Just Very Slightly Mad

What is there to say except that I am sorry; I’m so sorry you were failed by the narrative that certain folks now claim doomed you from the start. I’m sorry that your connection was butchered and whored out for money. I’m sorry you were each slaughtered so thoroughly by those who think they know better that you were frighteningly unrecognizable from the moment we saw you in s3 until the last. I’m sorry that your long established and fiercely-fought-for intimacy—fierce as in soft in the face of being hereditary enemies, fierce as in brutally brave tender touches offered with hearts that should have hated the other, fierce as in choosing each other over and over despite the risk—was erased, and that you were not allowed to have and give the touches you shared with us in the previous seasons.

I’m sorry that your devastating, badly written and lamely put together end is being lauded as anything other than hollow, queerphobic slop. You deserved better. We deserved better.

I’m sorry that Neil ever put his disgusting hands on you and your relationship and weaponized his late friend’s name as justification for his being allowed to do so. I’m sorry that Terry was so thoroughly disrespected in your name; please know that so many of us realize that after s1, you became a pawn in a sick man’s grasp to wield as he pleased, but that it isn’t your fault.

Aziraphale, I’m sorry that you were made into the hysterical woman trope and dumbed down while they were are it. You have always been a clever and intelligent being, one full of kindness and a beacon of hope for so many. You showed us that being soft was not a bad thing, but a beautiful thing, a desirable thing. You always wanted to do the right thing, and I know you tried your best; I really believe you were so very close to realizing that sometimes the right thing is the thing we want most in the world, even if it might seem selfish. Season 3 does not reflect the essence of who you are; you are not callous, you are not cold and careless. You’re not an idiot and you most certainly are not what the writers tried to convince us to believe in.

Crowley, I’m sorry that you were beaten down and that your depression was compounded and twisted into a plot device that added in alcoholism as a joke. You’ve always been beautifully emotional, yes, and moody at times, but you’d never be so broken as to give up- give up on life, give up on your angel, give up on the world and give up on yourself. You are and always have been an optimist, and you showed us the way forward when the path got dark or damned, but was still the right path nonetheless. Season 3 does not reflect the essence of who you are; you are not an apathetic ghoul, you are not stoic or defeated. You would never give up the chance to be with your angel and to save everyone while you were at it, too. You might be a demon, but you’ve never been heartless.

I’m sorry that somewhere along the way, everyone who had the chance to do right by you failed you both; I just hope it’s not too late to save you.

I hope that the writers and the artists and the readers and the helpers will fight through the pain of being told we are wrong and bad and sick and childish and media illiterate and selfish. I hope we can offer each other the love and compassion and fire and fight that the two of you would want us to have in the face of adversity. I hope the loudest voices screaming at us to shut up and leave the fandom if we’re unhappy will grow bored of their crusade and leave us to our task. Because we all love you so very much, and we need you. And like you need each other, we also need each other. We need to give you the endings upon endings that you *do* deserve and that you were always meant to have.

I love you, I’m sorry. I hope things will be better in the morning.

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?”

But I still don't understand them, and here I want to talk about one of the reasons why I never will.

In the finale, Aziraphale is portrayed as a naive, stupid idiot who simply doesn't understand that "everything has already been decided, you can't change anything! There will always be someone above you pulling the strings, so there's no point even trying. You should have just run away to Alpha Centauri and forgotten about everything. But no, you, you foolish, naive sheep, decided to keep fighting, and look where that got you! You should have listened to Crowley! He told you so! Now do the apology dance, because he was right and you were wrong!"

Practically every character in the film drags Aziraphale through the mud, just as the writers do through the story's narrative. Even though I personally interpret the ending of season two differently, for the sake of this post I'll be looking at it from season three's perspective, that Aziraphale really left because he genuinely wanted to change something (and, for some reason, immediately believed the Metatron without recognizing the threat hidden in his words), while the ending presents his hope and faith as something genuinely stupid.

