RealitythroughtheLensofFiction

And if everyone had only a talent and interest in the field of arts and not in the field of science, no technological innovations or medical advances would be made.

But the thing is that not all people are only interested in arts and not in science, just like not all people are homo- or asexual. You're fabricating a threat based on a fictional scenario that is never, ever going to happen in real life.

It's a way to try and rationalize your own disgust, fear or incomprehension of these orientations, not a valid argument for why they are harmful.

Since the finale of Good Omens was released, both fans who liked and didn't like how it ended have been discussing whose idea it was. Some say it is the ending Terry Pratchett had always planned. Others deny that and argue that it was Neil Gaiman alone who decided that it should conclude this way. There has even been some speculation that the new writers, Peter Atkins and Michael Marshall Smith, did a complete rewrite of the six original scripts before cutting them down to a single 90 minute-long episode.

I think the latter can be debunked quite easily. Not only would time and financial constraints not have allowed to write six new scripts, but there are also many evidences that apart from cutting and shortening scenes, changes have been rather minimal. While Peter Atkins and Michael Marshall Smith are credited for the "Teleplay" alongside Neil Gaiman, Neil Gaiman is the only one who gets credited for the "Television story", meaning that the plot of the finale was laid out by him. There are also lines and short scenes in Good Omens 3 that are rather obviously leftovers from plotlines that have been removed, like Michael's comment about the Metatron messing with the Book of Life or Dagon declaring war on heaven seconds before hell gets snapped out of existence. Even the word "pedometer" that Neil Gaiman had teased for the finale was still included in the crossword scene (cf. this post by @crowleysgirl56).

Moreover, the concept art for the final scene was created at the time when Good Omens 3 was still six episodes long and featured a plotline in America (cf. this post). People have pointed out that Crowley and Aziraphale look much more like older versions of themselves in it and have taken this as proof that they were initially meant to keep their identities and memories. But you have to keep in mind that a concept artist does not get to decide on the costumes. The human versions of Crowley and Aziraphale were created with the input of David Tennant and Michael Sheen (cf. this interview). Louis Ralph just put placeholders in his concept art to get an overall impression of what the scene would look like. Similarly, in the concept art for the Resurrectionist minisode, the image of Crowley in his Victorian outfit from season 1 was inserted (cf. this post). And if you've followed some news from behind the scenes, you will probably remember that season 2 was originally supposed to feature a nightmare in which the bookshop was the only place left in the entire universe - foreshadowing for an ending that Neil Gaiman claimed to have come from his "subconscious/unconscious" (cf. this post).

If this still doesn't convince you, Peter Atkins has explicitly stated that the ending itself remained untouched, and that "no big narrative or thematic changes" were made (cf. these screenshots on Reddit). Rachel Talalay has confirmed that, too (cf. this interview). When asked the question "What kind of conversations did you have about where Crowley and Aziraphale should ultimately end up?", she replied: "That was very much worked out by Terry Pratchett. That was an absolute. That was in the six episodes and stayed the same through the shorter version. That wasn’t a debate or dialogue. That was what was decided. That was the reason to make it because that’s the ending Terry wanted."

Which leads us to another interesting point: the involvement of Terry Pratchett. Many people assume that the ending could never be what he wanted for the story, mainly because it contradicts the core messages of the book. The nihilistic take on the state of the world seems to fit Neil Gaiman's style a lot more and was interpreted as an attempt by him to finally make the story his own (cf., for example, this reblog by @acatwithstockings of a post by @obsessivelollipoplalala). Initially, I agreed with this view, but Rachel Talalay has repeatedly emphasized how Rob Wilkins, Terry Pratchett's assistant, who also functioned as the executive producer of Good Omens 3, assured her that it reflects Terry Pratchett's philosophy (cf. both of the interviews cited above).

Marc Burrows, who wrote a biography of Terry Pratchett (but did not ever meet him personally), has voiced doubts about the alternate universe being Terry Pratchett's idea (cf. this post). He also pointed out how Terry Pratchett not being officially credited for the story of the finale is somewhat telling, and Rob Wilkins liked his post (cf. this post). But this fact is contradicted by Rob Wilkins's role as executive producer, and Rachel Talalay's statement. There is no reason for her to blatantly lie about her conversations with Rob Wilkins, so we have to take her word for the ending being, at least officially, the one Terry Pratchett had planned. But this still leaves us with the question what aspects of the ending came from Terry Pratchett.

