The idea of Aziraphale and Crowley being turned into humans at the end of the show would likely feel more satisfying if they werenât *already* human in the ways that matter the most.
The trope of metamorphosis in much traditional folklore and mythology comes from the idea that the individual who has been âchanged,â is being forced to learn a perspective either about the life of a creature they have been oppressing, or the moral integrity and/or corruption that it represents. In a lot of Greek mythology specifically, it is also used to represent similar divine punishment (whether or not this is justified) or protection, but even then I donât think that that fits the narrative the Good Omens TV show had been setting up.
Beauty and the Beast, the Frog Prince, Metamorphosis (Kafka, not a fairytale but still fits and carries similar themes), Arachne, Galanthis, Io, Lycaon, Children of Lir, etc.
In European folklore (beauty and the beast, the frog prince) characters often change to learn a lesson that typically involves humility, chastity or charity. I would argue that Crowley and Aziraphale, through their time on Earth, have already undergone such a transformation. Sure theyâve learnt to, âsin,â (or at least Aziraphale has), but largely they have learnt to love and appreciate the world around them, with less arrogance than those above and below. Here theyâve (somewhat) learnt humility, they both demonstrate charity at the airbase towards Adam and humanity writ large in avoiding the apocalypse, and I donât really believe that chastity is something either one of them has ever worried about. These actions are all a product of their exposure to humanity - it has, as written in the book, made them more human and thus allowed them to act in more legitimately compassionate and, âgood,â ways. They have undergone metamorphosis.
Even if analysed from the perspective of Hell with their âsinning,â this still works - they defy Heaven and live forevermore amongst mortal men in sin as a âpunishment,â for this rebellion, which makes Crowley better at tempting and Aziraphale more gluttonous and slothful. These are not necessarily contradictory results either, as where the book differs from folklore morality is that the main âlesson,â that A and C are taught is to be more human, which includes all of humanityâs âgood,â and âbadâ traits. Again, they have undergone a metamorphosis that has changed them to better represent the âlowly,â creatures that they were (unintentionally) forced to live amongst by Heaven and Hell.
So, From both a Heavenly and Hellish lense they can be argued to have âchanged,â for the better - which is the beauty of the message of the book and its satirical commentary on politics and human nature.
Which all goes to say - they donât need to fully âbecome,â human by the end of the show, because that defeats the point of them learning this, âlesson.â By which I mean theyâve already *learnt it.* You could argue that itâs the final stage of the metamorphosis - letting go of their divine power and becoming fully human, after 6000 years of âreadying,â themselves, but that doesnât work unless they retain all of their memories, because otherwise that completely wipes the lesson itself from their mind!
The idea of them meeting and becoming human (and that itâs implied that they find each other in âevery universeâ) to me speaks more of the Greek divine-punishment angle, rather than a satisfying or âsweetâ ending.
Arachne, a weaver, is turned into a giant spider because she dares to challenge Athenaâs weaving prowess. Galanthis is turned into a weasel by Hera for facilitating the birth of Heracles and attempting to save his human mother. They are both examples of human characters who are not explicitly morally âwrong,â in their conduct - their only crime is defying the Gods. This is somewhat reflected in the ending of Go3 - Crowley and Aziraphale challenge Godâs plan and as such are disintegrated and turned into humans, living out a similar story over-and-over again across universes, yet unable to save their original universe as a reminder that nothing, not even and angel and a demon, can defy divinity and come out unscathed. The issue is, this ending is portrayed to a degree as more of a bittersweet tragedy, or in some cases a triumph, than a true tragedy.
Certain legitimately âbittersweet,â tragedies such as the Children of Lir and Io feature human characters being turned into animals (âlesser creaturesâ) for protection. The animal itself specifically correlates to the moral of the story and the moral character/narrative purpose of the individuals - swans for the innocence, nobility and beauty of Lirâs children, and a cow for the inversion of Ioâs beauty and her role as Zeusâs consort (Iâm not as familiar with the story so forgive that lacklustre analysis, but you get the gist).
One could argue that A and C being turned into humans is a similar form of divine, âprotection,â their celestial/occult love being so strong that it is literally etched into the fabric of every new universe, but I donât think it works either (or sends a very strong message). In both Children of Lir and Io - those who undergo metamorphosis do so as a result of either divine power beyond their control or as a last resort against evil. They have no agency, to the point where they quite literally lose their humanity and human free will as a result of the machinations of OUTSIDE FORCES, which contradicts the message of good omens the book and s1 of the show.
In s2 and s3 of Good Omens, some of their more âhuman,â characteristics are dialled down - especially in s3, where both of them are almost completely isolated from humanity and are its *sole* protectors in the final hour. But this isnât down intentionally. Or rather it is - but not for any effective narrative-serving purpose. Itâs the result of rushed production and a show that should never have been extended past its first season without a clear, structured story. Post s1, Azriaphale and Crowley are de-humanised, and shown to be perfectly capable of making human-decisions without human-influence for the âdrama,â to make their relationship feel fragile and exciting, as opposed to worn-in and known, and to put them at the centre of the showâs universe so that the audience has a titular couple to follow.
The problem with this is that it forgets the actual human element of humanity - that this is something that BOTH Crowley and Aziraphale have to *learn* to become. Showing them un-learning their lessons from s1, and indicating that a lot of their more âhumanâ traits developed as a result of *each other* rather than *actual people* makes it seem like they never actually learnt that lesson at all. After s1, it feels as though retroactively there was no true metamorphosis before they are turned fully human, but weâre strung along to believe that there was (what we do see in s1) - so even the final, âtrue,â metamorphosis STILL doesnât feel earned!
This means that, ultimately, changing them into humans at the end of go3 served no purpose in terms of playing into the âlessons,â they had to learn about being more human because a) they had already learnt that lesson and b) erasing their memories means that, even as a final act of ultimate human-learning, it doesnât make sense as they have no memories of what theyâre supposed to be learning in the first place. Neither does it strictly meet the requirements to be a metamorphic tragedy or a means of divine protection, as both of these tropes go against a) the messaging and earlier progress of both the book and s1 and b) the way in which the ending was framed.