For two entire seasons, Aziraphale did everything he could to protect Crowley. He loved him sincerely and tenderly, but he understood perfectly well the circumstances they were trapped in. He expressed his love subtly and carefully, afraid of taking one step too far and risking them being discovered and destroyed. Aziraphale always tried to keep their relationship balanced on that thin line where they could care for one another without putting either of them in danger. And Crowley always understood that. He knew the rules of the game, and he willingly accepted them just to stay by the angel's side, to spend time with him, to protect him and help him. He loved Aziraphale just as sincerely, even if his way of expressing that love was more obvious to the audience.

He loved Aziraphale precisely because he loves good food, precisely because he's not entirely immune to hedonism, precisely because he sometimes behaves like just enough of a bastard to be worth knowing, precisely because he can be a little selfish at times, precisely because he isn't perfect. He loved both Aziraphale's strengths and his flaws. He fell in love with Aziraphale's courage, his desire to help others, his kind and pure heart. He values and loves the fact that Aziraphale is willing to stand by his principles until the very end, willing to fight and keep going even when there seems to be no hope left (which is exactly what Aziraphale taught Crowley over the centuries, because deep down, I think Crowley remained an optimist largely thanks to Aziraphale), willing to put himself at risk if it meant protecting even just a handful of innocent people like when he gave the flaming sword to Adam and Eve, or when he saved Job's children while believing that lying to Heaven would send him to Hell.Just remember the way he portrayed Aziraphale at the end of the first season, it reflects how he sees his angel. Brave, courageous, compassionate, full of hope, and never losing his composure even in the face of danger or bastards like the archangels, who treated him terribly.

The ending portrays absolutely everything Crowley loved about Aziraphale as something bad, laughable, and utterly worthless. He was wrong for hoping. He was wrong for refusing, over and over again, to run away with Crowley to Alpha Centauri and leave everyone else to fend for themselves.

(Although I think the foundation of their arguments has always been that they both simply want to be together and left alone, but because of who they are, they pursue that goal differently. Aziraphale might have wanted to run away with Crowley, but he knows that neither of them could ever abandon Earth and the people they've grown attached to. And Aziraphale doesn't want to give up. Crowley, just like Aziraphale, simply wants a peaceful existence away from Heaven and Hell with the angel he loves. But when he panics and believes nothing can be fixed anymore, he's more inclined to give up and focus on saving the most precious thing he has, without really thinking about what comes afterward.)

He's stupid and naive for believing that anything can actually be changed, that they might still find another way. Of course you should have run away with Crowley, you foolish angel! Can't you see you're breaking Crowley's heart? You selfish bastard! Look how poor and miserable Crowley is!

(I want to make one thing clear here: I love and appreciate both Crowley and Aziraphale. What I hate is that the story went from "they're both right and wrong in their own ways, shades of gray" to suddenly trying to tell us that Crowley was the only one who was right, and that only Crowley suffered, because we were never shown Aziraphale's suffering during all those years he spent in Heaven.)

After everything literally disappeared and the two of them were left alone in the bookshop surrounded by nothingness, Aziraphale performs the damn "I Was Wrong" dance. It's as though the writers are trying to tell us that Crowley was right in his speech about everything being predetermined and nothing ever being changeable, which directly contradicts what the book and season 1 based on it were about.

Everyone hates Aziraphale. From the characters to the narrative itself.

And that leads me to one question...

How can you love this film while also loving Aziraphale?

From my perspective, loving this film and loving Aziraphale are complete opposites that simply cannot coexist in the same sentence. The entire film is saturated with absolute hatred toward this character. It portrays him as a stupid, naive bastard who doesn't care about the person he loves, the one he spent 6,000 years beside.

"If it weren't for Jesus, I wouldn't need you," and "Angels aren't killers" - those two lines tell me loud and clear just how "deep" the creators of this "masterpiece" understand Aziraphale as a character.