The destruction of heaven and hell? Absolutely yes. That was a thing that was already heavily hinted at in the book. Adam complains about the influence angels and demons have over humans: "It's hard enough bein' people as it is, without other people coming and messin' you around" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 366; cited below). Another instance is the analogy between the Them and their rival gang, the Johnsonites, on the one hand and heaven and hell on the other and Adam musing that the adults of Tadfield (the humans) would probably be glad if both of the gangs just disappeared (cf. Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 320; cited below). He also criticizes the concept of life after death; Crowley's line in the finale in which he asks God why people are punished for behaving like people is actually a quote by Adam from the book: "I don't see what's so triffic about creating people as people and then gettin' upset 'cos they act like people" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 367; cited below).

What's important to understand the context of this quote is what follows, though: "Anyway, if you stopped tellin' people it's all sorted out after they're dead, they might try sorting it all out while they're alive. If I was in charge, I'd try makin' people live a lot longer, like ole Methuselah. It'd be a lot more interestin' and they might start thinkin' about the sort of things they're doing to all the enviroment and ecology, because they'll still be around in a hundred years' time" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 367; emphasis in the original; cited below). Adam proposes a much longer lifespan for humans as a way for them to experience the direct consequences of their actions rather than getting some rather unrelated reward/punishment in the afterlife. He wants people to have a chance to take full responsibilty for their actions: "If you stop messin' them about they might start thinkin' properly an' they might stop messin' the world around. I'm not sayin' they would, [...] but they might" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 368; emphasis in the original; cited below).

A godless universe? I would say also yes. I remember this quote from back when I first read the book, before watching the series: "I mean, maybe you just want to see how it all turns out. Maybe it's all part of a great big ineffable plan. All of it. You, me, him, everything. Some great big test to see if what you've built all works properly, eh?" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 392; cited below). It gave me the suspicion that the ultimate goal of God might always have been to end his/her existence once creation has proven that it can take responsibilty for itself. Although I assumed that God would simply back out of the existing universe, not create a new one.

Crowley and Aziraphale sacrificing themselves? Maybe. At the end of the book, they choose not to run away and help the humans fight Satan instead, despite knowing that they do not really have a chance (cf. Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 373; cited below). So I guess a noble sacrifice would fit their characterisation, even though it would give them an unusual importance in a story that had painted them as rather incompetent bystanders so far (cf. this post by @dustbunniess).

Crowley and Aziraphale deciding on the fate of the whole of humanity alone? I highly doubt that. A story that has always been about human agency, about how supernatural beings should not interfere with human lives, about how destroying the world as it is is not a way to make it better ending with an angel and a demon single-handedly choosing the erasure of the entire universe is more than odd. We know that a plotline involving Jesus and Adam was cut from the finale, so maybe they were meant to play a bigger role in Terry Pratchett's vision. The ending as it is, however, as I said above, goes against the core messages of the book, and I will stand by that.

Crowley and Aziraphale becoming human? Possibly. They were always trying to imitate humans, so it would be a fitting conclusion for their character arc. Although I thought that the point was that they are already human at heart. All the things Crowley envies humans for - mainly free will and imagination (cf. Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 47f; cited below) - are qualities he already possesses. It actually reminds me a bit of The Wizard of Oz, in which Dorothy's friends wish for traits they've had all along. The only two things that really distinguish Crowley and Aziraphale from humans are their immortality and their miracles. Take them away from them and all the other angels and demons and they are equal to humans. I don't understand why removing the power imbalance requires them to lose their identity as well, and I'm still not sure whether this was Terry Pratchett's intention.

But even if every aspect of the ending was envisioned by Terry Pratchett, you have to bear in mind that the execution was entirely done by Neil Gaiman. He used the narrative landmarks that were set and built the plot around them. His comment about not really knowing where the idea with nightmare of the bookshop came from further suggests that he was making a lot of things up as he went. And when it comes to the messages of the story, one has to admit that he did not add much that was of value. The scene with God and Satan in the bookshop that was supposed to represent the philosophical core of the finale, for example, did not contain much original dialogue, but relied on recycled lines from the book instead, like Adam's remark about punishing people that I quoted above or Crowley's musings about human nature (cf. Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 47f; cited below).

