It's time for the fandom to start Looking Where the Furniture Isn't
For a bit of background, one of my irl professional responsibilities is to identify and avoid making undue assumptions. There are a LOT of things that we humans assume. We assume that terminology means the same to other people as it does to us. We assume everyone has the same context of a situation we do. We assume that we aren't missing any information.
We operate on the information we have.
There was an ask before season 2 aired asking whether many of the plot points had been revealed by the clips (which almost all took place during the first half of the first episode). Neil's response was something like "oh you sweet summer children you know nothing yet." And boy was he right.
Neil Gaiman is a master of controlling assumptions. Just look at his Tumblr askbox replies.
Here's a few s2 examples of assumptions we all made (as I'm starting a rewatch):
Why did Crowley do the (very fun and distracting) apology dance? You might say it was because he walked out on Jim, but he never specified, did he? And Aziraphale was surprised that he proposed they would hide him "together"
How did Shax get a rumor about something going down in the Up (presumably) before Gabriel even went downstairs?
Did Jim need to bring Aziraphale something other than the box? He never actually specifies; Aziraphale just assumes it's the box.
Why did Aziraphale assume Maggie could feel [Michael, Uriel, Saraquael] arriving?
Why does Aziraphale say Heaven would notice even a small miracle? Crowley is seen doing a miracle before their large miracle (traffic light), and later Aziraphale makes the guy leave the table at the pub
To go deeper:
Are we assuming that characters are telling the truth? Example: "Miracles don't work like that," "[Extreme sanctions] was just something we said to frighten the cherubs" etc.
Are we assuming that nothing of note happened between apocalypse v1 and s2? (ex. the claims that Crowley didn't tell Aziraphale about the trial in heaven despite him referencing it in s2s1) What if we the audience are just jumping in near the end of this story?
Are these assumptions correct? Or are we just working with the information that we have?
Now that I'm looking for it, there's also SO many corrections of assumptions (usually for the sake of a joke, but still) (these are just the ones that happen while I type them out while watching e2):
"Can I be a blue one?" "You haven't annoyed me yet" "But can I be?"
"You recognized [Michael, Uriel, Saraquael] those people who were in the shop just now?" "Of course, they were in the shop, just now!"
"oh my god!" "blasphemy, angel, that's not like you", "no, oh, my god"
Many of the themes were about hiding things in plain sight: the kids (and kids), Jim, "aim for my mouth but shoot past my ear." Clue (1985) was heavily referenced in the lead-up. The whole point of that film was looking at what was going on elsewhere. Looking where the furniture isn't, you might say.
The more I watch s2, the less certain I am that any of it makes sense on its own.
I'm currently combing through it to see if there are any discrepancies with where people are (easiest example is when Crowley just disappears from the bookshop while they're reviewing the Job story). It'll be a lot of data and might not lead anywhere, but I'll definitely share once I finish looking into it.
I will also honestly admit that these things are all circumstantial, and I could be going insane. But they just keep cropping up all over the place. I've got a lot of time before S3 comes up and I intend to investigate the furniture. And try to not make assumptions.
471 notes
·
View notes
More crap about story rules
I dunno if this is helpful, but I read somewhere that Tumblr is just talking to yourself until someone goes, "Oh, I like this," so here goes. It helps me to get this sort of stuff out and be able to reference back to it.
I'm a novelist. I write speculative fiction, primarily urban fantasy with a dollop of mythopoeia (wanting to lean more towards the mythopoeia, but anyway). Neil is definitely a role model of mine, and has been since I was 19. Terry came a little later for me, in my mid-twenties. I'd read Good Omens by then, but believed Neil had a heavier hand in it than Terry did (Ha!). Once I finally picked up some Discworld, I was hooked for life.
I also recently learned I have ADHD, so not only is traditional institutional academia not my thing, I also have trouble sussing out meaning and details from things unless I have specific instructions on where to look. Once I have that in hand, I often go on a tear and find things that I never imagined were there, and frequently surprise not only myself but others. But I absolutely have to have that first step laid out for me in order to make more of my own.
When I first started writing in the 80s (yes, I'm old), I started looking around for the elusive "story structure" I'd heard about vaguely from other writers. I really couldn't find anything written down about what constitutes the steps of a story, the journey a hero must take for a story to be told start to finish. The other writers I'd heard discuss it didn't have concrete ideas for me (lots of hand-waving and "oh, you know"s), so I figured I'd find it in a book somewhere.
I found a little something about structure from Greek philosophy, but that mainly boiled down to stories needing a "beginning, middle, and end," like, duh, and not a lot about what made those three parts up. As a very basic story-telling model, it is incredibly concrete and important, but it's something we've known for thousands of years by now so it doesn't exactly light up the night sky with insight anymore. It's become such common knowledge that it almost doesn't seem like knowledge. I found more from Joseph Campbell, but a lot of what I found written by him was very airy and sort of dream-like, and hard to follow. So I gave up and muddled along the best I could.
