[ SECRET POST #4563 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4563 ⌋

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

01.
[XKCD's What If?]



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.
[Poirot/Columbo]










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 08 secrets from Secret Submission Post #653.
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

[fscom]

06. https://i.imgur.com/72jY4oZ.png

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, pretty sure that person is not doing a good job of interpreting the text there

He's not evil

[(Anonymous)]

The whole point of the text is that he and Aziraphale spent so much time on Earth that they became more like us humans than either demons or angels.

Re: He's not evil

[(Anonymous)]

And also, there's not really a ton of difference between heaven and hell in the first place, and the independence and freedom of humans is generally better than either.

SA

[(Anonymous)]

This too! ++++

[(Anonymous)]

Yep, trust your mutuals because this person seems to have missed the point.

[(Anonymous)]

If it's not from a parody account, that person is...wow.

[(Anonymous)]

Crowley is only evil in the sense that he’s an agent of Hell, and thus on the side of evil. But unlike humans, he can’t choose not to be evil, and can’t be judged for it. But he isn’t cruel or sadistic, and is in fact far more compassionate than the Archangel Gabriel, for example. It’s kind of the entire point of his character.

[(Anonymous)]

And if Crowley is evil only in the sense that he's an agent of hell, then the word "evil" doesn't even mean anything, does it? I mean, if you can take any arbitrary set of actions and call them "evil" simply because the person carrying them out happens to be an agent of hell, then why even have the word "evil" in the first place?

[(Anonymous)]

In Good Omens, "good" and "evil" are pretty meaningless for angels and demons, individually speaking. It’s just a job description, not a reflection of their personalities - though some demons are actually nasty individuals too. Humans are the ones who have a choice between the two, and they are where true good and true evil are found.

[(Anonymous)]

There's also the fact that Crowley doesn't even seem all that strongly ideologically aligned with hell to begin with, beyond just not wanting the Apocalypse to happen. He never appears to be looking for redemption, but repeatedly makes statements about how he hadn't meant to fall, just hung out with the wrong people/asked too many questions/got bored, etc. In the Garden of Eden, he expresses doubt that tempting Eve to eat the apple was the wrong thing to do ("A demon could get into a lot of trouble for doing the right thing.") He takes delight in his schemes to cause large-scale irritation but doesn't seem to care about corrupting souls and is really not keen on actual human suffering.

[(Anonymous)]

I finally just read Good Omens, and was so disappointed. I don't know if it's because my expectations were too high or what, but it was just...eh. I mean, I didn't DISlike it, it was fine, I just didn't think it was sooooo amazing like I'd always heard. And I guess I also had high expectations myself since I loved American Gods, but it was a long time ago that I read it, so I don't know if my taste changed, or if I just don't like Terry Pratchett (never read anything of his before this). I also don't get the shippers. With the way they were harassing Neil Gaiman on social media, I assumed it was super obvious, but...it wasn't? I mean, I've been known to ship things with very little basis, but I just didn't really have the impulse here. To be completely honest, I didn't think either had much of a personality, and they didn't really have any interactions that I found meaningful enough to care about a relationship between them.

I know I'm apparently alone in this opinion, but yeah...I don't get the hype at all. I'd started reading the book two months ago in anticipation of the show (and I'll finish a book in a day if I like it, so that shows how little it kept my interest, but I hate not finishing things so I stuck with it even though it took a long time) and now I'm debating whether I should even bother with the show. I know one person who thinks the show is better, but they at least like the book, so I'm thinking it might be a waste of time. IDK.

[(Anonymous)]

I find this comment interesting, because I'm the exact opposite: I'm a longtime fan of Good Omens, and I love Pratchett's writing, but could not get into American Gods at all and as a result never tried another Gaiman book. I don't know if that means Good Omens conforms more to Pratchett's style than Gaiman's, but it seems possible.

I feel like someone who couldn't enjoy the book probably wouldn't enjoy the show much more, as a lot of the dialogue and narration is straight from the book, but I could be wrong. Personally, I think it improves on some aspects of the book and fails to do some other bits justice, but is overall a satisfying adaptation. Make of that what you will.

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

I don't know if that means Good Omens conforms more to Pratchett's style than Gaiman's, but it seems possible.

Yeah. Since I posted the original comment, I've read a bunch of reviews, and there are a ton of the negative ones that mention loving Gaiman and not being familiar with Pratchett and disliking Good Omens. I don't think I saw any that mentioned loving/liking Pratchett and disliking GO, so it would make sense.

You're probably right. At first I was really excited for the show because I really like both the main actors and I'd heard such good things about the book, but now, not so much. I probably should just skip it.

[(Anonymous)]

But it's only six hours, and the focus of the show is different than tha book. The book is about the Apocalypse. Crowley and Aziraphale are side characters in the book. In the show, the Apocalypse is one more stop on the journey of Crowley and Aziraphale as friends.

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

Huh, that might interest me more then. Like I said, I like the actors, so if it's more focused on them I might enjoy that more than the book.

[(Anonymous)]

My "take" on it has always been sort of - Good Omens is primarily Pratchett, but it's also primarily early Pratchett. Good Omens came out in 1990 - the same year as Eric and Moving Pictures. And for me, the earliest Discworld books are definitely not my favorites. I really feel like Pratchett's writing improved - the characters and themes got a lot more well-drawn, the plotting got much sharper, the atmosphere and humor got better - a few years after Good Omens came out. Good Omens is basically still late-80s era Pratchett and late-80s era fantasy.

[(Anonymous)]

I've never read anything else by Gaiman (or seen anything else except his two episodes if Doctor Who) but I have read a handful of Discworld novels and I can say that the humor in Good Omens is very much Pratchett's style.

Whether you'd like the show is kind of a toss-up, because while the jokes are taken straight from the book, in my opinion they can come across differently when spoken, whether by the narrator or in dialogue, and a few are purely visual. Whether that's an improvement is open to interpretation.

There's also a bunch of added scenes in the show, giving more character and background to some characters (not just Crowley and Aziraphale, but they do get the lion's share) and giving more prominence to the overall forces of heaven and hell who are trying to get the Apocalypse to happen. Meanwhile, a few minor characters don't appear at all (Greasy Johnson and the Johnsonites and the human bikers who want to ride with the Four Horsemen). I also thought the ending of the Apocalypse - i.e. how Adam actually ended it - was made far more clear than in the book.

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

That's good to know! It sounds like I should give the show a shot.