Neil Gaiman is also the one who made the romance between Crowley and Aziraphale explicit on request of the fans, only to have it end tragically ("There was a point where I started to go: You know, I can give you what you want, but you won't want it" - that were his own words; cf. this video, timestamp 11:56-12:04). If they were always supposed to get annihilated in the end, he should have left it out. Since the story had shifted its focus to Crowley's and Aziraphale's relationship, the only narratively satisfying conclusion would have included a happy ending for them. I'm sure there would have been a way to do that without betraying the core of Terry Pratchett's vision. What we ultimately got was a weird example of 'having your cake and eating it too', as Reddit user WAR_FROM_GOOD_OMENS put it in this thread, of putting a lovestory in but also staying true to the original ideas under circumstances that had changed from the book (see also this post by @i-only-ever-asked-questions).

So, what is the takeaway from this post? Well, the takeaway is that the ending of Good Omens 3 is not the result of a rewrite of Neil Gaiman's scripts, but something that was planned right from the beginning, most likely even back when season 2 was written. And that we will never know for sure how much of it can be attributed to ideas by Terry Pratchett and how much to choices made by Neil Gaiman.

I understand that many people are unhappy with the ending and are looking for someone to 'blame' for it. And that many find the idea comforting that what we saw is not the 'real' ending and that a truer, more hopeful version of it exists somewhere. But in the end, we have to ask ourselves: does it really matter? You are allowed to like or dislike the ending, no matter who wrote it. Actually, I don't think the author of the ending should have an influence on your judgment of it at all. The finale of Good Omens is what it is, it does not become better when Terry Pratchett came up with it or worse when Neil Gaiman, Peter Atkins or Michael Marshall Smith invented it. Just look at what we've got and use your skills in media analysis to decide whether it makes sense for the story, for the characters, and for your own taste and morals. And if it doesn't, you can't change it anyway, but you can create a version for yourself and for other fans that feels more fitting. You don't have to accept an author's word on the story, no matter how famous or how skilled he is.

Keep going, Good Omens fandom!

Work cited:

For those who haven't seen the finale yet, I would suggest not to open the comment section as I guess fans will be discussing their views there.

Over the course of almost two years, I've been making predictions about what will happen in the Good Omens finale. One of them - Jesus landing in an airplane and then getting lost - has already been debunked by the trailer, but the others still stand. So here's a list of my predictions:

We will learn that Crowley did indeed do something bad to cause his fall (cf. this post)

We will see Jesus and Adam together (cf. this post)

Michael will turn out to be an agent of hell (cf. this post)

Saraqael will be an ally to Crowley and Aziraphale (cf. this post)

Resurrection will play a role in the finale, but it won't be a positive one (cf. this post)

Death as a character will return (see 5)

Crowley's abilty to stop and start time will be brought up again (cf. this post)

The main confrontation in the finale will be between heaven and hell on one side and humanity on the other (cf. this post)

We will see the Last Judgment (see 8)

Someone will erase or at least try to erase Aziraphale and/or Crowley from the Book of Life (cf. this post)

Heaven and hell will cease to exist (see 8)

Humans won't go to heaven or hell anymore (see 5)

Jesus will play a role when it comes to averting the Apocalypse, but the main agency will still come from other characters (see 2)

Love/unity will save the day (cf. this post)

Many of these predictions are ones I would actually bet money on. But there are also some questions I don't have an answer to:

Can the Metatron be redeemed? (cf. this post)

What will happen to Satan? (cf. this post)

Which side will Uriel and Dagon choose? (cf. this post)

Tell me whether you think that Crowley still has some faith left, or whether you believe that he has completely turned his back on God. Feel free to explain how you came to your conclusions in the comment section.

The trailer for the finale is out for over a week now, and I assume that almost everyone has seen it by now, so I'm going to share some of my thoughts about it. The official plot summary for Good Omens 3 can be found here.

After the short recap of where we left off at the end of season 2, we see Aziraphale and other angels preparing the Second Coming. Jesus himself is present, too, but curiously not Saraqael. It appears as if Aziraphale is still willing to go along with heaven's plans to establish their reign on earth and bring "universal happiness". It's just clear that his version of what it will look like is very much different from that of the other angels.

Next up, we see the Metatron in head office. He shouts at someone who enters the room and, according to him, is not allowed to be there. At first I thought it was either Jesus, who is denied the right to talk to his own father, or Crowley or Aziraphale, who want access to certain documents or something similar. But @ineffablegoodomens pointed out in this post that the scene could take place before the fall, and I added the idea that this might be the moment "Lucifer and the guys" enter the holiest of heaven to start their rebellion. There's a shadow on the floor, you can see it coming in in the middle and then moving to the left. What if Lucifer steps in first and suddenly all his fellows are coming out behind him?