About ten years ago now, I decided to try again, and found a whole ton of stuff written about story structure, from Greek philosophy decoded to Shakespear's five-act structure to The Hero's Journey first talked about by Joseph Campbell to modern Hollywood 3-act structure. Around about 2010 there was an explosion of work done on story structure, and damn if it wasn't eye-opening.
My favorite book so far on structure is The Story Grid by Shawn Coyle, because he has broken down all the various types of structure into very concrete, easy-to-comprehend steps that make sense. He talks about exactly where there is wiggle room, exactly where there is not, the general shape of a story in comparison to the general shape of the five stages of grief, what precisely constitutes a scene and what the sequence of scenes has to be to tell a whole, complete story. (In case you're interested, my next favorite book on structure is Save the Cat! Writes a Novel. It fills in a few holes that The Story Grid misses, and together they make a beautifully complete map of how to tell a good story.)
My favorite, in particular, are the Five Commandments of Storytelling. Each scene, each act (however many you want, I like 4), and the story as a whole, all have to follow the Five Commandments. These are elements that have to be present for a scene to work, and for a story to reach its beginning, middle, and end satisfactorily.
Inciting incident. This is something that happens that forces the main character to change course, take action. It has to be either an Act of God, or another character acting on the main character.
Progressive complications. The main character forms a plan to put life back in order and tries it, but is blocked. They have to regroup and form a new plan. Threes in storytelling are always good, but the main character must be blocked until they reach the Turning Point Complication, where they realize that in order to move forward and have a hope of getting where they want, they must make a hard choice. Often the hard choice is that they must do The One Thing They Didn't Want to Do, though the introduction of new information will drive this decision as well. New information can come from another character, or be realized by the main character as a result of the action.
Crisis. They reach the decision point, where they must choose one thing over another. The decision must be between two irreconcilable good things, where they can't have both; or the lesser of two evils, where they can't escape both. The Crisis can also be boiled down to a "what will they do?" question. They're going to have to pick, but they're going to resist before they choose, and that creates tension which keeps the reader invested.
Climax. They make their choice. It's really that simple. They pick.
Resolution. The consequences of their choice are laid out. In a scene, this means the inciting incident of the next scene is introduced because of the character's choice; in an overall story, this leads to the end of the tale where our hero emerges, having learned whatever it was that the author deemed they needed to learn.
For example, Aziraphale is listening to music when a knock comes at the door. (Inciting incident) He forms and enacts a plan -- answer the door, probably hoping to get rid of whoever it is quickly. It's Gabriel. (Complication) He forms and enacts a new plan -- find out what Gabriel is doing here. Gabriel says he doesn't know. (Complication) Gabriel asks to come in. (Complication) Aziraphale forms and enacts a new plan -- tell Gabriel no. Gabriel says oh-kay and turns to the people on the street. (Turning point complication) Now Aziraphale has two bad choices -- bring Gabriel inside, or leave him to wander naked around Whickber street doing God only knows what. (Crisis) He chooses what he thinks is the lesser of two evils -- he tells Gabriel to get in. (Climax) Now Gabriel, possibly Aziraphale's worst enemy, is inside his home, the book shop. (Resolution) And because this is a scene, this Resolution is also the inciting incident of the next scene.
This can go different routes, as when the inciting incident rouses curiosity or creates a promise of something the character wants, instead of inflicting discomfort -- although if a character wants something bad enough, deciding to say no to pursuing it could inflict discomfort, so that counts, too. The inciting incident just means that something happens so that the main character can no longer keep living life as it was. Something has to change, and they have to change it. In the end, it all boils down to something outside the main character knocking them off course, them deciding how to try to get back on course and failing, and what happens as a result. (Beginning, middle, end!)
A good way to create a mystery is to hide the Inciting Incident from the readers/viewers. Or at least, the Inciting Incidents of certain character and scenes. In the above example, we see Aziraphale's Inciting Incident, but we don't see Gabriel's until episode six.
I believe we haven't seen the Inciting Incident of Crowley and Aziraphale's storyline for season 2. It seems like Gabriel showing up is the Inciting Incident for the entire season, but I believe his arrival is a Complication, not the Inciting Incident. As far as what the original Inciting Incident was, well, first and foremost, the Resolution of season 1 would naturally lead into the Inciting Incident of season 2, just as a scene would do for the scene following it. So there's one Clue. As for the answer -- we just have to keep looking where the furniture isn't.
I hope this story breakdown was interesting to someone. I find it completely fascinating, but I am a story nerd, so maybe what I like and find interesting isn't up everyone's alley.
