American Heresy

As a random member of the Good Omens fandom community, I’d just like to toss my hat into the ring and attempt to clear up some misunderstandings. I also want to encourage some honest, good-faith dialogue in a severely fractured fandom.

This is not an attempt to convince anyone to interpret the finale a specific way. This is a practical conversation about how we discuss the finale in fan spaces.

For the purposes of this discussion, I will be focusing on tags as they are used on social media platforms like Tumblr, Twitter, Bluesky, and Instagram. AO3 tagging is considerable more complex and warrants a whole convo in its own right, so I won't focus on that here.

THIS POST INCLUDES DISCUSSION OF SUICIDE.

We’re a small Us right now, but we are growing. We’ll be hosting events like Bangs, Guess-the-Author Challenges, etc in the near future! We welcome writers, artists, creatives of any type and even just fellow content consumers alike!

Please join us on our Discord server (please be aware that we are 18+). Link here:

A response to the incredibly insensitive post about who belongs in the Good Omens fandom found here: https://www.tumblr.com/hkblack/821956453005918208/on-fandom-expectations-and-good-omens-3 

“This is going to be long, and anyone who comments without reading the whole thing that despite S3 being a big, old complicated thing that makes folks feel different feels, with takes about how I'm wrong/condescending/stupid for liking the finale/whatever is going to be blocked on sight.”

Considering Tumblr tells me there are twenty-seven comments as of this writing, but only around six are visible, it tells me this is a case of “give me glowing reviews for my opinion, or I will delete your comment.” 

“What I've realized is that a lot of folks seem to think that those of us who like the ending, or have positive feelings towards it, all think it's a happy ending. This is not true.” 

Personally, I would chalk this up to confirmation bias. If the OP spent any time at all interacting with those who did not like the finale, they would realize that just like the folks who enjoyed S3, the folks who didn’t care for it come in many flavors.

“...based on how we've had to kick people who were not active, the number of requests I have to join, and folks who were interested in participating in our Warm Close event but hesitant to join a Discord Server, TAT would be a lot larger if I had the bandwidth to moderate more people.”

Yes, and? This doesn’t give us any hard data on how many pro-S3 folks there are compared to anti-S3. I assume the OP advertised her little server and event in more pro-S3 spaces and among pro-S3 friends than any other spaces, thus attracting more attention to them. Also, if she really wanted it to grow, she could appoint more mods since Discord doesn’t limit a server to just one. This is just a sly way to make her own server seem extremely popular. It's like when you're arguing with someone online, and they claim their view is not unpopular because tons of people are DMing them support.

But good for her for developing a server for people who are like-minded. That’s the whole point of a fandom…to hang out with people who enjoy what you do. I won’t criticise people for that. Make servers, hold events, have fun. Not everything has to appeal to other people.

It also helps to have an understanding of the song you’re titling your server after. According to Cyndi Lauper, it’s about leaving a relationship that’s run its course while trying not to look back upon it. The S3 writers should have figured this out, too. https://americansongwriter.com/meaning-time-after-time-cyndi-laupers/

“The conclusion that one can draw from such a varied group is that the ending of Good Omens S3 is complicated. It can be interpreted in a myriad of different ways, and it is, in the most Good Omens sense, an ending steeped in shades of grey.

Which I find, personally, to be beautiful.”

So, the OP is saying, how complicated S3 is, and presumably the feelings of those who watched it are diverse. Yet, on the other hand, she’s telling us the only ones with valid emotions are those who either like S3 or dislike it and keep quiet about it. Because those other people are just yucking the yum of the finale lovers. 

That’s not how a fandom works. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. If you don’t happen to like it, there are block buttons, filters and other methods of curating your online experience so you don’t see the stuff you don’t want to.

“Therefore it's my belief that the issue amongst the larger fandom is that there are some people who are of the opinion that sad/uncomfortable = bad.”

Yes, there are. There are people literally freaking out because others are sad and uncomfortable about the ending. But negative emotions are part of life. It is unhealthy to bottle all that up. To deny folks that right to express them is inappropriate and promotes only positive emotions as valid ones. “You must like this thing that is causing you pain. You have no right to be angry because you’re just upsetting everyone else around you. Why can’t you understand that?”

I’d like to know why those who insist on practicing toxic positivity can’t simply show a little empathy to those whose entire fandom was turned upside-down by the finale. One can’t sit there preaching diversity and respecting different points of view, then turn around to talk about how the opinions that make them uncomfortable are wrong. 

“These are the folks who hurl accusations such as S3 being a "bury your gays" ending when the finale explicitly ends with a married queer presenting couple sitting in a house they presumably own and being sweet together.”

Folks are allowed to take the “Bury Your Gays” trope, apply it to Good Omens 3 and decide after some analysis if it personally fits. It is not a black-and-white trope with an official definition, nor is S3 a “black-and-white ending”, if we use OP’s definition. The queer couple all of us have followed the entire series is suddenly Thanos’ed out of existence for a replacement couple some feel no emotional investment in. They might very well feel this fits the trope. The gays they loved are dead, and they’re being offered a poor facsimile instead. 

