here, at the end of all things.

it's not an obsession (yes it is)

insta • twt • prints

IT WAS LOVE

And then, personally, I've been taking note that Daniel noted that, for him, almost all of the 1970s were a blur; and that -- in particular -- he apparently once woke up in a parking lot in Milwaukee, Wisconsin not knowing how he got there.

Now, according to Google Maps, It is only about a 5-hour drive (300 miles) between St. Paul and Milwaukee:

For those who don't live in the US, that honestly isn't seen as that long of a drive for us. Depending on when you start, you can knock a drive like that out in a day.

And so far we've had no indication that the drug den Armand and Louis dropped Daniel off at was outside of San Francisco, let alone outside of California which, in contrast, is an over 30-hour drive from St. Paul (and almost 2000 miles away). Daniel also gave no indication when talking about it that the den was outside of California either.

So, for some reason, at some point, Daniel looks to have ended up around the Great Lakes area of the US sometime in the 1970s. Sometimes after the events we saw in episode 2x05, given the words on the walls of that desktop background.

I know we only had 1 episode and whole plotlines were scrapped but I was just left feeling so empty after the finale given how powerful and moving and profound the themes of season 1/the book were. So buckle up for a long ride let's talk about it

Theme 1: Human Incarnate

The book and the show established that humanity is unique because it is neither purely good or purely bad. From the book: "Most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally evil, but by people being fundamentally people." This Aziraphale describes as "much better" than either Heaven or Hell

This is one of my favorite sequences in the whole show. And the music is soaring and gorgeous. Adam recalls the things in his life he has come to know and love; his parents, his friends, his dog, his home. He makes it have nice weather all year. Aziraphale could feel that love at the Tadfield Manor. Heaven and Hell tried to create an instrument of destruction. But by putting that inside a human boy, they didn't realize the strength of one boy's love would be strong enough to literally burn the hell out of him. He told Satan himself to shove it and rewrote reality to have the dad he truly loved. The power of humanity's love is stronger than any immortal power could ever be.

This is the idea that would have been so cool for the finale but unfortunately never paid off. As the second coming prepares to destroy Earth again, Aziraphale and Crowley could have teamed up with the power of humanity to reshape heaven and hell for good. Adam and Jesus as the antichrist and christ born to end the world and instead used their humanity to save it. Instead we got the book-of-life arc and humans were literally left to dust

Theme 2: Free Will

Next good omens establishes that angels and demons are just puppets but humans are the ones with real free will because they have the ability to be good or bad. Even with heaven and hell, the humans on Earth always have a choice. In season 2, they agree on this, but Crowley's main grievance is the inequity of it all. Humans have free will but it still isn't fair.

God made angels and demons and humans but the humans never had to follow her 'plan.' Free will and the ability to recognize what is truly right outside the propaganda of good vs evil is what saves the world.

Humans always had free will, even if God was around to kill a bunch of them with floods or take their stuff to win bets or something. Creating a new universe without God wouldn't change that. They would still have free will, just less threats from above/below, I guess. What Crowley's established character really should have wanted here was to fix the inequity inherent in human society. That's what is truly holding them back, not a lack of will. Removing God from the universe doesn't actually solve the root problem here

Theme 3: Our Own Side

This is something Crowley learned very early and spends the whole show trying to teach Aziraphale. That good must be separated from heaven and bad must be separated from hell.

Heaven can do some truly appalling horrors and demons, at least Crowley (and somewhat Beelzebub I guess) have the potential to be kind. 'Their own side' is one where they have the freedom of humanity, to do what is truly right. Aziraphale and Crowley sort of found their way there in the finale, but it was all rushed and Aziraphale never really turned his back on heaven, it sort of just became irrelevant when everything started disappearing. What a beautifully flawed and nice world they could have created together

Theme 4: Love Conquers all

What was it all for? Love. God made Aziraphale and Crowley for each other because she liked to smile at the silliness of their love. The literal only constant in the entire universe. Their love for the world and each other saved it. I think the decision to turn Aziraphale and Crowley's queer love story into a tragedy was the biggest mistake of seasons 2/3. Forcing the soft and romantic comedy of good omens into a queer tragedy was the instant it all crashed and burned. Now everything is tainted leading up to the pain and destruction of it all and the whimsy and lightness is gone. There were moments of it, but it was all leading toward the end. And queer love deserves to not be a tragedy. We have far too much tragic queer love in our society. Yes we got the south downs, but Aziraphale and Crowley never got to experience that freedom. They finally came together just to instantly be destroyed. We deserve happy and fulfilling queer love that is sweet without the bitter parts. Good omens was intended to be a comedy, not a tragedy

