest before writing anything else.

[batcavescolony]

Katniss is such an unreliable narrator. She says "Then something unexpected happens. At least, I don't expect it because I don't think of District 12 as a place that cares about me" girl you deliver strawberries to the Mayor, you hunt and trade for the district, when you fell at Prim being chosen someone caught you, when you went to Prim people parted for you, when you volunteered EVERYONE stopped. Idk how to tell you but I think you're a pillar of the community.

[egophiliac]

I loved your drawing(and I love your style in general) with Leia in your recent post! If/when you have time can we see more of her in your style? I get so happy whenever I actually see people mention/talk about her and she’s not just forgotten because we didn’t get to see much of her. 😭

thank you! 💙💙💙 Leia/Leah/Lea/whatever is fascinating to me. she is the ultimate unknown. what was she like? how involved (or even aware of any details of the invasion) was she? Silver's basically a physical carbon copy of his biodad, so what did he get from her? like, I understand why the two of them kind of have to stay as these super vague and mysterious figures -- the whole point of them is that their story ended 400+ years ago and they're not really relevant anymore (and. well. the more that gets explained about them, the less that can just kinda be handwaved as "oh the politics were Very Messy") (we can sit here and theorize all day but let us acknowledge that, ultimately, canon gave us almost nothing about them post-Meleanor and we'd just be making things up). I do still wonder about her though! RIP Lea, we never knew you and we probably never will.

actually you know what, as long as we're here, I think I WILL go ahead and just make some stuff up about what Silver might've inherited from her instead.

[jackklinemybeloved]

[…]

Percy’s warning to fellow half-bloods in the audience, across different mediums.

The Lightning Thief by Rick Riordan (2005) The Lighting Thief: The Percy Jackson Musical (2017) Percy Jackson and the Olympians Series Teaser (2023)

[babyblankyerror]

I am a huge sucker for baby Mabel and Stan so this is the alternative Twines lives rent free in my heart.

I forgot Ford was supposed to be younger so just imagine he's really bad with kids. I accidently drew him during his break up with bill

Also, Dipper in this would be like those crazy ass brothers who are super attached to their baby sisters

Forgot to tag you sorry♡ @imjustheretofangirl003

[eddiegayass]

This is Betty. I'm adopting her. As you can see, I'm overjoyed about it.

→  Will Trent // 1x01 Pilot

[thenotoriousscuttlecliff]

One more time for those still insisting it wasn't in the books at all.

[shoot1ngst4r]

dare i say Billy Hargrove?

the misunderstanding of Billy as a character is genuinely my roman empire, it’s been on my mind for years but idk if anyone will wanna listen😭 (i’m open to conversations btw)

[nofomogirl]

Funnily enough, this is only really true for the show. Book!Adam didn't really need any help. He engaged some (The Them) and some came before he could act (Aziraphale) but he's so omnipotent and suddenly becomes so wise that the overall feeling is that he could really handle it himself. Hell, just look at how he deals with Satan in the book! It's one of the most anticlimatic things ever. He just ereases his presence without engaging with him. He does it casually and as an afteetought. Not only does he not need Aziraphale and Crowley's support, it's him who lectures them.

I liked the book ending, but I liked show ending more. Also, I believe it brilliantly opened the story for possible continuation. I don't doubt Neil and Terry would have written a fantastic sequel to the book but at the same time show is a better sequel material because show!Aziraphale and show!Crowley haven't yet learned the lesson that their book counterparts were given in Tadfield.

At the airbase

There are four explicit threats and (I would argue) one additional implicit threat happening at the Tadfield airbase. Anyone wishing to argue that any character at the airbase is "useless" or "contributes nothing" needs to reckon with all of them.

Nuclear annihilation. Forestalled by Newt and Anathema.

The Four HorseChopperPeople of the Apocalypse, who don't need mere nuclear annihilation to wreak havoc. Three of the four get taken out by Pepper, Brian, and Wensleydale, with an assist from Dog and moral support from Adam. The fourth ChopperPerson bows out.

The war between Heaven and Hell. Why does everyone forget that Aziraphale and Crowley deal with this one? (Admittedly, with a slight assist from Adam's blank intransigence.) It's their Great Plan/Ineffable Plan hairsplitting that sends the Ineffable Bureaucracy back to their respective corners.

Satan, handled by Adam with an assist from Crowley and Aziraphale.

Arguably, the possibility that someone, most likely Aziraphale, murders Adam. I can't imagine that Satan would have been pleased, and without Adam and his reality-rewriting power Crowley is absolutely right -- they're fucked. Madame Tracy ultimately scotches this threat, and in my head it's what Aziraphale is thinking about when he makes that crack about his and Crowley's competence afterwards.

It's a remarkably well-balanced, carefully-crafted situation. Even Shadwell, basically useless though he is, has a role as owner of the Thundergun and audience for Tracy.

[jayktoralldaylong]

Seeing Lestat again in Season 2 really reminded me how much Armand broke him. No one has been able to make Lestat cry the way Armand makes Lestat cry. And that's saying something cause his abusive parents and Magnus came before Armand, but no one has matched Armand's level of crazy.

And I think it's because the other tortures were...brief?

He ran away from home, the abuse from his parents stopped. Magnus died and that stopped too. Armand, meanwhile, has decided to dedicate the rest of his immortal existence to torturing Lestat. It has become his favourite pass time.

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."