That's why I feel that the people who enjoyed this film either don't understand Aziraphale as a character, or they hate him, or they're simply not as emotionally attached to him. As someone who identified with him for five damn years, I want to say that the Aziraphale in this film is a pathetic, disgusting, unbelievably stupid parody of that wonderful, brave, courageous angel who was full of hope, full of pain from having to suppress his feelings, who did everything he could to survive, to stay with Crowley, and to do the right thing. The angel who absolutely melts when Crowley calls him a bastard, because that one line contains all of the demon's love for every one of the angel's flaws, flaws he loves just as much as all of his virtues (though honestly, I think Crowley puts them on exactly the same level as his virtues, lol).

The angel who deserved every word of love this world has to offer, deserved to be accepted for who he is, deserved to be loved, deserved peace and warmth.

The finale certainly did its fair share of mistreating Crowley as well, but that's a topic for another post.

I canNOT believe we're still fighting over a poorly written, poorly directed, OOC piece of mean-spirited, queerphobic tripe that has as much substance and structural integrity as a house of tissue paper cards in a sudden rainstorm. The garbage that is GO3 should have been relegated to the nearest flaming dumpster immediately upon finishing, and we should have collectively wiped our hands clean of it as it and NG deserved.

Instead, it's turned the fandom into this: a hellscape of defenders saying the rest of us need therapy, that this finale is beautiful queer and ace rep, that all we cared about is a kiss/a sex scene, that Good Omens was never a comedy (bet that would be news to Sir Terry!!!), that they can't be doing xyz bad behavior because they don't interpret the ending that way...need I go on?

Grow up, and get some STANDARDS for queer media while you're at it.

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:

Actually, that is exactly how fandom works.

This fandom has gotten so pedantic and inconsiderate and antagonistic and just downright cruel that the definitions of "death" and "suicide" are being debated and flouted and disregarded for... what? Stats? To be "right" instead of being considerate and empathic and decent? This is what happened on screen at the end of Good Omens 3: Aziraphale and Crowley requested that God annihilate them and create a new universe without them in it. Because apparently they were part of the problem. Then, 13.9 billion years later, Asa and Anthony, who looked like Aziraphale and Crowley and shared a handful of their traits but ostensibly none of their memories, met one another. Followed by a scene in which characters that looked like other angels and demons and humans from "the original" "fake" universe also appeared, with no indication they had any memories from or anything in common with their counterparts in the other universe. The final scene at a cottage in the South Downs twenty years later shows, what the content of the preceding 10 minutes indicates, Asa and Anthony stargazing and drinking cocoa. Anthony acknowledging the song of a nightingale nearby and Asa responding that "you wouldn't know a nightingale if it perched on your nose" seems to conflict with Crowley in S2 stating "no nightingales," as that implies he would know what they sound like. Asa asks if Anththony ever wonders if there's more out there - pointing to the sky - and Anthony's response is, in paraphrase, that it doesn't really matter to him, because he has Asa. This absence of Crowley's innate curiosity and questioning and answer seeking personality traits seem to indicate as well that Anthony and Asa have not gained Aziraphale and Crowley's memories/personalities. If you want to get into semantics, I suppose instead of suicide we can use the term "elective euthanasia." But at the end of the day, they still died. That is considered major character death. Even if it's "temporary," even if it's "a ruse," a request for death and the dissolution of a physical body would feel fairly cut and dry in any other situation. A ghost or a reincarnation or a lost soul adrift in the void with no memory of who and where it came from are all interpretations of what remains of someone after death.

Is this irony? Sorry, I'm not terribly media literate. You can have the headcanon that Asa and Anthony are Aziraphale and Crowley. You can make the art and write the fics. Your fanworks deserve to exist just as much as those who do not share your interpretation of the ending. But, and especially for those of you who claim GO3 is #ForTerry, I do have to wonder why you continue to insist and force upon others that it is canon, and one that Pterry would want. We can't know. Terry Pratchett is no longer alive to tell us how he feels about the ending of GO3. And we have comments from various sources close to him with conflicting information about how Terry would have felt about it. But to me, the ending does not seem aligned with Pterry's own words. "Dementia in its varied forms is not like cancer. Dad saw the cancer in his pancreas as an invader. But Alzheimer’s is me, unwinding, losing trust in myself, a butt of my own jokes and on bad days capable of playing hunt the slipper by myself and losing. You can’t battle it, you can’t be a plucky “survivor”. It steals you from yourself." - Sir Terry Pratchett

“I hate things that try to take away what you are. […] When you take away memories, you take away the person, everything they are.” - Sir Terry Pratchett, Wintersmith.