This might all be part of them working through their grief. Allow them that much. Nobody else is required to feel the same or agree with them.

“Also it ignores that said abuser wrote the ending before his abuse was made public, so he had no reason to write a final "gotcha" when at the time he was still working under the assumption he would not be found out…”

I must wonder if this OP has never been around someone who’s grieving and searching for answers. Sometimes, they cling to ideas that seem outlandish. What they need is space and understanding, not a lecture. As they go through the stages of their grief, they’ll work it out. They just need to analyse all the information around them in their quest for meaning. Have some empathy for those who do.

Yes, I know there are also conspiracy theorists out there. It’s not that hard to tell the difference. It’s easy enough for others to show the grieving fan empathy and not interact with the conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorist will eventually go elsewhere if they cannot engage anyone with their ideas.

“ …ignoring years of interviews and comments from NG, STP, Rob Wilkins, Rhianna Pratchett, and more all confirming that the ending has existed for a long time...”

An ending has existed for a long time, not the ending we got. It’s outlined here: https://x.com/Bowtiedino/status/1703866949669622049  We have elements of it, but this ending has been sold to us since 2005 by both authors and Rob Wilkins. They had people believing Aziraphale and Crowley retiring to the South Downs would end the show. It’s natural for some to feel like the rug was pulled out from under them when the series wrapped up differently than what was sold to the fandom. 

“...it is a collaborative ending between the two writers.”

The originally planned ending was. If it was written down at all. The best I can say, based on the information I’ve found, is that it was discussed one late night in a hotel room by both authors. After that, both went back to their own novels and nothing else ever came of the Good Omens sequel.

Gaiman and Pratchett didn’t speak for many years before Pratchett contacted him about making Good Omens into a film or show. Rihanna Pratchett has stated it was entirely normal for them to have gaps like that, so I’m not going to comment further on it. 

They reconnected three years before Pratchett’s death in 2015. By then, he was struggling to write. He talked about it in interviews that I wish I had receipts for, but I don’t. I read them back when he was still alive, and I'm not getting hits on anything when I search. He talked about how he could set something down in a perfectly visible place, but once he looked away and back again, he could no longer see the object. This weird quirk of his brain made it hard for him to type because some of the keys on the keyboard would disappear before his eyes. Pratchett would record dictations. Rob Wilkins and sometimes Rhianna Pratchett would type those dictations out. Wilkins also had the job of making sure the writing flowed smoothly and was consistent. Sometimes, Pratchett had trouble with that and Wilkins had to plump up paragraphs here and there and ask him for clarification on plot points I assume if they were going through that kind of process to rewrite the ending, Gaiman would have said something. He liked to talk about Pratchett and their friendship. There’s a plethora of interviews out there showcasing that if you want to search for them. Yet, he never mentioned working together on an ending before Pratchett’s death. It seems like the kind of thing he would do, especially if it involved an interesting fact, like Terry having to dictate everything because he could no longer type it out.

So, unless there’s some proof somewhere that Pratchett was involved in the writing of the actual ending we got, it’s dishonest to say he was. We have no idea. Still there exists some evidence that he didn’t, in the silence of those who would be helping him with a rewrite and this Tweet from Marc Burrows, who wrote Pratchett’s biography. https://x.com/20thcenturymarc/status/2054628722146480469

If people “go to war” to have their names included in the writing credits, it seems strange that Narritivia didn’t make sure Pratchett got some credit for writing the ending. No, he just received credit for the original book.

And no, there wasn’t anything collected from Pratchett’s notes and works in progress after he died. Terry’s will stated he wanted his hard drive destroyed after his death, and it was. None of his unfinished works were to be published posthumously. If any notes on a Good Omens ending existed, they were very likely lost when the hard drive was crushed. The only notes Gaiman had to go on were ones he wrote down himself.  https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-dorset-41093066

“Folks are picking and choosing what interviews to include in their defense of "this is clearly a Bad Thing" instead of coming to terms with the fact that the ending was not what they expected, and that is disappointing.”

Yet the OP offers no evidence of this even though she is really keen on telling people they need to get over their disappointment simply because she likes the ending. Convenient.

“They point at the genre labels (a deeply flawed labeling system of stories across media types meant to promote marketing and sales and not actually indicative of the story content itself).”

Genre labels have existed almost as long as creative writing has. Even the ancient Greeks knew the difference between a comedy and a tragedy, and labeled them as such. I’m pretty sure it had little to do with marketing and sales. Plays were free in ancient Greece and took place during festivals. It seems pretty likely they got butts into seats just fine without turning genre into a flashy advertising campaign.

Sorry, OP, but genres have meaning. If I go into a bookstore and head to the romance section, I can safely assume the books there are not going to end with a werewolf eating the heroine, unless it’s noted somewhere on the cover that it’s also a horror crossover. Genres exist so we can reliably make some assumptions about the book like, setting, character types we might encounter, plot elements, mood and the tropes we might find between the covers. 

