lupin5th

via https://ift.tt/2LLnHKO

flaming-like-anything:

z_aliada you bring up some very good points, hope you don’t mind I share your tags.

Because I think the distinction of Crowley being good at his job vs being a good demon is important. Above goes into why he’s good at his job, let’s dive into why he’s not a good demon (and probably why some people in canon and irl think he’s bad at his job).

Crowley doesn’t take pleasure in human suffering. Take a look at The ark.

When he finds out that they’re gonna kill innocent lives he’s discusted. Not really a demonic reaction. If it were Hastur or Ligur they wouldn’t care. They’d probably stick around just to watch the suffering.

The douality of Crowley is that he can be good at his job while also being a terrible demon at the same time.

krakensdottir:

I have a slightly different take on why God lets Aziraphale go on, but as to the overall point, yeah, basically this. I’ve always made the argument with Crowley that while he’s not into the evil aspect at all, he’s very very good at tempting people. He’s a master of what he does. He’s just not directly nasty enough for his immediate superiors’ liking, and they don’t get why the Big Guy thinks he’s so special. (Because Lucifer, for all his faults, can see the big picture.)

Aziraphale… I think God actually likes that at heart he’s a chaotic, hedonistic little shit. Because this iteration of God doesn’t seem very caring, but more ‘sit back and watch the show’, and Aziraphale puts on a much more interesting show than the Archangels. And he is actually doing what a Principality is supposed to, while the other angels are bickering over an outdated and possibly misunderstood-to-begin-with Great Plan. ‘I said to protect them, and you’re protecting them. Nice work. Shame about the others, I keep playing Sound of Music for them but they aren’t getting it.’

flaming-like-anything:

I just had a thought and I don’t know if I’ll be able to explain it clearly, but here we go.

So there’s a lot of talk about whether or not Crowley and Aziraphale are good at their jobs or not. And I a good way to explain it is this:

They are really good at their job, but their companies have both lost sight of their mission statement so our hero’s seem like they’re incompetent when middle management deals with them. Upper management likes them for reasons that middle management just can’t fathom.

Okay let’s unpack that starting with Crowley.

Crowley is good at his job. He sees the world in 20th/21st C (book/ raido vs tv) terms. Taking out phone lines - whether in the 90s or in 2019- is a big deal. Like Crowley says people are most likely going to take their frustration out on the people around them, it will be their decision, but they’re still sinning.

But because he isn’t doing the long con, it isn’t ‘craftsmanship’, middle management -i.e. Hastur and Ligur- don’t like his work. They think that it isn’t good enough when really there are billions of people to tempt in the world and focusing on one for 5-10 years just isn’t viable anymore if you really want to get as many souls into hell as you can. Crowley’s method effects far more people.

Which is why upper management, Lucifer, likes Crowley (at least up until Armageddon). We know he likes Crowley because he praises Crowley for the M25, meaning he knows that Crowley did that. And most importantly, he gives Crowley the task of raising the anti-Christ, not a job you give to someone you don’t trust.

Now on to Aziraphale. He’s arguably the only angel that acts like what we think an angel should act like; kind, compassionate, caring, loving, etc. He genuinely cares about humans and wants them to thrive.

And because he’s the only one, or at least the only one we see, that acts like this, middle management -Gabriel, Sandlephon, Michael, and uriel- don’t respect him or his duties as an angel. They don’t get why anyone would want to be on Earth, see the deleted scene where they give him a metal. He gets reprimanded for using too many ‘frivolus mircals’, and yet we are not given any indication that there’s a limit on angelic nature, it’s just Gabriel using his powers to say ‘I don’t like what you’re doing, so stop.’

But upper management, God, doesn’t have a problem with Aziraphale or she would have chucked him out the second he bold faced lied to her about his sword. Her ways are ineffable so we’ll never know why she didn’t, but my guess is she knows that Aziraphale’s heart is in the right place, even if he goes about it in weird, unconventional ways.

via https://ift.tt/2Yuq1xJ

I sure hope this is an Az and Michael sheen appreciation ask and not a ship because i Will find you and I w

via https://ift.tt/2FYwwi2

lh-moth:

Apparently, there are currently accusations floating around about “Good Omens” using queerbaiting? Specifically, that the relationship between Aziraphile and Crowley is queerbaiting. The relationship that is written, directed, acted, and even scored like it’s a romance? The one that everyone involved, to the best of my knowledge, has specifically said is a romance?

Ah yes. Classic queerbaiting. How could I have missed it? Silly me. (Sarcasm!)

To be fair, I am not actually following the fandom closely, and I’m not seeking out any discussions about this topic. I’m only reacting to the things I’ve seen going across my dash, and those are usually already being strongly refuted. That being said, I still have something I’d like to get off my chest regarding this topic.

Which is, this talk of queerbaiting seems to be less about criticising the show and more about spitting vitriol at certain sections of the LGBTQ+ community.

The first time I saw someone argue there was queerbaiting - and this is the variation I have seen most often to date - they were saying that the show wasn’t explicit enough. The relationship was only implied.

Which…okay? I think we may have been watching a different show. As previously mentioned, everyone involved with the show has done and said pretty much everything they can to make it clear that this relationship is a romance. There’s also quite a bit of painstaking detail put into the development and portrayal of the emotional intimacy. And in-universe, the characters are repeatedly treated as a couple. Even a random passerby on the street sees them and thinks “ah, a couple!” As in, canonically.

So what here isn’t explicit? What, exactly, is lacking?

…oh right. They never kiss. And, as we all know, it’s not a real relationship unless there’s sexual intimacy! There’s no romance without sex!

Wait. That sounds awfully familiar… In fact, it’s pretty much word-for-word that thing that people say to asexuals. You know, about how our relationships aren’t real because it may not involve sexual intimacy? Wow, some things really never die. This one’s been floating around since long before Tumblr even existed. Let me tell you how much I didn’t miss hearing it.

There’s another variation of this accusation that I just saw recently. Thankfully, I’ve only seen it once, and I’m sincerely hoping it will fail to catch on. According to this version, the queerbaiting doesn’t have anything to do with the actual material. Rather, it’s because Neil Gaiman refuses to describe the characters as being gay.

Well. That’s certainly a…very selective interpretation of his words. I believe what he actually said - and I am paraphrasing a bit here - is that neither Aziraphile or Crowley are human men, but rather are genderless angel and demon, respectively. Therefore, describing them as gay would be inaccurate in this context. Now, we could go off onto a tangent about applying human ideas of sexuality to non-human beings, but I’d rather focus on the other part of that description.

Genderless.

These characters have no gender. Aziraphile, Crowley, all the angels and demons - all of them are genderless. If I remember correctly, this was made fairly clear in the book. And, in my opinion, they did a pretty good job of bringing it across in the series as well. 

As a genderqueer person, I can tell you that the question of gender-based sexualities is a very complicated one for non-binary, genderqueer, and/or agender folks. It’s also a very personal one. We’re the only ones who get to decide whether or not we want to describe ourselves, individually, as gay or lesbian or straight or another term altogether. Yet here people are, insisting that Aziraphile and Crowley must be described as gay. And when half of the team who created these characters states that this isn’t the correct term to use, people start accusing him of not only being disrespectful, but of being exploitive?

It is not queerbaiting for an author to express what labels (if any) their characters would or would not use. And in this situation, it’s far from being disrespectful! I’d say it’s much more disrespectful to declare that you get to decide another person’s sexuality for them. Not to mention the underlying assumption going on here - that Aziraphile and Crowley are men, despite all the information to the contrary. There’s a phrase to describe when one person thinks they get to determine another person’s gender based solely on their physical appearance. What was it…? Ah, yes. Blatant cissexism.

Just because a story doesn’t portray the queer relationship you, personally, wanted to see doesn’t mean it was done wrong. It may be a different narrative than the one you’re used to, but that doesn’t mean it’s deceitful or “tricking” you. If this story isn’t your cup of tea, whatever, that’s fine. Just move along, stop trying to poison the well, and let the rest of us who are enjoying it get on with things.