Its not an interpretation, its not an opinion, that's literally what fucking happened.

Crowley’s flat had been a ‘gift’ from Hell after his last assignment. It wasn’t. He had to pay the bills. He didn’t particularly like the place. It gave him goosebumps. No matter where he went, he felt eyes watching him. He had cleaned it from top to bottom hundreds times including miracles, and it never made a difference. It was always cold and unusually damp. He’d tried adding heaters, but it didn’t matter. As soon as the heat hit the air, it turned frigid until he got the plants.

His downstairs neighbor loved plants, but she needed someone to check in on them whilst she was out of town. Crowley was going to miracle to be fine until she got back, but he went to check in on them anyway. All of them were doing wonderfully except one. In the corner, there was a Pothos plant hung in a basket. It was trying to spread farther to flourish, but there wasn’t enough room in its pot. It was being weighed down. He felt a kinship so he took it upstairs. 

nurse nostalgia for the stars long dead

Summary:

The priest was content, or at least a close approximation of it. His post was obscure and insignificant: a beautiful little chapel that serviced an equally quaint village. He had his books and his solitude, and that seemed enough.

Then, like some Grimmian tale, a stranger slunk out of the darkness, threatening to upend his existence with a smile. And now the priest found himself plagued with questions like what if, and why not, and…even more troubling, why haven’t I before?

It was the last question that kept him up at night and followed him when he slept.

Title is from a poem called Disorientation by astrophysicist, Katie Mack.

Read more here.

I was given two beautiful songs for the Maggie’s Record Shop Event on the Do It With Style discord server (thank you to the wonderful mods for that): “From Eden” and “No Plan”, both by Hozier.

I set out to make this quaint demon/priest story, that turned into a love across lifetimes story, and a story about memory loss and finding those memories again, and the Book of Life and…

If you loved season 3, good! Love it, cherish it! I never want the joy you've found in these characters to fade. And I think that this story dovetails well with the cannon ending.

I will not delve into plot holes analysis, or how the ending made me feel, because: 1. I already did and it was frowned upon and 2. It has been done to hell and back already by everyone else too.

What I do want to address, though, is the idea that all of us as a whole (we are a whole after all, not individuals with their personal stories and real life triggers and gripes and opinions) have a need for a happy ending. Because we were apparently raised on Disney or some other such.

And this is where my petty rant ends and the actual post begins.

Because, this post is not a : I hate S3 therefore I am *moar smurt*. It is actually a comparison between two pieces of media.

Which both, somehow, have the same ending: protagonist sacrifices himself +/- loved one in order to save the world which, at this point is absolutely and irredeemably fucked.

One of them Is The Magnus Archives and the other one is Good Omens Season 3 – obviously.

There will be tons of spoilers for both, so be warned.

Let us begin with TMA.

It is a piece of media that I don’t think I would have listened to, were the circumstances any different (the difference being me not being in the hospital pending an operation for a broken humerus bone). I tend to shy away from audiobooks and podcasts in general. It’s not the medium in itself, it’s just me. I am a very visual person and I can’t focus properly if it’s just audio.

In this case in particular, I can’t even say if it was just me, or the pain meds or the lack of pain meds, but I seemed to glance over many important details. So, I listened to it again, later on. And again. And again.

Is the ending sad as all fucks?

Um. Yes. It very much is.

Will I relisten to that stunning piece of media, knowing that it will hurt me?

Hell yes.

The point is that ever since the very beginning we knew that this was a horror podcast. Listening to the first episode, someone dies at the end.

And then someone dies each and every episode. And, if they don’t die, they are massively scarred by whatever happens to them to the point of nightly nightmares.

And when the first season ends with Sasha dying… well – that was when everyone listening realised that this was not a pod that pulled its punches.