Even the scorned women are learning work from Armand. 💀

Everything about Armand just messes with a person's mind.I t's the way he's not even chasing Lestat around for me. 😭😭😭

He really like "I'm old enough to be your biggest problem by staying in the same spot for 5 centuries." And he was right. 💀😭

I hear the next season is gonna be The Vampire Lestat and oooooh boy. 💀💀 People are about to discover just how terrible Armand can be. Baby's name gonna be dragged in the mud when the secrets get out. Gonna see if he can gaslight his way out of this one.

(Who am I kidding? Bro was torturing Louis and Daniel AND still had us feeling sorry for him. He can gaslight his way out of anything.)

[finelythreadedsky]

 On one level the book is about the life of a woman who is hardly more than a token in a great epic poem, on another it’s about how history and context shape how we are seen, and the brief moment there is to act between the inescapable past and the unknowable future. Perhaps to write Lavinia Le Guin had to live long enough to see her own early books read in a different context from the one where they were written, and to think about what that means.

-Jo Walton

[chironshorseass]

i will forever stand by the lightning thief musical being the best pjo adaptation by a loooong shot. i’ve seen more than a few people critiquing the show for making these kids be way too serious for what they are—kids—and i’m just thinking abt how well the tlt musical writers understood the assignment!!! (and also the actors!) they’re adults playing 12 year-olds and u really forget that while watching the musical, by how well it’s written and interpreted by the actors. also the way the writers Understood the characters and their dynamics to a T…man, i still think about the good kid reprise when luke paralleled percy 😭😭😭😭 and how annabeth’s cleverness is never doubted and displayed, yet she’s also a silly girl! same with grover and percy! for example percy’s anger showing up in so many parts of the musical yet he’s always trying his best (which is why the good kid reprise works so well!) and then grover having his tree on the hill moment😭😭

back to annabeth: it really irks me how so many people fail to understand her? even her creator ???!!! truly outstanding how in the movie she’s watered down to just being the love interest who says she’s smart and the daughter of wisdom and blah blah blah yet does little to make the audience believe that, and then in the show she’s too smart, almost too perfect in everything she does. (none of the scenes have yet to show her making mistakes, like in the book). i love love love tlt musical annabeth bc she’s a girl looking for others to notice her! she wants to be seen! she wants to make her mark! she says she always has a plan yet sometimes she doesn’t! she’s still 12! she’s petty and makes mistakes and hasn’t seen the world! just goes to show which one is the superior adaptation.

anyway, tlt musical stans RISE!!!!

[kisskissboxinggloves]

*inhale*

THE BERKIANS DID NOT NEED TO DITCH THEIR DRAGONS IN THE HIDDEN WORLD

NEW BERK WAS HIGH ENOUGH TO WHERE NOBODY CAN REACH THEM WITHOUT THE WINGSUITS OR DRAGONS. THE AWFUL NARRATIVE THAT THE FRANCHISE VER. OF THE WORLD CANNOT CO-EXIST WITH DRAGONS IS STUPID, AND THEY TRIED TO FORCE THAT "There were dragons when I was a boy" FROM THE BOOKS SO HARD, WHICH DOESN'T WORK BECAUSE THE FRANCHISE AND BOOKS DO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS.

THW SPAT IN THE MOUTH OF THE TV SHOWS & THE SECOND MOVIE AND IT'S ENDING--

*exhale*

[sea-changed]

"We are disciplined, so we lie here and take it, because, in the end, we are more afraid of defying the authority of an officer, backed up by the whole Army and a court-martial composed of officers like him, than we are of death by shell fire. Discipline is fear, not leadership, and we are afraid--not of Peacock but of the irresistible force that he represents. Afraid for our lives, we are more afraid of the system that holds us in thrall, and so we lie here and wait to be killed, because an officer tells us to lie here."

- David Kenyon Webster, Parachute Infantry: An American Paratrooper's Memoir of D-Day and the Fall of the Third Reich

[kreftropod]

Got 2dm of snow overnight and nowhere to be today, so settling in to re-watch all of the Wheel of Time show now that season 3 has released. Still makes me giddy that so many new people are getting introduced to the world of WoT through the show <3

[fromtheseventhhell]

The way fandom keeps flip-flopping between Arya's age is so weird. One minute she's too old to experience trauma, the next minute she's too young for crushes and romance. Like jeez fandom, make up your own damn mind.

I've been saying that a lot of people don't consider Arya an actual character, and the inconsistent takes about her are one of the best examples. People just want her to exist as a prop to support their fanon so they don't bother doing any analysis (a lot of them don't even bother reading her chapters). They'll just say whatever depending on the conversation. They hate empathizing with her, so they adultify her; They hate the idea of her having a romance, so they infantilize her. No consistency or logic...just vibes and the desire to reduce her character. It's like them claiming she has masculine privilege but then insisting she has to leave Westeros to be "free" since she's non-conforming. Or that she's a feral wild child who can't control herself while also claiming she's a cold-hearted, calculating assassin.

They're so obsessive about it too. They can't just dislike her character and not talk about her, they need to erase basically everything about her story. It really boils down to them liking her story elements but not being able to project onto her, so they steal her traits for their fanon!fave. It's wild we have to see their nonsense takes because they can only "enjoy" the story after they've rewritten it. At this point it won't even stop if we get TWOW; I can already foresee the "George stole [x]'s story to give to Arya because he hates feminine women" takes lol