And then this was SUCH A COOL IDEA they introduced. Perhaps the first time ever an angel and a demon performed a miracle together. The power of their love could create magic stronger than anything heaven or hell had ever seen. I was so excited to see the wonders they were going to create, they ways in which they could have rebuilt the world better using that love. If they had this kind of power doing a tiny miracle, what could they have accomplished if they really put their minds to it? God herself couldn't have stopped them. And instead, the finale literally revoked Crowley's magic for the entire episode. They sacrifice themselves for a new earth and people that didn’t even exist yet instead of using any of their power to change it. The god awful execution of this theme is probably the biggest letdown of the entire finale imo

Theme 5: Fix It, Don't Replace It

This is so obviously established in seasons 1/2 I cannot believe how badly they missed the mark with this one

Literally shows us the horror of replacing the Earth with all new people. Even children can recognize that just because something is broken, it doesn't mean you throw it away and start all over. They loved the world enough to want to save it. The world is inherently worth saving, flaws and all. If you love something, you don't abandon it. The ENTIRE PLOT of season 1 explores the horrors of humanity and yet humans, Aziraphale and Crowley do everything in their power to save it.

It absolutely blows my mind how directly this scene contradicts the entire message of the finale. Job didn't want new children, he quite liked the old ones. Aziraphale and Crowley didn't want the antichrist's new Earth, they quite liked the old one. We didn't want new human versions of Aziraphale and Crowley, we QUITE LIKED THE OLD ONES. Where the hell did that mentality go when they told God to create an entirely new universe????????????? Season 1 said the world is flawed but it deserves saving exactly as it is. Season 1 said an angel and a demon go off to the ritz together, exactly as they are. The finale said the world is too broken, we have to make it disappear and start over. The finale said Aziraphale and Crowley have too many issues/traumas to be happy, we have to destroy them and start over. That's why as cute as Asa and Anthony's love is, we quite liked them exactly as they were, angel/demon trauma + history and all. They deserved saving too.

Text: Aivelin Illustration: a-ida

The series finale of Good Omens dropped this Wednesday, leaving the fandom shaken and in absolute distress. The audience reaction was immediate, driving the Rotten Tomatoes score for Season 3 down to a disappointing 36%. The online debate grew so heated and overwhelmed with grief that numerous fan accounts faced 24-hour social media bans for their highly emotional confessions.

Viewers are highly divided. While a fraction accepts the heavy ending as a necessary evil, the overwhelming sentiment across platforms is utter bewilderment and heartbreak: "These characters do not feel like the ones we grew to love in previous seasons!"

This raises painful, critical questions: Is this sudden shift in characterization a narrative misstep? Is the tragic, suicidal ending a harsh subversion of the original book, which famously promised a comforting happily ever after?

To find the answer, one must look closely at who held the creative reins for the scripts of Seasons 2 and 3. By analyzing the writing credits, clear and undeniable patterns emerge, linking these distressing plot choices directly to Neil Gaiman’s broader, often dark and subversive, body of work.

The Solitary Vision and the Realigned Mold

While the first season captured the shared spirit of Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman’s 1990 novel, the subsequent seasons belong to Gaiman’s solitary vision. When viewed alongside his wider world of storytelling, such as The Sandman, American Gods, and Stardust, the tragic fractures in Aziraphale and Crowley’s bond lose their surprise. Gaiman’s worlds are populated by immortal beings who are deeply fractured at best and cruel at worst. In these narratives, it is almost a rule that celestial entities will take advantage of the hearts that love them, turning devotion into a tool before abandoning those souls to a devastating fate.

Crucially, Gaiman always veils this emotional cruelty behind high-minded dilemmas. The act of abandonment is never framed as simple coldness; instead, it is masked as a profound moral crisis ("We cannot be together because I am a god and you are human"), a sacrifice of monumental importance ("I must leave our future to save my kingdom"), or an unyielding divine necessity. Even when Gaiman’s romances lack outward malice, they are consistently denied peace. In Stardust, the mortal husband passes away, leaving his immortal, celestial wife to endure eternity in silent, isolated grief. By transforming Aziraphale into a colder, more emotionally distant figure who abruptly leaves Crowley for a heavenly promotion, Gaiman is merely reshaping Good Omens to fit his favorite creative blueprint.