Cheers!
63 notes
·
View notes
Thoughts/Questions about ambiguous wording in GOS2: Looking Where the Furniture Isn't (somewhat unorganized) (also biased towards episodes I rewatch more)
PSA to not tag/ask Neil about any of this!! Metas/speculation are for the fans, not for the writers/production team.
Episode 1
"I worked very closely with upstairs on it" what/who is "upstairs"?
Why does Aziraphale have so much more knowledge than angel Crowley? Aziraphale has seen the plans and knows about the Earth and humans and Crowley doesn't at all (is this future Aziraphale with og Crowley? going back in time)
"Most of it [isn't] visible from earth" this implies there's more that Crowley knows about than we do, but does this mean anything?
Misspelling of urgency - This must mean something, otherwise why dedicate screentime to it?? Is Maggie possessed? I always get caught on this.
"I got your note" is that the same note we read?
Why aren't Maggie's internet orders not coming? What is that?
Why hasn't Maggie brought this up before? It doesn't seem urgent. Is she angling for an invitation? a welcome?
Shostakovich symphony is not 21 minutes, yet Aziraphale calls that out.
Repeated line - "i brought your mail"
"Hell doesn't care how jobs get done" "yeah I remember, they just care that somebody does them" look this whole scene is a book reference, but this line does it mean Crowley has been helping Shax out?
Crowleys "it's all rather pointless" line. It... I mean we know he thinks this already. It sounds very out of place. Is he trying to get a read on Shax's opinion? Is this a future scene? Is there a separate plotline that's hopeless that we're missing?
"Something's going down in the up" - weird wording, never addressed.
"Through your contact in the bookshop" who is the contact? Which bookshop?
Beginning of last movement is when Gabriel knocks - when is 21 minutes before that?
"Where here is and who you are and who I am" is this significant?
"I'm not saying anyone is complicit... if anyone is found helping him..." Then just says "book of life" - maybe those are two separate things?
Also! Michael never specifies Gabriel. "helping HIM" could refer to anyone.
Why tinking sound coming from Aziraphale so much? Pocket watch or something else?
No really, what is the Something Terrible?
"Terrible" and "Awful" used to mean... AWE full. like Great and Terrible. is that something?
What thing does Jimbriel have to give Aziraphale? Aziraphale only assumes it's the box but what is it?
"arms were aching because I had to carry that box for so long" 1. How long? are we missing something? 2. Is this the same box we see, or a different one?
When Aziraphale says "you aren't Gabriel" Jim responds, "then WHAT am I?" not who am I?
later he asks "what box?" and much later Aziraphale asks the same thing. Maybe they mean "which box of the ones we know about" and not "box, what do you mean, box?"
"something CLEVER you did before you pop" vs "it's nice to tell someone about the GOOD things I've done, now that I'm not reporting to Heaven" which one is it - clever or good? Does it matter?
Why isn't Aziraphale forthcoming about needing to discuss things outside of the bookshop when they're having coffee?
Why does Maggie leave her shop open when she goes to get a coffee?
Aziraphale's blinds are not closed during coffeeshop conversation, but it looks like a/c have only just walked in during next scene!!
Why is Crowley so careful to be ambiguous about talking about the execution, and then later just tells Jim? I noticed the bug (Real Gabriel) seems to be in the room with them during the e1 conversation. Maybe he and Jim are alone during the e5 conversation.
Why does Crowley get so publicly angry? Seems a bit ooc to me tbh
Why did Maggie/Nina's phones stop working?
"There is, of course, no question of replacing the surpreme archangel" Does that mean that they're definitely going to replace them or definitely not going to replace them??
"Heaven does not have a supreme archangel" ... "There is ALWAYS a Supreme Archangel" "Yes, and who is that?" oof. Yes who is the supreme archangel? why always?? they aren't in Heaven but they exist
Why didn't they think he'd gone to Earth before seeing the matchbox?
Crowley mentions Beelzebubs new face - he hasn't seen them since before they started dating Gabriel
Crowley does seem very convincing that he thinks extreme sanctions mean nothing
Crowley does do a Miracle on the traffic light
There are writing noises after Crowley comes in to apologize and says "you were right" for the first time. Also at the end of the dance there are shuffling noises.
Does Crowley really do the apology dance for trying to get away from Gabriel? A/C never specify. What was Crowley "wrong" about?
Crowley does say "let's hide him until we sort this all out"... "while we figure out what's *actually* going on"
"and now I have two friends" does Jim actually count Crowley in that or is he referring to other(s)?
We make sure nobody notices he's here while we "sort all this out"? Aziraphale is confused that he says "together"
move the miracle dials? Does this mean anything or just worldbuilding?
"short for James but people call me a lot of different things" ooh like what?
