Traveller Beyond Time

can we please acknowledge the bisexual, asexual, nonbinary, and genderfluid representations and interpretations in the GO canon? I am so so tired of seeing my one source of good representation overshadowed by ppl insisting that crowley and aziraphale are gay men and only gay men when it is stated both in the book and the show that they are canonically sexless beings, one of whom canonically, multiple times, changes their gender presentation and sometimes dresses androgynously.

besides - by insisting that they are gay men and only gay men, by calling any other interpretation of them homophobic, you're completely overlooking the beautiful, wonderful idea that these two love each other so wholly and completely that they don't care what the other's presentation or gender is, they love their partner no matter how they look or identify.

you can headcanon what you want, that's why this fandom is so beautiful. but once you start harassing other people by reading their own ideas and experiences into the story, you've overstepped. this story is built on the idea of being different and being your own person. nothing is black and white - not gender, not sexuality, and certainly not the headcanons of a massive fandom. please be kind and respectful.

“Why did Aziraphale tell Crowley not to come over?!” because he can’t TELL Crowley to break the rules, goodness, he may be retired but he still has moral standards to uphold!

I. have been. rewatching. that goddamn. lockdown video. since the bloody. moment. it. came. out. 

I. am. deceased.

1. What is the evidence that says this thought is true?

2. What is the evidence that contradicts this thought?

3. Where does this thought come from?

4. Who has said this about me in the past?

5. What was their motivation at the time?

6. Should I allow that person to shape my thoughts and life?

7. What is the thought trying to tell me/ make me believe?

8. Why am I allowing limiting thoughts to bring me down?

9. How can I challenge this thought?

10. Am I ready to let this thought or belief go?

11. Am I ready to heal?

Because it's HAPPY.

I am tired of watching shows and films that think that the only way to be compelling or "edgy" is to showcase abusive relationships and torture and kill their protagonists.

Good Omens is compelling because it shows genuine love, respect, and kindness when it would have been so easy to show literally anything else.

Crowley, a demon, doesn't lie to Aziraphale, doesn't hurt him or trick him, doesn't disrespect or power-trip him; he cares about him and treats him well. Aziraphale, an angel, never for a moment rejects Crowley for being a demon, he doesn't try to change him, tell him he is wrong or attempt to "save" him, but instead recognizes all of the good in him and treats him well.

The only unhealthy relationships are between heaven and hell, and they FREE THEMSELVES OF THESE ABUSES.

The whole thing is filled with healthy relationships of all kinds.

Adam and the Them? Even though Adam is seen as the leader of the group, he takes this as a responsibility to provide his friends with the best games and bring them joy, not as a means of controlling them.

Witches and witchfinders fall in love.

No one is tortured or tormented, the world does not end, and a fucking nightingale sings in Berkeley Square.

Good Omens was the first time I have watched a series that didn't leave me tense wondering when the hurt was going to start. I actually realized how emotionally abusive media has become, and that is so fucked up.

But wait…what is that statue?

1. I can’t even with Aziraphale having a statue of Eve(?) literally holding out the Forbidden Fruit standing around in his bookshop. I mean, for fuck’s entire SAKE.

2. What is that on her head??? A hat? Were hats invented in Eden? A helmet? A hairdo?

3. I can’t see it that well from this angle, but from what I CAN see, the statue looks…a little bit androgynous, wouldn’t you say…? IS that Eve? Not that humans in England could be expected to accurately reproduce what Eve really looked like, but if we go strictly on the casting in the show, it looks a lot more like a certain wavy-haired tempter.

Check out the gallery on Wikipedia. They can be more or less stylized but the shop statue is pretty much a classic example.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrygian_cap

As such, it might be a statue of Marianne, the personification of France. She isn’t usually fully nude tho.

And @tapgurl1

The Caps were a symbol of the French Revolution/Republic; they were also a symbol in Ancient Rome. Primarily used to indicate easterners (who, in the Roman perception, are barbarians but like classy barbarians) like Trojans and Thracians and of course actual Phrygians.