Deeply Pessimistic Parallels

Ultimately, the ending of Good Omens Season 3 and the conclusion of The Sandman reveal deeply pessimistic parallels. The Sandman closes with its protagonist suffering the consequences of his own rigid nature, forced by higher powers into self-destruction so that his kingdom might survive. In the wake of this death, the universe offers a surrogate replacement - a new entity stripped of the original’s memories, whom the remaining characters are forced to accept despite their lingering grief. 

Aziraphale’s sudden, illogical decision to leap at Heaven’s offer mirrors this exact brand of narrative cruelty. Neither Aziraphale nor Crowley deserved to have their hard-won autonomy stripped away for the sake of a grandiose self-sacrifice. 

A Profound Departure from Terry Pratchett

This shift represents a profound departure from the late Terry Pratchett’s fundamental worldview. Pratchett harbored a deep-seated aversion to suicide tropes and grand, sacrificial violence in fiction. His works respected the dignity of both life and death. In his narrative, the Apocalypse is defeated not through self-sacrifice or bloodshed, but by the quiet resilience and stubborn pragmatism of ordinary people. The first season beautifully honored this philosophy, as the Antichrist and a group of children stopped the Apocalypse through sheer, down-to-earth humanity.

The subsequent seasons discard this logic entirely, altering the very cosmology of the universe. In Season 1, God was an infallible, detached observer whose ineffable plan quietly empowered the right people at the right moment to prevent ruin. By Season 3, God is reframed as a petulant, semi-malicious entity capable of erasing existence on a whim.

Furthermore, while Pratchett and Gaiman likely brainstormed the concepts of the South Downs cottage and the conflict between Heaven, Hell and Earth together, Pratchett would never have designed an intentionally suicidal and destructive endgame. In his philosophy, survival is achieved through an attachment to mundane, earthly joys. In the first season, Crowley is saved from hellfire by his love for his car and his human-like imagination, while Aziraphale survives because of his eccentric, earthly devotion to collecting rare books.

Conclusion: Fanfiction or Harsh Reality

A true thematic continuation of both authors' visions would look radically different. It would find Aziraphale and Crowley left alone in a quiet bookshop for eternity, weaving their magical memories and shared love for humanity together to rewrite every lost book back into a brand-new universe. If that choice ultimately stripped them of their divinity and left them mortal, it would be a logical, bittersweet happily-ever-after within the sanctuary of a beautiful, earthly garden.

Nope. Nope - even if I laughed at moments, and found the ending scene sweet, because how could David and Michael not be? I enjoy an AU as much as anybody, but if anyone deserves their love confession, their kiss, their happy ever after, it’s the canon characters who've been through so much together, not a pair of stand-ins.

I know the line forms to the left. Here we go anyway.

What I got from the original book – and specifically the parts that Pratchett obviously put into it, the underlying theme, the humane perspective – is that the world’s not saved by grand heroics, by the procurement of a McGuffin like the Book of Life or the killing of an Antichrist. It’s saved, little piece by little piece, through the compounding effect of small, good things, of kindnesses performed by imperfect beings and the love of random beauty and the cherishing of the day-to-day. Aziraphale and Crowley thwart the Apocalypse not because they feel the call to be heroes, but because they’ve gotten used to humanity with all its flaws; because they love a bookshop and a car and gravlax and bebop and little restaurants where they know your name. The things that multiply and intertwine in our lives, that hold us and our world together the way roots fix the soil. The shared meals and the do-you-remembers, the problems muddled through, the arguments made up; the love of a child for his home and his friends, for a familiar wood and apples stolen from a neighbor’s tree. How does it save the world if you destroy the world?

(I’m old; I was born in the Fifities, and oh, I remember the  heavy irony of “we had to destroy the village In order to save it.” But that’s just what this story did.)

Saying “this is all broken and wrong, and the only thing to do is wipe it all out and start over from the beginning”: that’s been the recipe for some of the worst horrors of the world. That was the entire fucking message of the original book. The world is flawed, the systems we live under imperfect and even cruel in their origins, but it can be healed, bit by bit, if you love enough – even if you love in seemingly trivial ways.  Good Omens is about mending – mending the consequences of folly, mending friendships, mending the damage people inflict on one another, like an angel mending the spine of a beloved old book. Mending the error in the assumption that sides mean more than individuals, leaving two beings like Aziraphale and Crowley free to treasure all the small things about each other, as friends or lovers or however you choose to see them. The meet-cute of their human counterparts in the remade, blind-watchmaker universe is, well, cute, but it doesn't reward the characters we came to love, who evolved along with humanity, became who they are by outgrowing the artificial opposition imposed on them, and bonded through rising above it. (And neither couple ever gets a tender kiss to cancel out the angry one that left us all ravaged in 2023; more articulate voices than mine have gone to town on the way that narrative choice dilutes the queer representation that stunned us with its promise in the original TV adaptation).

So I see the whole progress of the sequel series as misbegotten – most likely, for all the usual reasons of cupidity and vanity – leaving us with a couple of pieces of tone-deaf fan fiction that literally lost the plot. Good moments here and there, clever bits of banter and comic turns; two lead actors with dazzling chemistry that most of us would pay to hear read the phone book for ninety minutes; but all in all a disjointed story compounded of fan tropes, that did not seem to love its characters or have a point beyond churning them around for ninety minutes.

Where in this story are characters comparable to everybody that made the original so rich and endearing to begin with? The bumbling, sincere romances (Anathema and Newt, Tracy and Shadwell, even the wholesome marital bond of Lesley and Maud)? The tweenage energy and candor provided by  the Them? Eleven-year-old Adam Young faced a choice and protected the world because its simple joys were enough for him; twinky Jesus Mark II goes down an elevator and survives just long enough to learn a card trick, distribute pizza, and be disintegrated without addressing any of the events unfolding around him. And where the entire hell is Agnes Nutter, and her tart wisdom?

(....Remember Agnes? Are we to accept that she wrote two books of prophecy, guiding the angel and demon who were fated to thwart Armageddon – and that her descendant burnt the second, in order to start her new life without a roadmap – only for everything to go up a few years later, not in a ball of flaming goo, but in a corny Avengers Endgame series of sfx dust devils? This story seems to be happening in an entirely different universe to the one that was built between book covers or the opening and closing credits of Season One, and it's not because God rebooted it.)

Do you understand the implications, especially in today's political climate, of a show that revolves heavily around a queer/queer-coded couple where the only onscreen kiss between said couple is their breakup? Especially one that explores themes of sin, forbidden love, religion, dogma, and high control groups? One where the character associated with hell is the one forcing the kiss and the character associated with Christian heaven (even if heaven in this case is bad) is the one who is not receptive to that affection? A show where the heaven associated character tells the one who kissed him "I forgive you"? One where the main characters have had to hide their relationship for fear of their lives in a storyline that is heavily analogous to the persecution of queer people? Where even in a scene that showed explicitly they were married, the show still would not deign to display physical intimacy between two men? Y'know, some of the most highly stigmatized kind of affection there is?

If they had never kissed at all, I wouldn't mind. But by kissing in season 2 when they broke up, they showed that they were willing to cross that line. They stopped being ambiguous in that moment. They're whole "we're not humans and don't show love like humans" went out the window when the show decided they would in fact engage in an overtly queer act. But the only time there is unambiguous queer affection is when it's used to separate the characters.

If they had never had a full on sex scene between two hetero characters who had just met in season 1, I wouldn't mind. But the show was more comfortable with displaying physical intimacy between a man and a woman that we never saw after season 1 than they were between the two main characters of the show.

If they hadn't had an ending that literally showed their wedding rings, showing that they clearly can and will display a queer couple and also conform to heteronormative standards by having them married at all, then I wouldn't mind. But they went as far as having the characters who famously had a relationship that was open to interpretation and put them in the husband/romantic partner box, but wouldn't dare go as far as physical intimacy?

I know that many people who are not amanormative or allonormative are frustrated that a relationship that was previously ambiguous/up for interpretation was boxed into a romantic label. But now that they have, it says something that they chose to display queer relationships, and they chose to display physical affection, but not both at the same time. It says something even if they didn't intend to. It's just too awfully convenient that the couples who are always subjected to "well you don't need to be physical to be in love" are the queer couples. In a political climate that promotes homophobia and violence against our community, increasingly sex negative and pro-censorship legislation regarding online spaces, and legislation that aims to categorize participating in anything remotely queer in public as a sex crime, I think anyone who looks at a story of romantic love between two masculine presenting people and says it's not necessary to have overt physical acts of affection has lost the plot.