The same applies to what we see on the screen. Again, if I buy a ticket to a romcom, I’m not going to expect to see an ending where the heroine is devoured by a werewolf, but the OP suggests we should anticipate this. We certainly should expect that our light, satirical comedy with a side of romance would suddenly include the end of the world that we’ve come to know and love. When that happens, we have no right to complain because genres are modern and mean nothing. Sorry, ancient Greeks.

This is very disappointing, since the OP does offer beta services. Or at least used to before she became the mod of a server and allowed that tiny bit of power to go to her head. It’s logical to assume someone who betas other’s writings would have some concept of how genre works, since part of a beta’s job is to make sure what’s written matches with the genre the author’s aiming for. Maybe she should educate herself. Here’s a good article to start with. https://www.writersworkout.net/post/understanding-genre-why-it-matters

“They point at specific quotes and ignore full interviews (specifically interviews where the contradictions are addressed as information previously NDA'd or unpromised was intentionally kept under wraps).”

And both sides are guilty of that, but the OP fails to point that out. She also fails to mentions that film studios typically frown upon actors and crew speaking negatively about their work. It’s an industry where to be successful, you have to know the right people and navigate the political environment correctly. Badmouth a role, and you could very easily find yourself blacklisted. I know people in the industry, a couple of actors in Chicago and someone who works in the production department of Futurama. I’ve asked. 

You can’t depend on the  interviews given by actors because they are going to smile and speak positively about S3 just like Amazon expects them to do. They’re going to talk excitedly when they need to and look a little teary-eyed when that’s required. It’s not hard for them to give an interview that looks genuine no matter their personal feelings. They are professional actors. We might love Michael Sheen and David Tennant, but we also have to take what they say publicly with a grain of salt. They’re not going to risk their very careers over Good Omens. They might love it or they might hate it. Chances are very good we’ll never know for sure. 

“They invent thoughts on how the entertainment industry works (there is no secret cabal trying to personally victimize you in the writers room,”

Again, it doesn’t take that much kindness to just allow people to work through their grief over a tragic ending, even if it takes weird turns. They have to sort it all out, even the less believable stuff because we live in an age where we are bombarded by all kinds of information every time we log on to the internet.

“...frankly if this was a cash grab, they would've gone with a less divisive ending…”

We don’t know if Gaiman thought the ending divisive. It’s a pretty bog-standard Gaiman ending if you’ve read his work. Immortals rarely fare well in his books. Spoilers in the next paragraph, skip if you don’t want to know briefly explained, vague endings to Gaiman novels.

See The Sandman series (Dream is killed by the Fates and replaced by another), Stardust (immortal star marries mortal and is left behind to grieve after he dies), American Gods (gods depend on human belief to survive, but humans stop worshipping them, weakening some and killing others), The Ocean at the End of the Lane (an immortal being is gravely hurt and must return to “the ocean” to heal), The Graveyard Book (Immortal ghosts lose their human family member because he must grow up and join the mortal world) 

Besides, after Gaiman said Good Omens was going to be one season only, it does look like a bit of a cash grab since there were three seasons. It would have been very easy for him to say that Good Omens might be only one season, but he’s leaving the door open. He didn’t. He changed his mind. I can’t tell you for sure the reason why, but I can tell you a story.

I have a friend who used to live in Wisconsin in the town where Gaiman and his first wife lived. This friend was on the board of the town’s public library. The library invited Gaiman to speak for a charity event and asked if he could do it on a goodwill basis or at least for a reduced fee. Gaiman said it wouldn’t be a problem. After the event, he demanded they pay him $20,000 for his public appearance. He threatened to take them to court if they didn’t. The library had to cut him a check out of what they raised for charity to avoid a more expensive court case. My friend hasn’t had a positive thing to say about Gaiman since then. 

While this is far from definitive evidence, it does show that there’s a possibility that S2 and 3 were nothing more than a cash grab. The man was apparently willing to take cash away from a charity who needed it. Without proof to the contrary, the OP shouldn’t have declared she knew they weren’t.

Anyway, I obviously have no receipts for that story, but I do about Gaiman saying Good Omens was one and done. https://www.kvue.com/article/news/season-one-of-good-omens-is-good-omens-neil-gaiman-says-show-wont-have-more-than-6-episodes/269-cae9b363-b2ee-4780-a94a-4ce9491c59ed

“They applaud someone for taking an illegal recording of an unaware actor who is making a glib remark (and let it be known, having worked in the industry: actors know what you're looking for pretty quickly when you ask them questions and will not hesitate to say whatever they think will keep themselves safe, "on your side" and make you go away faster, especially if they are under the impression that they are not be recorded).”

This I don’t agree with. That recording shouldn’t have been made. But it’s interesting that the OP says here an actor will say what they need to to appear on your side, but refuses to apply the same logic to an actor saying positive things in interviews about their work to avoid angering film studios. 

Saying she’s been in the industry would hold more weight if her declarations were more consistent instead of her using them to dishonestly make her point about fans she hates.

