Knowledge is a deadly friend If no one sets the rules

While I'm not into trying to change anybody's opinions on anything, I do believe correcting when words are straight up misused is a different cattle of fish. Because the finale wasn't nihlistic - it was absurdist. And while both philosophies assume lack of meaning or sense to reality, the way in which they deal with it is a huge difference. Nihilism stops at declaration that everything is pointless, so you might as well be depressed, while absurdism goes for everything is pointless, so you might as well be cheerful. This is the essence of the main tenet of the philosophy: One must imagine Sisyphus happy. Yes, human condition is one of rolling the boulder that is doomed to roll back down, but the point is to enjoy the climb. It's also about whether you need to be reunited with your wife to see a point in being a doctor in a quarantined city - or need eternal happiness after a rapture, be it a theological one or glorious revolution that, trust, we'll get right for good this time and this time only the bad guys will get hurt. It's also about knowing the deck is stacked against you and playing anyway. And in this regard, I would chip back into the "is this in line with the book" and say, yes, absolutely. The book is absurdist af. I mean, the core is the absurdity of giving power over reality to an eleven-year-old ffs. It's not going to work out very well, it's not going to work out terrible, it is going to involve candies.

The fanon approach to both the book and show, I think, has been way more moralistic than either text intended, with tiptoeing or siding one way in cases which clearly demonstrate clear moral judgements aren't much of a point there. Freedom fighters and terrorists are one and the same people, and both heaven and hell have a good claim to them, it's not even just a matter of perspective. The French Revolution did involve establishing the first modern declaration of basic human rights, while also being about chopping a lot of people's heads off, and no, them being (initially, for the most part... that was the intention at least) aristocrats doesn't make it right. The cases where there's a clear that was just wrong are rare, such as the Spanish inquisition and nazis, which. Duh.

Similarly, the criticisms of the whole narrative tend to fall into normative statements, which, once again, I don't think were the point. Reading those you'd think the story is recommending wiping the slate clean, which... it is not? Michael isn't depicted as in the right though to discuss this we'd have to start with acknowledging their agency so it's a lost cause. Yes, it doesn't gratuitously condemn them, any more than it did Gabriel or the Metatron despite the expectations but it's not applauding their actions either (the need to find a single enjoyably hateable sadistic villain, be it Gabriel, the Metatron, or now God the Author is its own can of worms). The question isn't "is it right to wipe the slate clean?" only "what do you do when the slate has been wiped clean?". A thought experiment, which is kind of begging to be asked when the setting involves beings whose entire purpose is to be in a conflict, whether in eschatological terms or as epiphenomena of superego and id (sth sth words angel and demon both deriving from Greek, one denoting a messenger, so voice from outside, the other denoting the inner voice). A thought experiment, same as a prophecy book that is always right.

Can we please stop throwing the word suicidal around, and I don't just mean censoring it ffs I had to see with my own two eyes the word unalive in the context of the finale which I try not to give in to my sense of intellectual superiority but the sight of these letters makes it bloody hard? If anything, both Aziraphale and Crowley struck me as radically non-suicidal precisely because of how dire straits they find themselves in (if there's one thing GO3 discussions proved to me it's that apparently groom's divorced uncle 20th toast into a Polish wedding isn't a universal human experience). It's good to remember precisely when in the book the statement about Crowley's optimism comes - and that's right after the bookshop fire. The show makes more of a case of him needing Aziraphale's presence to shake him out of it but I personally chalk it up to the medium poetic. Again, it's about choosing to act in the worst times. And sometimes there are no good choices, but to quote the Doctor who's way too preachy for my taste but also one of my faves, you have to choose anyway.

I’ll add to the take that it is absurdist - I think you are right there AND Good Omens isn’t just philosophically absurdist it all belongs to the absurdist British comedy tradition (a form of comedy that often gets philosophical). It is firmly in the same comedic genre as Monty Python and Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. In that absurdist British comedy tradition big, bad things happen and they are NOT treated seriously. No one cries when the Earth is destroyed in Hitchhikers or when Brian is crucified in Life of Brian. Instead the audience laughs at the absurdity not just of the show but at the heart of life itself.

Though for me, the finale also had a bit of a Czech taste, which combines genuine gravitas with absurdist comedy. Like, you spend a whole movie set in passive collaboration with nazis focusing on premature ejaculation problems and stamps on buttocks, but at some point you do face the seriousness of the situation - and make sacrifices that could really have been avoided.

Pick a topic you like, and that's what you're going to read about. Set a minimum word count, and read until you get to it. Start small. Smart easy. First try, it might actually be agonizing.

That's it for the day. Just hit the word count.

Next day, read to the word count again. Read something new! It will be easier today.

And easier the next.

Camera roll from a few weeks ago 📸