There is at least one MCD per season.

So when S5 draws to an end and you’re thinking that Jon might die… well. I mean you are hoping he won’t, praying that he won’t, but everyone knows in their heart of hearts that he most definitely will.

So that scene happens – in which John asks Martin to stab him. And while absolutely gut wrenching – sorry for the incongruous pun – it has been something that everyone dreaded, but also expected.

It is a death that had been in the books since S3, if not before.

Did I cry my eyes out? Of course I did. I cried at the Sheep Detectives movie. I am a cry-y person. But then again there’s cries and there’s Cries.

Thing is, Jon, as a character had tried to sacrifice himself for far less stakes than THE WORLD ever since he realised the absolute shit that they are all in. So… S3 out of 5? You knew it was coming.

And, more than that, what he did had actual stakes.

Other than Sasha (RIP, queen) most everybody in the pod sacrificed themselves for the same goal long before Jon did.

Him and Martin could have lived – albeit a shit life – for a long time. But his sacrifice had so much meaning I can’t even rn.

So, after season upon season of seeing that character lose his – not even optimism – cause Jon must have been born with 0 optimism – but his hope that they can at any point prevail – yes, I can understand why he did what he did and further more, asked his boyfriend to do it for him.

My heart bleeds for Martin – for both of them, really – but it needed to get done.

Point of the pod: The Apocalypse already happened. What do?

Genre of show: horror podcast that kills all of its mains since S1.

The end we were promised: maybe they live, but honestly not.

The end we got: sadness.

And now, let’s look at GO S3.

It is stated in the book that Crowley is an optimist.

Not much optimism going around in Hell, yet he still has it.

Crowley in S1: let’s go away together! (subtext: fuck everyone else, it’s just you, Aziraphale that’s important).

Crowley in S2: let’s be a group of the two of us (sub-not even–text: fuck heaven and hell and all humanity, it’s just you, Aziraphale, that’s important).

Point of the show, or at least both seasons 1 and 2: let us avert the Apocalypse. This feels like a happy ending type of deal. (Because Crowley is an optimist at heart)

Genre of show: feel good… um…comedy?

The end we were promised: they retire to the South Downs – as a fucken angel and demon.

The end we got: sadness.

So. My main issue with S3 of GO is not the horrid writing throughout – I mean, I bitch about it, obvs.

It is not even – it has a sad ending.

It is the fact that sad ending came out of left field.

It was not structurally consistent as a series.

It was not in agreement with what we had established the characters to be in the first two seasons.

It was never something that Crowley – same Crowley who would say fuck all and run off to Alpha Centauri -  would do.

It was basically all of us thinking this is a happy go lucky thingy and then getting a syke! at the end there.

Jon’s death was something that did indeed save the universe and the trauma that both characters had to go through for episodes on end makes that ending a complete and utter gem.

The point of this meta was to draw a parallel in between a good sad ending and a shit sad ending.

Whatever happened to make Jon sacrifice himself had started brewing as early as S1. Jonathan Sims – the actual IRL Jon, had that idea in his head from the very beginning and it shows.

S3 just pulled a “gotcha” over our heads and we are supposed to vibe with it.

A couple of people pointed out that Sandman does the same thing – the dying and then being resurrected bit. Which Neil seems to love. Kudos to him for liking that trope. (We will not engage in any discussion about Neil on this here blog. Cause I have a life outside of fandom and this will take forever. Short version: Neil can go suck it – in the not pleasant way – in hell.)

At least they mourned for that guy – guy who I liked as a protagonist but who wasn’t on Crowley or Aziraphale’s level as a Main Character.

So, that it my hot take on season 3.

There are some arguments to be made that Crowley cares about humanity. He does. When the chips are down, he chooses to stay and fight. They both do. BUT.

The story makes it clear that they can fight and win. That dying is not on. That they are pushing against an unjust system with the intention of defying it and surviving. Surviving as themselves, without sacrifice, without having to let go of their own lives and priorities.