In the present day, it is mentioned that things "keep disappearing", and we do indeed see whole buildings vanish from the cityscape. Paired with Muriel's investigation about the whereabouts of the Book of Life, I assume that people are getting erased from it, and all their achievements - houses they built, inventions they made - disappear because their creators have now never existed.

If this is true, it begs the question who is removing people from the Book of Life, and what are the criteria to select those who get erased. I don't expect a single individual to be responsible for it. I rather suspect a conspiracy, probably with both angels and demons involved. My hot candidate for a secret cooperation with hell is still Michael (see this post).

We then see how Jesus sneaks away from heaven, and I wonder why he does this. Is he already aware about the ongoing disappearance of things and wants to see whether he can do something about it? Or does he feel trapped in heaven and is tired of being told what to do, so he decides to visit the earth unsupervised instead, doing the Second Coming his own way? In any case, the demons are delighted that heaven has lost him and deduce that their time has come now. What are they planning to do? Kidnap Jesus? Enact some other long-held scheme? I also wonder why they have brought Crowley to hell to tell him all of this. Are they expecting him to help? Does he agree to help? Will he actually be playing his own game and doing what he thinks is best while he pretends to go along with Aziraphale's plans? I don't think this is very likely, but I wouldn't completely rule the possibility out, either.

Meanwhile, Aziraphale returns to his bookshop, where a menacing looking stranger awaits him. He's probably the head of the London gangsters the plot summary mentions, but his motives are unclear. He might be one of hell's (or heaven's) human agents, or he might be playing his own game. In any case, his appearance certainly means nothing good for Aziraphale and Crowley.

Speaking of Crowley, the view of him unkempt and hopeless, sleeping in a dirty alley, surprised even those who had predicted that we would see him depressed. Like other fans, I ask myself why he does not sleep in the Bentley like in season 2. Maybe there's a reason why his car isn't there at the moment, but I wouldn't be surprised if they included this scene purely for the drama. I also heavily wonder whether his state of depression is caused by Aziraphale's departure, the world around him decaying or a much larger personal problem he is facing. It seems to me that Aziraphale's offer to help him does not simply refer to his homelessness. On the other hand, the new promo photos that were released alongside with an interview with director Rachel Talalay (see this post) show him being summoned to hell with his sleeping bag, so perhaps he really has been living in the streets since Aziraphale left.

The conversations between Crowley and Aziraphale take up a big part of the trailer. Plotwise, they do not give away to much, but they confirm that the Final Fifteen are pretty much to be taken at face value. There was no open threat by the Metatron, no secret communication, just an angel and a demon having two different standpoints. Aziraphale wanted to change heaven for the better, Crowley thought that was pointless and prefered running away. Neither of them was completely wrong or completely right; Aziraphale's plan to reform heaven didn't work out, just as Crowley predicted, but they cannot simply run away and leave humanity on its own either. Aziraphale offers Crowley an apology, but his voice indicates that he does so only to appease Crowley and be able to move on. I guess it will take more than one conversation for them to fully reconciliate.

Many people talk about Crowley's outfit in heaven, but from what I have seen, nearly everyone assumes that it is a disguise again. But given that Crowley has already been caught running around heaven once and that he is with Aziraphale, who is known to be his best friend, now, I'm not sure whether this trick would work a second time. Moreover, @fellshish pointed out the difference between Crowley's angel outfit in season 2 and in the finale (cf. this post). The first one was him mocking heaven's style by exaggerating it with a metallic leisure suit, a glittery tie, gold teeth, golden nail polish, a headband and slippers. The second is much more in line with his own style, almost a lighter coloured version of his usual outfit. He even wears snakeskin boots, and the white streaks in his hair that resemble a demon's horns are a not very subtle allusion to his true identity. No, I believe that this is his serious take on an angelic outfit, and that his cooperation with heaven is an official (if only temporary) one.

Then of course we have the shot of Crowley crying. Many have pointed out that it's certainly happy tears we see, and @mimisempai even provided a slowed-down version that seems to prove it (cf. this post). Fans have imagined that this is very likely the scene in which Crowley and Aziraphale get together. I have nothing to add to this, except that I fully agree.

Last but not least, we see Crowley and Aziraphale in the Bentley again, going up straight into the sky. That is either a very creative new way to get to heaven, or they are disappearing into space. If you look at the captions that are sprinkled throughout the trailer, and focus on the background, you will spot fragments of asteroids. This indicates that there might indeed be scenes that take place in space. Speaking of the captions, you can also notice one shot in which giant spiders crawl around. Are hell's horrors released to earth?