Aziraphale TOTALLY knows about Shax! Crowley's like, "you'll never guess who Shax asked about" They're 100% on the same page
Is the alarm the "awooga" noise????????!!!!?!!?
"There's a FORMER angel in this up to his bookshop owning neck"
So Mx. Anthony J'"compelled to walk on the grass instead of the path" Crowley respected the "This way up" sign for a whole week? 🙃
Episode 2
Gabriel personally witnessed Eve's birth? Does this have significance?
"absolutely I made an ass of myself" Are we missing something here? Is she just nervous? Or is.. like what??
Aziraphale gives a Look when Maggie says they were locked in the coffee shop last night. Was that significant?
"Right now I'm a bit out of miracles" - what?
There's a lack of using "bad" to mean good in hell, etc.
Love that Aziraphale implies that Maggie being his tenant has something with an obligation to be involved with her love life
Crowley also said they need to talk about last night's miracle. Why?
Aziraphale specifies the "Gabriel" miracle. idk is that something?
"we've got a problem and it's in your bookshop right now" is this the problem we know about? Crowley seems to think the love thing isn't the big deal
"amd there is an actual mystery associated with that song and That is the clue" i feel like this isnt exactly the same thing as what it actually is.? Does that mean the song is the clue or does it mean that the mystery itself is a clue? Does it matter?
"three nice people in the shop just now... they were in the shop. just now." like just now just now? like while they were in the pub??
"nah you can do better than that" has a miracle noise after??
Was Gabriel's first memory "when the morningstar sang together and all the angels shouted for joy"? or was their first memory God *saying* that? Also is it Gabriel we're talking to here?
Who are Keziah's "usual" angels?
love the detail that Job says "i loved my children" and immediately starts crying whereas sitis doesn't believe it at first. Job really does have faith.
Episode 3
Is their private discussion we see the same one Muriel is talking about?
"The miracle we seem to have accidentally performed" did they accidentally perform a large miracle, or was the miracle only "seemingly" an accident?
Do devices just bend to Aziraphale's whim like that, or is there another weird thing going on?
Aziraphale says "dr dalrymple" and Crowley corrects to Mr. Is that something?
when Aziraphale calls Crowley he says hes found "clues" plural
is it significant that Crowley hasn't done rain in a while?
"you have the advantage on me" does she? is Aziraphale humoring her?
Episode 4
Heating's knackered... girls won't go onstage because it's so cold... is this significant?
How do the zombies know to look in the bookshop? Do they think Aziraphale will be there or Crowley? Is it just that that's how they contacted him in the first place?
What's with the timeline on 1941? They're all out and about... is it a couple days later?
While demons like me... for hundreds and hundreds of millennia ???
Episode 5
Why is the big transporter out of service?
"If you're not him, then *what* are you?" Jim also says this ep 1. seems like a distinction.
The matchbox is still in Heaven.
When did Muriel meet Jim?
Jim leaves the window open after he stops jumping out the window
Crowley's test doesn't really prove much for me. If Jim was trying to get back to heaven to tell on them, death would be the fastest way
"If you aren't him, then WHAT are you?" again, what are you not who are you in reference to Gabriel.
"check in on Nina and Maggie and make sure *they* are on their way" does they refer to someone(s) else??
During the ball, where is Crowley between the Gabriel face thing and the dancing??
"I don't plan to harm you, only the humans in there with you" Why? Why isn't she threatening Aziraphale? Doesn't she want Gabriel? What is this line for??
After Jim comes back in after declaring himself to Shax, he's off screen for a long time. In a different outfit when we see him again
Aziraphale's box when Crowley starts bringing people outside. this is the same box that he leaves Nina and Maggie to fiddle with in ep6
might be a miracle blocker?? but Muriel brings back the elevator
6)
Nina's questions for posterity:
what is happening? (not simple)
why is everything so weird? (not simple)
This all started last week when the power went out, didn't it?
no, this all started a very long time ago, but also, yes.
"last week when the power went out" that's a different timeline than portrayed in the show. What's that about? It could be a cleverly hidden time skip.
Crowley knows Muriel's a 37th class scrivener?? Do they tell him when they arrest him? Or do they hang out offscreen?
Muriel catches onto the bee metaphor immediately. "you look like a murder hornet, or a snake"
"I have to tell you: You can all leave now, and no one will be hurt" Does he *have to* tell them?
clock ticking in last intro
"Where's the cardboard box?" "What box?" !!!
"Apparently if we do a miracle together it all works a bit too well" Why say this?? Also. Apparently? As in "we discovered that..." or as in "in an apparent way, but not a literal way..."
There's stuff in the cardboard box. Why?
"every day, something IS getting closer" -beez - why??
25 notes
·
View notes