In the late 80’s-very early 90’s era that the book takes place in that meant coding him as a Yuppie, thinking about his stock options as soon as Armageddon comes up, his sleek lifeless showroom flat, the dedication to always having the most modern tech (even when he finds it to actually be pretty crappy or otherwise useless to him, it’s necessary for ‘the kind of Human he’s trying to be’)….

I will mourn this forever, because I loved you so much, I just wanted to see you smile and dance away into the light of a bright future.

You deserved so so so so much better, and I will keep you the way you were - safe, whole and loved - in my heart forever. It will never be over for me no matter what they say, not until the day I die. I love you, I'll see you in my dreams.

Bc canon's got this shit going on:

"[...] your [DRAMATIC PAUSE] friend, Crowley[...]"

That pause and emphasis on "friend" is a whole-ass line of its own. The Metatron is showing Aziraphale his leverage over the spouses: he knows Aziraphale and Crowley are friends.

Even if the Metatron doesn't suspect feelings in addition to friendship, their friendship alone (or even "de facto partnership") is enough to get Aziraphale demoted (again) and stripped of his memories. We know Aziraphale is aware this outcome is a possibility bc he is a being with perfect recall* who nevertheless keeps centuries' worth of detailed diaries specifically about his friendship with a demon, despite the risk to them both if the diaries are ever discovered, which indicates he feels the danger of not keeping the diaries to be worse than that risk.

More to the point, the Metatron is also telling Aziraphale with that pause and emphasis that if Aziraphale doesn't comply, the Metatron will have Crowley killed.

In 1601, Aziraphale warns Crowley, "If Hell finds out, they won't just be angry; they'll destroy you." Crowley does not dispute this: his argument is just that Hell won't find out.

After Aziraphale's sojourn in Hell and Crowley's in Heaven, the spouses are now well aware that Heaven and Hell cooperate even at the highest levels. With a word to Hell, the Metatron can have Crowley killed for fraternizing or collaborating with the enemy--especially now that the Duke of Hell responsible for keeping Hell to "sort of a generalized understanding" that Crowley and Aziraphale are "to be left alone in future" has just fucked off to Alpha Centauri with the being who was likewise keeping Heaven off their backs.

I think it is also reasonable to infer, given the Cold-War-spies conceit of Good Omens, that bc Crowley is persona non grata to Hell it would not trigger an outbreak in open hostilities between the 2 superpowers if Heaven also puts a price on his head, declaring him fair game for angelic smitings or capture. As a rogue agent, Crowley does not have state protection anymore. Aziraphale is therefore also aware that he would be in the best possible position to prevent Heavenly attacks on Crowley and negotiate with Hell for Crowley's safety if he is Supreme Archangel.

So. The Metatron is making Aziraphale an Offer He Can't Refuse by threatening Crowley's life, and we know Aziraphale knows this.

Aziraphale then relays the Metatron's remarks to Crowley, which we the audience see in flashback. We know Crowley knows his existence is now at risk because we learn from his conversation with Beelzebub that the "generalized understanding" of non-interference with the spouses rests with the Grand Duke of Hell and that they and presumably their successor Shax "could put a price on [Crowley's] head anytime[.]"

So from end-of-flashback forward, everything the spouses say in the final 15, they say with the awareness that Crowley's existence is in danger if Aziraphale doesn't become Supreme Archangel.

Not only is Aziraphaletrying to protect Crowley, Crowley knows that's what Aziraphale is doing.

[Ed. Added the paragraph re: the possibility of Heaven hunting Crowley; also fixed some typos]

______

*Aziraphale is able to form and retrieve long-term memory before he ever has a corporation (or he wouldn't have the memories that cause him to worry about the Starmaker's plan to ask questions), so angelic memory is not determined by the electrochemical encoding, storage, and retrieval methods of the human brain, which is what limits and corrupts human memories.

By this reading, Aziraphale doesn't recall whether the French Revolution was Heaven's or Hell's work because he simply never took enough interest to find out which it was in the first place. This matches with his brief surprise and outrage at the idea of Crowley's involvement in the Revolution's events: Az. assumed it was all human shenanigans.