“In sum, these "fans" are using their personal interpretation (aka: head canon) of an intentionally complicated ending, and justifying the vitriol and disrespect they are spilling on other fans, the cast, the crew, the creators, the Estate, and more, by saying that the ending was, unequivocally "bad" and anyone who doesn't agree with them is wrong, stupid, an abuse apologist, and more.”

Funny how anyone who disagrees with her interpretation of Good Omens and is vocal about it is lumped into one category, branded a “bad person” and considered, based on those quotation marks, not a true fan because true fans either like the ending or stay quiet about how they don’t.

Yes, some people are behaving badly. Interesting that the OP doesn’t acknowledge that there are folks on both sides who are stirring up shit. This writing of hers is proof of that. There is no reason to go after people who are vocal about not liking the ending other than thin skin. If one requires that much external validation of their opinions, I feel sorry for them. It must suck to have to have others constantly prop up your self-esteem.

But despite the OP’s view, public discussion of a divisive ending is not some kind of slap in the face to the other fans, the cast, the crew and anyone else involved with Good Omens. Even those who didn’t like the ending were appalled by the behavior of a few. Nobody in the cast or crew should have had to put up with harassment. Still, there is a vast difference between “discussion” and “harassment”. The OP needs to learn that.

“Because why? Because it wasn't a clear cut happy ending?”

Because it was an outright traumatizing ending for those who saw characters they had emotionally invested themselves in get turned into dust along with the entire cosmos. An entire cosmos, that I remind you, never existed in the first place because that’s the stated outcome when something or one is erased from the Book of LIfe. It’s a natural reaction to get upset when the writers basically write someone’s comfort characters out of existence.

And it’s just as insulting when another group insists that the replacements are just fine. Replacements who are given little backstory, are on the screen for about ten minutes and people might not have any emotional attachment to. Studies show that our brains can attach the same emotions to fictional characters as real people. https://news.ufl.edu/2022/05/why-you-got-attached-to-your-favorite-character/

Nobody with empathy would tell someone to get over their dead friend after two months. Neuroscience is starting to show us that the same applies to fictional characters. Grief takes time, even if it’s for someone who never existed in real life. 

The “Reset the Universe” trope pulls the rug out from folks. It sends the message that beloved characters really didn’t matter in the end. That is going to be hard on some fans, whether the OP acknowledges it or not. And no, being offered shiny, new toys isn’t going to fix the problem for everyone. Some quite like the old ones and would rather they had gone on existing. 

It’s at best unsatisfying and, at worst, devastating. If the OP likes it, good for her. Unlike OP, I’m not going to tell her she’s wrong for finding the ending beautiful. I’m glad she found something worthwhile in it. But a lot of people didn’t, despite what she wants others to believe. A quick peek at the Rotten Tomatoes audience reviews proves that many found the ending unsatisfying. The percentage at this writing sits at 33%. 

Who again is the vocal minority here?

“We know that the finale was already adjusted to fit the times (Jesus showing up as a celebrity on a giant plane has very different vibes in 2026 than in 1996.) So we know that this ending was conjured during a different time. And while the time we are currently living in is harder, increasing the desire for more uncomplicated happy endings, that doesn't mean we are entitled to such endings.”

Also a rewrite doesn’t mean that Gaiman needed to go the nuclear route, now does it? There were many different ways S3 could have gone, and the plethora of fanfic that came out after S2, especially after S3 was put on hold, proves that. The man is a professional writer. I have trouble believing he couldn’t have come up with something decent that included that promised retirement in the South Downs when amateurs who write simply because they love the characters could.

And it’s laughable she talks about entitlement when Gaiman after S2 told fans there would be a happy and satisfying ending in several Tumblr asks. He even promised to write a book if S3 didn’t get greenlit. He knew he was speaking to fans with a lot of investment who were worried about the future of the series. To reassure them like it and make such promises was a real dick move when he had no intention of following through.

. 

Even Rob Wilkins hyped the “happily ever after” ending at The Ineffable Con 6. https://www.tumblr.com/angelsandfelines/792144960506986496?source=share

You don’t do that to a fandom whom you know if hanging on your every word. You don’t keep feeding them that hope if you’re not going to deliver. Sorry, but Asa and Anthony are not Aziraphale and Crowley. Aziraphale and Crowley didn’t get that retirement with a cute little cottage that was talked up for years. They died. If that’s not jarring, I don’t know what is.

“...it was incredibly difficult for me to sit and watch people not just be sad, but be angry.”

And there we have it, folks. This OP cannot handle people being angry, so nobody is allowed to be.

“In trying to give space to those who were grieving a complicated ending, and the end of an era, and a show that should've gotten 6 hours, not 90 minutes, we legitimized those who decided "sad" and "not what I wanted to see" equals "bad writing/production/directing."”

What now? We shouldn’t allow people to grieve because some of the fans think the writing, production or directing is bad? There’s no logic here. 

Nor does the OP get to decide what someone else considers bad writing, production or directing. As long as these people are not harassing the cast, crew or other fans, they are free to think what they want about the show. Art is subjective. 

In this case, it’s more than that. Go search the internet and you will find plenty of S3 reviews that talk about the bad pacing, the plot lines that were confusing or never tied up, the stilted dialogue, how the acting was wonderful but the script gave the actors little to work with. The OP is free to think what she wants, but it’s hard to deny the writing was less than stellar when the critics keep repeating the same shortfalls in their reviews, even in fairly positive ones.

“In doing so, we gave them the space to come up with conspiracy theories ("not STP's ending", you know, a dead man who can't speak for himself and I guess we can say fuck you to his living loved ones who fought for this ending?”

Apparently, the OP thinks she can speak for Pratchett by claiming he somehow helped rewrite the ending, but people can’t express the opposite opinion. You know, the people who don’t see Pratchett in the ending are the ones who are his fans. The ones who can speculate because even though he cannot speak for himself, he left behind evidence in the form of his own novels. Using those stories’ endings, fans can form educated hypotheses on what he might or might not put in a finale. 

That’s more than the OP can do. She’s admitted in the past on a Discord server that she’s never read a book written solely by Pratchett. If you have little knowledge of an author’s work, then you have no right to preach to their fans about “putting words in their mouths”. 

Also his loved ones did not fight to get S3 made when it was cancelled. BBC Studios negotiated with Amazon to get the film that we got. Narritivia tentatively put its support behind BBC Studios. https://www.heyuguys.com/why-good-omens-3-has-a-terry-pratchett-problem-spoiler-review/

And by the way, that South Downs ending was Pratchett’s. Marc Burrows, who wrote a biography on Terry Pratchett and knows a lot more about him than the OP of this essay, tweeted that. Here’s a post on Reddit with receipts. https://www.reddit.com/r/goodomens/comments/1tye64y/the_pratchett_ending/

Also, you’re starting to get angry there, OP. Isn’t the point of this essay about how much the fandom is hurt by anger? Better calm down now. 

“"NG wants to abuse us all", I cannot even with this one it is so deeply insulting to his actual assault victims.”

If you “cannot” with something, then move on. There is a lot in fandoms that is not worth engaging with, but that does not mean that we get to restrict opinions we don’t like and demand everyone behave how we choose based on the behavior of some outliers.

Furthermore, the OP did not consider how liking a work of Gaiman’s, even if it was written with another author, might be just as deeply insulting to his actual assault victims. Instead, she’d rather play the pain olympics with hurt fans. Just walk the fuck away. Or better yet, get off the internet. Believe me, OP. It’s full of stuff that you’re not going to agree with.

“In doing this, we harmed the rest of the fandom, both those who enjoyed the ending and fell more towards the bittersweet to happy interpretation of the ending, as well as those who actually needed the space to process and just thought it was a sad ending, without ascribing bad to it.”

Yes, that’s right. The OP is flat out saying that allowing grief yucks the yum of those who liked S3. Nobody should have the slightest bit of empathy for another human being in the fandom if that human beings’ mere expression of grief interferes with her enjoyment of the series. Let that sink in. Realize that’s toxic positivity at its finest. “I’m uncomfortable with your negative attitude, so you need to either put on a smile and start liking the finale or shut up about how angry and sad you are.”

My God. Go outside and touch some grass because it’s not all about you, OP.

And revoking someone’s right to grieve over the ending because there’s a few batshit crazy conspiracy theories out there makes it worse. I cannot even, to quote the OP. 

“So when I say things like "you're allowed to just...not like the ending" this is not me saying that the ending was happy, actually, get over it. Nor is it me saying you gotta buck up and smile. Its me saying you should take a step back and look at this ending more objectively.”

Actually, “buck up and smile” or shut up about it is exactly what the OP has been saying this entire essay. Now she has the audacity to tell people who don’t like the ending that their opinion is wrong and they need to reevaluate. No, that’s not how it works. Nobody gets to tell someone their opinion is not valid, and they need to go back and look something over with fresh eyes. 

You know that guy you turned down who keeps insisting that you need to give him a second chance? Yeah, I find people telling me I need to give a film I hated a second chance just as annoying.

“No one went out to "do" this to you. No one went "You know what, let's make this a sad ending specifically to ruin this person's life." 

The irony here is so thick, I’m surprised the OP can’t taste it. Excuse me, OP. Nobody went and “did’ this to you. Nobody made you decide to throw common human decency and empathy out the window because you’re upset some people have discussions in public social media spaces that you personally can’t handle. Nobody went, “You know what, let’s make an essay pointing out the flaws in Good Omens’ finale to ruin OP’s enjoyment of it.” 

“My anxiety struggles with cliff hangers and I absolutely read the wiki summary before committing to a thing to make sure the ending is going to be what I want it to be. Good story telling can hurt and sometimes I'm into it. And sometimes, I'm not.”

Yet the OP refuses to see that others can have anxiety, can be into something or simply might not be. The Main Character Syndrome just grows and grows, doesn’t it?

“And maybe if it just made you sad, you should think about distancing yourself from communities where people are mad.”

Ummm, no? I’m a fully grown adult capable of curating my own experience, thank you very much. Most of us are. We don’t need someone coming along to tell us what we should or should not be doing. It’s downright insulting that OP believes sad fans need to be told how to conduct themselves so they’re not “contaminated” by the wrong people.

“But that doesn't mean you've gotta throw the whole thing, including your fandom community, in the trash too.”

If someone came along and pressured me into spaces where only certain viewpoints were acceptable, I’d leave the fandom, too. The toxic positivity group hasn’t shown much tolerance for the sad fans unless they toe the line. You know, stay away from the “bad people” and “bad spaces”. Sing the praises of Good Omens 3, hide your sorrow and act like everything’s ok. Then, you’ll be accepted.

“It does mean that maybe you need to take a more active stance against those who are insisting that their head canon is the only "correct" interpretation of the ending…”

What do you think my response to your little essay is, OP?

“disrespecting and hating on the people who made a story.”

And we’re back to that, even though a very small portion of the fandom is actually engaging in hateful, disrespectful discourse. 

“Frankly, those aren't the kind of people you should want to be in a community with anyway…”

The OP is correct. Nobody wants to be in a community where you’re told you need to reevaluate your anger and grief because your negative emotions make other people uncomfortable. People who engage in toxic positivity aren’t the kind of people most others want to hang around.

And really, this anger and grief some people have is about more than just a finale. It’s about the harassment, the loss of friends and communities, and the giant rift that now exists in our fandom.

“In sum: there are so many ways to interpret the Good Omens ending, whether you're looking at the Television Series ending or the Book ending (I mean come on the book ends with them discussing the "big one" and it is not clear which side Crowley thinks they are on, humans or not humans).”

I must say I do not understand. First, the OP goes on about how the headcanons of certain people who are angry and/or grieving are wrong, but now states that there are a lot of different ways to interpret it. It’s one way or the other. Either headcanons are okay, or they’re not. You just can’t decide a certain group of people’s headcanons are invalid because you don’t like them. 

“And if we're going to preserve the community that has become so important to us, then yes. We need to stop letting the loudest (not the majority, just the loudest) people trample the joy of our community.”

Seriously? I have seen way more pro-S3 people complaining about opinions of the anti-S3 people than the other way around. And no, I’m not saying the anti-S3 side is perfect. It’s not. But aside from a few people hellbent on harassing others, those who don’t like the finale are not stifling the joy of everyone else simply by expressing their opinions. They are having discussions, bringing up concerns and trying to get their view acknowledged while the loud-and-proud minority of pro-S3 twists the narrative so they appear to be the victims. 

“ "My head canon is different than yours, and you gotta stop shoving your deeply triggering take down my throat without a content warning." We've got to be more firm in that the very existence of Asa and Anthony is not, actually, something that should be spoilered because they are the result of suicide because that is a head canon, not a fact.”

Let’s look at the facts here…Aziraphale and Crowley die in the finale. I don’t know of any other interpretation one could have of two people turning into dust before their eyes. That is not a headcanon. Asa and Anthony are the result of death. They would not exist if not for the self-sacrifice of Aziraphale and Crowley. 

This self-sacrifice can be perceived by a fan as suicide, per the OP’s own assertions that there are many different interpretations of the finale. But I’m guessing that when she wrote that, she only meant the interpretations she approves of, not the ones of those angry, grieving fans who are feeling emotions just as valid as hers. 

And really, none of that really matters. Aziraphale and Crowley die on screen before our eyes. If major character death is not taggable, then trigger lists have no business existing. You accept all triggers without question, or you accept none. Nobody has the right to pick and choose what triggers are worth considering. That’s just playing with people’s mental health.

“And frankly, if you want your communities, your big servers, your whatever, to live on, you've got to take this seriously. Your mod teams have to agree that, personal feelings about the ending aside, the ending is open to a multitude of interpretations, there is no space for conspiracy theories that are harmful or disrespectful to cast, crew, actual NG victims, etc, in these spaces, and that these spaces are meant to come together in celebration of the story, not to complain about how much something sucked.”

Wrong. While there is harmful content that should stay out of servers, there is no rule out there that says servers need to exist solely to celebrate any film, show, musical, fandom or whatever. Someone is perfectly free to create a server to meet other needs, like creating one to give comfort to those who are distraught over the ending. Support is a wonderful thing. I’ve heard several say servers where their views were supported helped them get through their grieving process. If the OP doesn’t hold with the idea that some fans benefit more from support than hatred, then she’s free to remove herself from any servers that don’t exist solely to celebrate S3.

Contrary to her beliefs, there is a lot of good discussion out there about the finale that isn’t exactly positive. Not everything discussed has to be a celebration of it. There is nothing wrong with starting a discussion about how the Jesus plotline went nowhere. Or how God went from a hands-off deity in S1 to one willing to end all life in the cosmos on a whim. Or about the many out-of-character moments there were for Aziraphale and Crowley. Because that’s what fandoms do. They have discussions about what they like or don’t. What works and what could have been done better. 

I have to wonder if the OP has ever been in other fandoms because she wouldn’t last long in some. I’m in at least one where they would laugh in her face if she demanded they only speak positively about the source material. I was just looking at a whole discussion in a Doctor Who server about how River Song is a horribly written character and guess what? It’s a civil conversation between both sides where nobody’s complaining that the River Song haters need to just shut up about it because they’re hurting the sensitive feelings of the River Song fans. 

But we can’t have both sides existing together in the Good Omens fandom. We cannot be stomping on anyone’s enjoyment by actually discussing the shortfalls of the series. We must censor ourselves so we don’t upset those who like it. 

“If you want your spaces to survive, to not become cesspools of the worse kind of feedback loops, you've got to make sure there's more joy than hate.”

I hate to break it to the OP here, but a server full of toxic positivity is also nothing more than a feedback loop. To have a healthy server, the fans have to respect each other, no matter if they liked the finale, felt neutral about it or find themselves in a state of grief because of it. Nothing will kill a server quite like a policy that everyone must either like a certain thing/behave a certain way or shut up about it. Been there, seen that. 

A local Discord server decided back in 2020 that it was best to pretend Covid didn’t exist. They banned any criticisms of people having gatherings, and discussions of masking and other preventative measures. It died a pretty quick death.

“And if you're "in the middle" maybe take a step back from the loud voices and ask yourself: Are you in the middle? Or did something make you sad and the loud voices are trying to convince you that means that thing must not be any good at all?”

As I’ve said in other places, we “antis” are told to stop yucking the yum while at the same time it’s insisted that our yuck is actually yum.

The reason the fandom is reacting this way is because Neil Gaiman changed the genre of Good Omens from adventure fantasy comedy to romance fantasy comedy, and then he broke the cardinal rule of writing romance comedy: There must be a happy ending with no tragedy.

The story stops when the couple feels the most optimistic and hopeful for their future. A tragic ending does not belong in rom-com. It does not belong because going through this emotional journey with the couple only to have it end in painful disaster makes readers angry.

Good Omens S1 introduced overtly romantic elements with scenes that did not exist in the book:

Crowley flirting with Aziraphale as they watched the animals board Noah's ark.

Aziraphale flirting with Crowley in Rome.

Saving Aziraphale's reputation and his books in the church.

"You go too fast for me, Crowley."

"We could run away together."

"I don't even like you / Yes you do."

"Your boyfriend in the dark glasses"

There are tongue-in-cheek implications of romance in the book, but it is never explicitly stated or given space on the page to explore because how Crowley and Aziraphale feel about each other is not the point of this story. The humans are. We spend far more time following the humans and their thoughts and struggles because this story is not about Heaven and Hell, it's about humanity fighting for its right to exist.

To explore Crowley and Aziraphale's relationship in the original text would have made them too important. They were not supposed to kiss, there was not supposed to be a love confession, they were supposed to run around like incompetent headless chickens and make us laugh.

This is why fanfic exists. We pick up on the context clues in the text and we write our own stories to flesh out the things we wish had more time in the canon, even when we understand why it wasn't included.

But Gaiman gave the angel and the demon a whole bunch of extra scenes in the TV series, made their interactions overtly romantic in nature, and it disturbed the balance of the story. Good Omens became about them and their 6,000 year slow-burn enemies-to-friends-to-lovers story arc. Adam and Anathema and Shadwell became moving pieces buzzing around Crowley and Aziraphale.

The building up of Ineffable Husbands diminished the importance of everybody else until they ultimately got sidelined in favor of an outright love story in S2.

It's like the significance of everything the humans did was undone by Ineffable Husbands. This is no longer a story about humanity claiming its sovereignty and choosing their own fate in spite of plans made by Heaven or Hell. It became a story of how the unlikely love between an angel and a demon is the only thing that could possibly save the universe.

No. No, no, no. That was never the story. Could never be the story. Good Omens was never supposed to be a romance with Crowley and Aziraphale at its center.

Imagine When Harry Met Sally but Sally gets hit by a car after their love confession. Imagine The Princess Bride but Prince Humperdink wins. Imagine A Midsummer Night's Dream ending in shambles. That is the level of narrative betrayal happening in this script. That is why people are angry. It's not about a kiss. It's about giving us two seasons of a rom-com and then slipping us a tragedy at the end and calling everyone ungrateful when we rightfully complain because this was always meant to be how it ended.

Which only reveals that Gaiman was planning to betray his audience from the start, because he does not write happy endings.

SO SPITTING MAD ABOUT THIS i had to edit and repost from x/bsky

am i the only one who remembers this good omens sequel idea that was laid so beautifully at our feet in the year of our lord 1990? that was important enough to be quoted near verbatim in S1? the one where mortals of the world unite cuz we have nothing to lose but our chains??

"ohhh you're upset about the finale because you only care about aziracrow you don't care about the bigger picture" nah man don't pin that on me. i am 40 or 50 years old and i do not need this. you can't gaslight me into forgetting that one of the fundamental charms of GO is that aziraphale & crowley are actually very bad at saving the world, they cock up pretty much everything they try to do and it's only through serendipity (or implied providence??) that their actions end up facilitating HUMANS' efforts to save ourselves. you can't gaslight me into thinking that the universe getting destroyed & recreated on a whim with absolutely zero HUMAN input or agency is a happy ending, or that it's at all in keeping with the spirit of the original story.

the concept of the multiverse got traction in genre fiction via comics where it was introduced as a PLOT DEVICE to reconcile timeline inconsistencies (and an unnecessary one at that; the way to deal with "timeline inconsistencies" in long form serial fantasy is to IGNORE THEM). writers should have never started relying on the multiverse so heavily as a storyline foundation (MCU i am looking at YOU) because the logical end result is to make stories MEANINGLESS! what's the point of fighting for anything if you can just escape to another universe where things turn out better?! "we found each other in every universe" bitch i care about THIS ONE! how does that treacly platitude teach ANYONE anything meaningful or relatable or transferable about real life?!

... Meaning, I'm pretty sure Neil Gaiman did it ON PURPOSE, knowing how much it would upset the fans.

Neil knew how badly we wanted Aziraphale and Crowley (OUR version of Aziraphale and Crowley---the specific version of them we met in Season 1) to be together. He knew we wanted to see them resolve their issues and ultimately choose to be with each other in the end.

Instead, Aziraphale and Crowley forgo that emotional journey in favor of unnecessary pain. Neither of them experience real character growth in the finale; they are shown to be the worst and unhappiest versions of themselves, without getting a real shot at redemption. They never fix their communication issues. They don't express their true, authentic feelings for one another (don't @ me with that bullshit hand kiss thing). They never manage to get on the same page emotionally---even when they both agree to commit suicide (which I'm pretty sure was not the "one thing" Aziraphale wanted).

"Why give me Crowley? Why make me complete and then take it away?"

EMOTIONAL WITHHOLDING is a common abuse tactic utilized by men like Neil. They enjoy creating ATTACHMENT in their victims and then "TAKING IT AWAY".

It's easy to see how much Neil enjoyed frustrating his fans in retrospect. He actively taunted us on social media with the catchphrase "WAIT AND SEE" and threatened to make Aziraphale and Crowley kiss---but in a way we "wouldn't like". He loved dangling the implied promise of a happy ending over our heads---which we now know he never planned to deliver on.

Neil was unkind to his audience. He was also unkind to his characters. Aziraphale and Crowley are treated as punching bags throughout the entire series---shown to be "messy" for the sake of entertainment, but not as a real obstacle for either of them to overcome. The God character herself says she enjoys seeing how much Aziraphale values his relationship with Crowley. And this turns out to be her justification for "taking it away". (Tell me THAT isn't some fucked up shit.) Aziraphale and Crowley experience real emotional pain as the result of her actions---which is demonstrated by the incredible acting skills of both Michael Sheen and David Tennant.

Neil explicitly sold this as "a love story" when he created the show, and, based on the tone of the book, an eventual union between Aziraphale and Crowley would have made the most narrative sense. It would have emphasized the overarching themes of love, agency, and the futility of "taking sides". But that would have required Neil to possess the same ethos as Terry Pratchett---meaning LOVE AND RESPECT FOR FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS.

We were never going to get a good love story out of Neil. Men like Neil get off on "PUNISHING" people for no apparent reason, or just going out of their way to make them uncomfortable. Yet we still manage to ascribe deeper meaning to Aziraphale and Crowley, thanks to the phenomenal acting team and the dedication of this fandom. Aziraphale and Crowley remain the greatest love story of all time, not because of anything Neil actually wrote, but because of everything that was projected onto them by the people who cared. We assigned their relationship a depth "Neil himself" never could have dreamed of---one that exemplifies our maximalist ideals of love and the act of choosing it again and again. It is never going to "end" on terms Neil deems fit. In this rare instance, fan interpretation MANAGES TO ECLIPSE THE SOURCE MATERIAL---and that's because LOVE is always a more powerful story than ABUSE.

And now all of these fics are fucking AUs.

I wanted to know they are out there, talking things out and healing and holding one another and helping others with their traumas and

I WANTED HOPE for us all. I don't want a new universe where 'they' don't have the trauma.

The whole bloody point was that I cannot hope for another life after this one where all the suffering will be justified and I will be happy. I will never get another universe. Another life. I wanted hope that perseverance and kindness can bring someone healing here and now. That keeping going is worth it. And that in the mean time I can enjoy dessert even if it feels like the world is about the end. And fight another day.

We don't have the option to start the universe from scratch and hope for the best. We have to work within the systems we have. However bad or irreparable they seem. I don't want to give up. I don't want to be told Aziraphale was stupid for trying. That the system was never ever gonna change even if he got Crowley to stand before God and ask his question by the skin of his teeth.