Finally, many fans have expressed disappointment about the absence of Nina, Maggie, Shax and FurFur from the trailer. But the fact that they weren't included in it does not have to mean something; after all, people like Mrs Sandwich or Mr Arnold weren't included, either. And Dagon and Eric cannot be the only demons that appear in Good Omens 3. Just look at how many angels we see in heaven. Nina, Maggie, Shax and FurFur could all be featured in scenes that were purposefully left out of the trailer because they give away to much of the plot.

The voiceovers we hear are also very likely misleading, put in places where they don't belong to create a certain impression of what's going to happen. The same goes for the way the snippets were put together. Good Omens 3 is only 90 minutes long, so those responsible for creating the trailer had to carefully select which scenes to include in order to give potential viewers (many of them casual viewers, not die-hard fans) an idea of what's to come without spoiling too much of the plot (see also the comments by @htmllost and @idonthaveany below this post).

As many people before me have pointed out, resurrection is a recurring theme in Good Omens season 2. We witness the Nazis being sent back to earth as zombies, get to meet resurrectionists - a historical term for people who used stolen bodies for medical studies - , see an image of Jesus resurrecting Lazarus and hear Gabriel's prophecy about dead people that "will rise from their graves and walk the earth once more". The use of the musical piece Danse Macabre also fits into this (cf. this post by @metatronhateblog).

This has lead many to believe that resurrection will play an important role in the finale as well. And usually, people imagine it to be in a positive context: that Crowley and Aziraphale will resurrect someone or that one of them will die and then be saved through the power of love (cf., for example, this post by @celestialholz). But what if it is something negative? And I don't mean that Good Omens will have a sad ending, just that the particular plot point of resurrection will not be a good one for our protagonists.

It would be in line with what we have seen so far. None of the examples of resurrection in season 2 seems very pleasant (except the one with Lazarus, maybe). Gabriel mentions "great lamentations" in his prophecy about the dead rising. The people who were 'resurrected' by Elspeth got chopped into pieces for medical studies. The Nazis were not made "into living humans" again, but got "unrevocal eternal life on earth - as zombies" instead, including rotting body parts. Yes, Lesley, the International Express man from season 1, came back from the dead, too, and seemed to be fine, but this does not really count as an instance of resurrection since Adam simply changed reality in a way that Lesley never died in the first place.

Prediction No. 1: Resurrection will play a role in the finale, but it won't be a positive one.

The belief in resurrection is one of the core beliefs of Christianity. St. Paul writes in his first letter to the Corinthians, an important book of the New Testament: "The last enemy to be destroyed is death" (1 Cor 15:26). But what does Death say in season 1? "I am creation's shadow. You cannot destroy me, for it would destroy the world." And what is resurrection if not an annihilation of death?

Although seeing him is said to mean bad luck, the overall depiction of Death in Good Omens is a positive one. He is not an enemy to be feared, but just an integral part of life (for more about the depiction of Death and the other Horsemen, see this post). In the cosmic battle for dominance and for souls, he appears as a neutral force: "I'm neither of hell nor heaven". Considering that Death is also an important recurring character in Terry Pratchett's Discworld books, I wouldn't be surprised at all if he made an appearance in the finale of Good Omens again.

Prediction No. 2: Death as a character will return.

So, if Death returned, and if it is clear that his defeat would have negative consequences, how could the resurrection thing play out in the finale? I'm all on board with the theory that Crowley's and/or Aziraphale's existence will be threatened, but by erasure from the Book of Life, which would technically not count as dying (for more about the Book of Life, see this post).

In this post, I've predicted that we will see the Last Judgment. That would require deceased people to rise from their graves, like Gabriel prophesied. We know that technically, Crowley's and Aziraphale's combined power is strong enough to rise people from the dead. But why would they want to resurrect people for judgment? It is more likely that resurrection will be enacted by Jesus as the son of God, like depicted in the image with Lazarus. Judgment in the Bible does indeed include Death being thrown into a lake of fire (cf. Rev 20:14) and mark the end of the world as we know it (cf. Rev 21:1), so it would neatly fit into the established universe of Good Omens.

@idiotssincebeforetime, on the other hand, took a more positive approach and suggested in this post that the resurrection part in the finale might be constrained to a symbolic rebirth without a literal death.

But in both cases, this leaves us with the question why the power of love/unity (see this post) we witnessed with Crowley's and Aziraphale's joint miracle was so clearly emphasized if it is not for actually resurrecting someone.

You see, I don't really have a clear theory on what role resurrection might play in the finale, and I would love to hear yours. What I do have a theory about is the fate of the deceased after the climax of Good Omens 3. In my post about the Last Judgment, I also predicted that heaven and hell will be destroyed. But what would that mean for the people who have gone to either of these places? What would it mean for the people who die in the future? The concept of heaven and hell in Good Omens is very rigid, it sorts people into binaries. Christian belief does at least know the Purgatory for those people who are not good enough to immediately go to heaven, but also not bad enough to be damned forever. Good Omens leaves no room for shades of grey.

Fans have also remarked on the fact that we've already seen the damned in hell, but never the saved in heaven, and wondered whether this is a clue that no human ever actually made it to heaven. But there are at least two people who have died and don't seem to have gone to hell. The first is Ron Ormerod, whom Aziraphale contacts during Madam Tracy's seance. Since Aziraphale is able to reach him, we can definetely say that Ron is not in hell, so he must either be in heaven or in some realm where souls are wandering around. When talking to his wife, he complains that it is cold. It does not sound as if he is in a very pleasant place, but that description could fit heaven. No torture for the deceased here, but no earthly joys either. Lesley, the International Express man, disappeared into what looked like a sky full of stars when he died. His question to Aziraphale whether he believes in life after death could allude to the fact that he died and is now alive again, or to an afterlife he briefly got a glimpse of (for an interesting connection between afterlife and the memories of a person in Good Omens, see this post by @shipaholic).

Moreover, in the book Crowley mentions two musicians - Elgar and Liszt - who are in heaven (cf. Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 55; cited below). So I think we can assume that the possibilty for humans to go to heaven is just as real as the chance to go to hell. But that would stop if these places ceased to exist, so what would be the alternatives?

Well, the dead could simply be erased from existence or go to another, unknown place like it already seems to be the case for angels and demons. Youtuber Danny Motta commented on this in his reaction to episode 6 of season 1: "If you die, you go to what Christians believe. But if you die there, you go to what atheists believe".

But there's also another option, one that I hadn't considered first, because it clashes with my assumption that the finale will continue to depict death as an essential part of life. @idonthaveany brought up the idea that humans might be granted eternal life on earth (cf. this post). @youryurigoddess goes in a similar direction in this post (the post contains lots of potential spoilers, so be careful), suggesting that eternity might be granted by the Tree of Life as it is the case in the book of Revelations - the canon ending of the Bible (cf. Rev 22:1-5).

These concepts are interesting because in the novel, Adam has a similar idea: "If I was in charge, I'd try makin' people live a lot longer, like ole Methuselah. It'd be a lot more interestin' and they might start thinkin' about the sort of things they're doing to all the enviroment and ecology, because they'll still be around in a hundred years' time" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 367; emphasis in the original; cited below).

He believes that it would be better for the world if humans actually had to face the direct consequences of their actions instead of getting some only loosely related reward/punishment in heaven or hell: "Anyway, if you stopped tellin' people it's all sorted out after they're dead, they might try sorting it all out while they're alive" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 367; cited below).

The possibilty of eternal life becomes even more probable when you take into consideration an observation made by Frankel (cited below). She compares the depiction of Death in Good Omens to those in Terry Pratchett's Discworld and Neil Gaiman's Sandman series and comes to the conclusion that Death in Good Omens does not show the compassion that the two other iterations of the character have or develop over time (cf. Frankel, p. 173: cited below). He is solely focused on fulfilling his duty and does not understand why people, especially Adam, refuse to do what they are supposed to (cf. Frankel, p. 173; cited below). Could that possibly change? Could Death start questioning his role in the universe, too?

On the other hand, eternal life on earth would cause new problems, since the earth would become overpopulated if people didn't die anymore. That's why I still think that Good Omens will subvert the Christian expectations and not have Death be defied. Character development from him could also manifest in a single instance in which he spares someone. But the clues we've been provided with would definetely allow for the story to take both directions. In any case, my guess is that the circumstances for the deceased will change.

Prediction No. 3: Humans won't go to heaven or hell anymore.

Do you agree with me that we will see Death again? If so, do believe that he will go through some character development? What role will resurrection play for the plot of the finale? Will Good Omens continue to emphasize the importance of people dying or stick with the biblical canon where humans get an eternal existence on earth?

Works cited:

Pratchett, Terry and Gaiman, Neil: Good Omens. The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch. London 2011.

Am I the only one who thinks that spending their future as a couple completely isolated from the other angels and demons wouldn't be the ideal ending for Crowley and Aziraphale? To be clear, there's nothing wrong with wanting to spend your life just with this one special person. But it makes a difference if this is a conscious choice or if it's literally your only option. For millenia, Crowley and Aziraphale had no one except each other. They are different from the other angels and demons, and that made them feel lonely, like they both admitted in the Job minisode. In the book, where their relationship is arguably less emotional than in the series, a big part of the reason why Crowley and Aziraphale hang out with each other is that "you grew accustomed to the only other face that had been around more or less consistently for six millenia" (Pratchett/Gaiman, p. 52f.; cited below).

Crowley and Aziraphale cling to each other because they love each other, but also because they have no alternative if they don't want to be completely on their own. And I don't think that this form of emotional dependency is a healthy basis for a romantic relationship in the long term. So in my opinion, they need friendships with others as well.

Fans have suggested the people from Whickber Street as potential friends for Crowley and Aziraphale. But if having friendships with humans were a solution to their problem, then they could have had that before. We know that both of them have interacted positively with humans throughout history, but I don't believe that real friendships with them are possible. Crowley and Aziraphale are immortal, and humans only have short lifespan, so, as Crowley puts it, "you can't let yourself get to attached to them". Moreover, there's a huge gap both in power and in knowledge between them. I mean, what common ground do a being who had a part in creating the universe and witnessed the evolution of mankind since the beginning and a regular human have?

Plus, Crowley and Aziraphale still regularly exploit said power gap. @ineffable-sideburns illustrated this masterfully in this post, quoting Granny Weatherwax from Terry Pratchett's Discworld series: "And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things". Treating people like things is definetely what heaven and hell do; they view them as nothing but pieces in their cosmic game of chess. But even Crowley and Aziraphale, being so vastly different from their fellows, have not yet completely moved beyond that way of thinking.

Our angel and demon still believe it's okay to manipulate humans to serve their own interests. They want a bus to drive to London instead of Oxford? They do a miracle so the driver takes a different direction, even if he "won't know why". They want to sit at a table that is occupied? They make the people who sit there get up. The most extreme example of this is probably Aziraphale's ball, were he makes everyone "talk like they've escaped from Pride and Prejudice" and Mrs Sandwich isn't able to pronounce the name of her profession, in order to fit the atmosphere (cf. the post cited above).

Crowley and Aziraphale even try to mess around with Nina's and Maggie's love life, utterly ignoring the fact that Nina already has a partner. Their main motivation is to cover up what their 25-lazarii miracle really was used for. And although they both state that they also want to help Nina and Maggie, that does not diminish the fact that the way they go about it completely disregards the two women's freedom of choice. Nina and Maggie directly address this issue: "We're not a game, we're real people! You cannot just pair us up for your amusement" (cf. the post cited above). In short, Crowley and Aziraphale prove they still regard humans partly as their toys. They mostly play nicely with them instead of destroying them like heaven and hell do, but they still do play with them.

And they might - hopefully - overcome that attitude, but it is one of the reasons why I don't think deep friendships with humans would work very well. So when I say they need friends, I think they should find them within their own species - and by species, I mean angels, fallen or not. We have already seen three possible candidates for a friendship with Crowley and Aziraphale, and I will go through them one after another.

The first and most obvious one is Muriel. They're kind and cheerful and they don't seem obsessed with heaven's ideology. They show no problem with interacting with Crowley and Aziraphale, even if the two of them are "the traitor and the demon", and are even interested in spending more time with them.

However, the problem is that neither Crowley nor Aziraphale take them seriously. The duo makes fun of "Inspector Constable" and their poor attempts to pass as human. Granted, Aziraphale is more supportive, prompting Muriel to give appropriate answers. But Crowley intentionally asks questions that he knows Muriel can't answer, like the one about which "human settlement" they come from, just for entertainment. There really is no reason for that, especially if you are the one who, after 6,000 years on earth, still thinks that humans fall in love by looking into each other's eyes. Yes, Muriel was sent as a spy, but that's not their fault and no excuse to make them the butt of the joke.

And in the last episode, when Muriel thinks that they will be included in Crowley's and Aziraphale's "us time", too, Crowley rids them of their illusions in a not very gentle way. It is understandable that he likes to go to the Ritz with Aziraphale alone, but he could have suggested that Muriel can accompany them in the future. Instead, he sends them off very quickly and makes clear that he does not want to further socialize with them, even though they just massively helped him in heaven (for a more thorough analysis of the relationship between Crowley and Muriel, I suggest reasing this post by @snek-eyes). To sum it up, Aziraphale does not get to spend much time with Muriel, and Crowley dismisses any possibility of a friendship with them right from the beginning.

Next up, we have Shax. To be honest, she would probably be more of a friend for Crowley, since she seems to find Aziraphale kind of ridiculous and does not understand what Crowley sees in him. However, she accepts that he means very much to the demon and is hesitant to hurt him even during the attack on the bookshop, using threats and insults and giving him multiple chances to surrender Gabriel rather than going full violent.

I've already mentioned in my post about Shax and FurFur that for someone who has been stuck in hell's toxic environment for millenia, she appears to be a pretty decent person. She even adopts Crowley's strategy of presenting herself in front of hell far more evil than she actually is. And I've yet explored her relationship with Crowley a bit, how she seems to like him, offers him a deal to their mutual benefit and warns him that he and Aziraphale will be in big trouble if they are found hiding Gabriel.

And Crowley is not opposed to hanging out with Shax, either. He teaches her how to properly navigate life on earth and answers her questions (well, we know that Crowley does not like it when people get upset about questions anyway). He even opens up to her a little bit about his feelings. Certainly, he is not fond of Shax threatening Aziraphale and himself. But he is probably also aware that her job requires her to do these things, because he's been living under hell's rule himself. And yet, he seems to look down on Shax for being incompetent, calling her "an idiot" and "stupid" in front of Aziraphale and others and making fun of her every time she does not get whether he is being sarcastic to her or not. Crowley is more willing to interact with Shax than with Muriel, probably because they're both demons and share the experience of hell's cruel regime, but he doesn't take her serious enough or trusts her enough to truly consider her a friend.

The third and last candidate for a friendship with Crowley and Aziraphale is Saraqael. Her motives are still unclear, but there have been hints that she might be a possible ally for the two of them in the finale (for more about Saraqael, see this post). Once again, it is Crowley who gets to interact more with her; when she visits Aziraphale, she is accompanied by the other Archangels and behaves accordingly, without any display of solidarity. But in her conversation with Crowley, she reminds him of how they used to work together. Yet, Crowley brushes her attempts to build a common ground aside. To be clear, I believe that Crowley truly doesn't remember her, but when she clarified who she was, he could have simply said "Sorry, I didn't recognize you" or something alike. Instead, he makes clear that she is simply not important enough for him to remember her. "I meet a lot of people" said with a laugh is, in my opinion, definetely meant as an insult, and is perceived by Saraqael as such.

So, in conclusion, there are several (fallen) angels who could become friends with Crowley and Aziraphale, and Aziraphale would probably not be opposed to it. After all, he is generally more open towards people and was willing to give even someone like Gabriel a second chance. However, Crowley turns down everyone who tries to get close to him immediately. He is not overly hostile to them, but he regularly mocks them to maintain the distance between him and them. Initially, he even tried to do the same with Aziraphale. In Eden, Crowley attempted to make fun of him for losing his sword. It was only Aziraphale's confession that he gave it away that completely changed Crowley's perception of the angel and encouraged him to get to know him better.

A big part of that attitude probably stems from bad experiences in the past. As Nina says, he's "the hard-bitten one, the 'can't trust anybody ever again'". But another reason is that he considers himself and Aziraphale as somewhat superior to the other angels and demons. In the Final Fifteen, when Aziraphale suggests going back to heaven, Crowley replies "we're better than that". Heaven and hell might be fit for others, but not for them. In my opinion, that's a very arrogant mindset, and also one that fails to acknowledge the fact that Crowley and Aziraphale are quite privileged compared to their fellows. Yes, they have always been acting more moral than all the other angels and demons, but the circumstances for them have also been different.

While they were both still technically under the surveillance of their respective superiors, they got to spend the biggest parts of their lives far away from them, enjoying earthly pleasures and doing mostly what they liked. Compare that to the reality of the demon Josh, for example, who says: "Every day that I don't have my tongue ripped out is a good day". People like him could not afford to disobey orders even if they wanted to, they would be punished instantly. So Crowley should not act as if all the other angels and demons were fundamentally different from them. It's a difference in experience and living conditions rather than in nature.

If Crowley manages to stop regarding everyone as their enemy and give people a chance, he (and by extension, Aziraphale) might be able to form new bonds and maybe even gain new allies for what's to come, and that will have a positive impact on their own relationship, too.

Work cited: