[ SECRET POST #4451 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4451 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 18 secrets from Secret Submission Post #637.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I don’t personally ship Aziraphale/Crowley, but I don’t not ship them either. I’m perfectly happy with the book as written, but don’t mind headcanons where they’re explicitly boning or bringing each other breakfast in bed.

But Gaiman’s answer saying that “Pratchett would have enjoyed” the new adaptation as an answer to a question about queerbaiting and why Crowley and Aziraphale aren’t going to be openly romantic in the show could be read as saying Pratchett would’ve disliked making the characters openly gay. Which I think is selling him short and also using a dead man’s supposed preferences as an excuse.

[(Anonymous)]

Or, perhaps, Pratchett preferred the ambiguity and hefty subtext on the subject, as it was written, instead of something heavy-handed. Maybe he'd be against a nuanced relationship being portrayed in a ham-fisted way?

Gaiman isn't against portraying gay characters, openly or otherwise. He's done it before in Neverwhere, in his comics, in American Gods. If Aziraphale and Crowley weren't openly gay within the confines of the pages of Good Omens, or any backstory on them that was planned but never depicted, then he is being true to the characters and what they BOTH had planned for them.

Pratchett was never afraid of portraying openly gay characters either, but he made it pretty clear that a character's sexuality is only one facet of their being and that a character shouldn't be entirely about who they prefer to get into bed with.

[(Anonymous)]

Pratchett's preference for a faithful adaptation and deathbed request that Gaiman take responsibility for it have been well publicized. And Gaiman is notorious for walking away from big money when he wasn't satisfied with casting, production, or screenwriting of an adaptation he controlled.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT—I don’t think Pratchett or Gaiman were/are homophobes, but I dunno that either “preferred ambiguity and heavy subtext” so much as they didn’t plan on/anticipate a big chunk of Good Omens fans wanting more focus on Aziraphale and Crowley both in general, and specifically in their having a “fuck subtext, we’re fucking” relationship.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree. The person asking the question seems to be sure that they wanted to write an explicitly gay relationship and the only reason they didn't was that they were afraid of public perception (at least that's what they seem to mean by "a product of its time") and that's a pretty big assumption.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think it could be read that way by people who are, well... reasonable. Because it simply says that what's in the miniseries will be the same that's in the books. It definitely does not say "won't be openly gay because Pratchett didn't want it to be openly gay specifically".

What's more, Pratchett very clearly, unambiguously passed the torch to Gaiman for these types of creative decisions. You're free to disagree with the decisions, of course. But it's simply not accurate to suggest that Gaiman is making decisions that sells Pratchett short.