The Trojan connection is relevant because that might be the Apple of Discord, part of the mythological portion of the Trojan War story, where Eris (Discord) threw a golden apple among the goddesses, saying only “To The Fairest.” Hera, Athena and Aphrodite fought over which of them it should be, asked Paris of Troy to judge, and it all went downhill. As @srebrnafh said, this could be a reference to that legend. In Roman times, Paris was often depicted with the Cap; if I had to guess tho I’d go with Eris (being a bit of a trickster figure) rather than Venus (even though she’s the one commonly depicted nude). Paris is often depicted somewhat androgynously and NGL this statue definitely has that going for it.

The Cap was specifically associated with a few cults especially Mithraism which was a major growing religion in the first few centuries CE before “losing out” to Christianity. (People like to point out that December 25 was a major Holy day in Mithraism and that the religion has some similarities to early Christianity. There’s enough in common to be worth mentioning in this context but the claims that Christianity is a “clone” of Mithraism are SEVERELY exaggerated.) I don’t know of apples having any particular meaning in Mithraism though.

Roman captives were often depicted in Caps. Roman Freemen (freed slaves) wore a cap called a Pileus which is similar in construction but strictly conical. Confusing the two got us the red caps of the French Revolution.

Marianne is the personified symbol of the French Republic and is frequently depicted with a Phrygian Cap. I skimmed her Wikipedia page and found lots of classical symbolism but no real reference to apples. Still the two images below are I think relevant.

Ok I don’t think I’ve helped add anything towards reaching a conclusion but that’s all the relevant info I could find.

First of all, it does not depict a woman. The hairstyle, the jawline, the lack of breasts: this is in NO WAY supposed to be a cis woman. It is a very young man or boy.

The Phrygian cap plus the apple means this is supposed to be Paris, no doubt about it. And it looks to me as though he’s got his forefinger on his chin, to mime “this is my deciding face”.

One of Paris’ characteristics is that he was exceptionally beautiful, and he is often depicted (in Greek & Roman art, and also later) as a not-particularly-muscular young man. If you google-image-search for “Bust of Paris of Troy” you’ll see that he’s so pretty that sometimes the statues are mis-identified as being Helen, though she doesn’t wear the cap & always has longer hair. 

These are busts of Paris & Helen by Antonio Canova.

Aziraphale’s statue is the youngest & most gender-ambiguous version of Paris I’ve seen, the original was definitely post-Renaissance & very probably Victorian. In fact, it reminds me of statues of Ganymede:

Ganymede, like Paris, was from Troy, so also wears a Phrygian cap. Having a statue like that in one’s Soho shop was as much a signal as a Pride flag.

If I could direct your attention to the 3rd Heaven…

The angelology here (with archangels as the second-lowest rank) is NOT the only one, just the most common. Others put archangels higher; for example the Book of Tobit states that only seven angels (including Gabriel, Michael and Raphael) are allowed to stand in the presence of God, thus making them the highest-ranked angels.

Someone asked Neil Gaiman on his blog, and he said there is a difference between archangels (second-lowest rank) and capital-A Archangels (placed higher than the rest). I always think of it like how a shift manager and a Regional Manager technically have the same title (manager) but vastly different status.

Regardless, Neil Gaiman has made it clear that Gabriel and the others outrank Aziraphale, not the other way around.

theniceandaccurategoodomensblog: It is an interesting phenomenon. I’m surprised at just how often it comes up and comes up in this way, with the questioner asking basically “Why do the Archangels act like they outrank Aziraphale when he outranks them?” Rather then “why is the ranking in Good Omens portrayed differently to how it is normally understood?”

What I mean is: Good Omens is the canon. What happens in Good Omens is canon. An external source cannot trump what is canon as far as what is true or not in Good Omens ‘verse because canon is canon. Here it seems fans slip into letting an external source trump actual canon in their minds. It’d be like letting some book about witchcraft not written by JK Rowling dictate how you understand Harry Potter even when it explicitly contradicts Harry Potter and I’ve never seen that happen. It happens for some other details in Good Omens too not just this. Is it because the topic is religious? I suspect so. I can’t see any other explanation. Anyway, it is interesting.

Hiya, thank you :). 

a) No, in the show he doesn’t have the dark nails, but the fandom sometimes very strongly feels that he should :D.

b) Yeah, in the book there is the part:

Aziraphale held out his hand.

“Nice knowing you,” he said.

Crowley took it.

They don’t hold hands in the show at the airfield but they do hold hands later in the bus ;):

Was rewatching GO and noticed this book in Aziraphale’s bookshop. This is, apparently, the book of Micah. What is interesting, though, is the illustration, which is clearly a knight carrying an angel on horseback. And it’s right next to his telephone, it’s open, he was reading it.

I don’t know if there’s any immediate background in the book of Micah explaining this picture, but to me this totally looks like someone’s rescue kink confirmed. 

In the book Micah is prophesizing about the imminent destruction of Samaria and Judah as caused by their sins before God. It’s roughly divided into 3 parts, them being: judgement against the nations (ch. 1-3); prophecy of restoration (ch. 4-5); Israel standing in court before the Almighty (ch. 6-7).

What caught my eye was the verse 13 from chapter 5, which says:

And I will pluck up thy Asherim out of the midst of thee; and I will destroy thine enemies.

Asherim is a generic term ascending to the cults of pagan goddesses, the main one being apparently Asherah. Now, Asherah and our well-known Ashtoreth are different deities; however, according to some sources, there was a period when they intermingled and even blended into one. Also, as an afterthought: a sacred tree or even a sacred grove of trees were involved in Asherah’s worship.

And there’s also chapter 6 where the prophet talks A LOT about mountains. Verses 1-2, for instance:

Hear now what the Lord says; Rise; contend with the mountains, and may the hills hear My voice.

Hear ye, O mountains, the controversy of the Lord; and you mighty ones, the foundations of the earth; for the Lord has a controversy with His people, and with Israel He shall contend.

This page comes from The Commemorative Edition of the Works of John Bunyan, Volume 2 (Google Books link here). (Interestingly, the image of the angel on horseback is not on the adjacent page of this book, or on any page nearby. In the show it appears to have been torn from another book and placed there. Undeniably extremely intentional. I couldn’t find the exact drawing but I bet it would illuminate a lot, particularly in conjunction with the text, so if anyone recognizes it please do share!) The text is considering the meaning of the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican. The parable tells the story of one man (a Pharisee, someone who follows Jewish law and tradition very strictly) who boldly asks for God’s favor because he’s convinced of his own worthiness. There’s another man (a Publican, a tax collector) who quietly asks God for mercy because he has sinned, and doesn’t expect that he’ll necessarily get it. The parable concludes by saying if you glorify yourself you’ll be humbled, and if you humble yourself you’ll be glorified. I’m simplifying it here, but to my interpretation, the passage above is elaborating on why the Pharisee is not forgiven. Bunyan argues that if you go around making demands of God, you’re basically declaring yourself above God entirely. The only way to be forgiven is to truly repent — to believe you’ve done wrong and feel bad about it. If you do anything else you’re basically digging yourself a hole of more sins and that hole leads directly to hell.

So apparently Aziraphale is studying repentance and forgiveness. Specifically, the philosophy behind who gets it, who doesn’t, and why. The logic. The rules. It’s possible this is for himself since he’s done his fair share of — how shall we put it — ask-for-forgiveness-worthy things. But given what he says at the bandstand (“May you be forgiven” “You were an angel once”), I think it’s more likely this is about Crowley. There’s an excellent meta here that speculates Aziraphale has an apocalyptic plan B: if Crowley can be forgiven, they can still be together when heaven wins the war. I want to highlight @kedreeva​‘s contribution in that post, specifically the timeline she lays out, because it’s long-term. We see this book open on Aziraphale’s desk in fucking episode one when Crowley first calls him about Armageddon: