#this second essay is on the origins of the Cold War | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

subjects-of-the-king · 1 year

Text

The Concept of Government Legitimacy in Greek Antiquity and the Modern World, Part II: Sparta and the Greater Peloponnese

An original essay of Lucas Del Rio

Athens in many ways was the premier city-state of ancient Greece. She was the birthplace of democracy and home of some of the greatest Greek philosophers and other thinkers. Ancient Greece, however, had over one thousand different city-states of greatly varying size, strength, and influence. After Athens, the most important on the Greek mainland were Sparta, Corinth, Thebes, Argos, Eretria, and Elis. Influential cities off of the mainland included Syracuse, Aegina, and Rhodes. Here there will be an exploration of the political history of Sparta and other Peloponnesian cities, how the concept of political legitimacy evolved there, and how all of this compares to similar events in recent decades. In order to explore the times when Sparta warred with Athens, enjoyed political hegemony, had this supremacy crushed by Thebes, and finally was among the Greeks who fought the last stand against Rome, the history explored here will extend beyond the Archaic Era and into the Classical Era before concluding in the Hellenistic Era. The journey, however, shall begin in much more ancient times.

It was in the Peloponnese that the Mycenaeans were the most expansive, and the city of Mycenae herself was found in the region. As the Greeks had many legends about Mycenae, she was undoubtedly a highly prominent city in the prehistoric era of Greek civilization. Near Mycenae was another city, which was highly influential well into recorded Greek history, known as Argos, and sometimes “Argos” was used for the chunk of the Peloponnese that surrounded it. Homer frequently refers to the Greeks as “Argives” in the monumental epic poems known as the “Iliad” and the “Odyssey,” indicating that this part of Greece was so dominant over the other regions early on that they were, in a sense, more Greek than everyone else. People from Argos had more of a right to rule than other Greeks, as evidenced by the fact that the aristocrats leading the siege of Troy are described as Argives. In ancient times, urban areas were centers of political gravity and economic activity, but most of the population was scattered in hamlets and farms across a countryside that was largely wilderness. Today, this is generally no longer the case, although this does not mean that identification with particular cities has lost political relevance. Politicians in almost any country in the modern world can claim certain credentials when stamped with the brand of a culturally iconic city.

According to Eusebius, Argos was originally known as Inachia, a name derived from Inachus. Apollodorus says that this Inachus was the son of two Titans, Ocean and Tethys. His granddaughter Niobe, according to the Greek traditions purported by Apollodorus, was the first mortal woman that Zeus had a child with, and this child was called Argus. Eventually, Argus was crowned king, which both Apollodorus and Eusebius agree followed the kingship of a man named Apis. Eusebius, however, who holds a Christian viewpoint rather than one of Greek polytheism, says that Apis ruled when “Joseph governed the Egyptians.” As one might expect, Inachia began to be called Argos because of his successor, a move almost certainly made to cement political authority. While this is a purely symbolic gesture, it is not unheard of in modern history. Perhaps the most impactful examples were in the former Soviet Union, where Leningrad and Stalingrad celebrated the two Bolshevik revolutionaries who helped lay the foundation more than anyone else for twentieth century communism. During the second half of the twentieth century, swearing allegiance to communist icons granted unquestioned political legitimacy throughout the eastern bloc of the Cold War.

In 1480 BC, according to the dates of Eusebius, a tyranny occurred in Argos, with Danaus seizing power and establishing the Danaid dynasty. Mythology enthusiasts will be familiar with the story of his daughters, known simply as the Danaids, who murder the men that they are forced to marry. Apollodorus tells this story, as do Pindar, Aeschylus, Horace, and Ovid. Danaus, claims Apollodorus, also married his sons to maidens from Arabia, Phoenicia, and Ethiopia. Regardless of whether or not this would have been feasible at such an early date, marriages were indeed one of the key components of royal legitimacy in ancient times. In an era where absolute monarchies are a dying breed, marriages have much less relevance to politics, especially the legitimacy of leaders, in modernity. Marriage ties do not provide any de jure titles of authority in republican systems of governance. While titles such as “First Lady” exist in the United States, such titles are ceremonial only and are not, using the example of the United States, what gives the president the legal right to executive authority. Nor do countries in the modern era make treaties with each other based on marriages.

Another major change, according to Eusebius, occurred in 1176 BC when a new royal family in Argos, reigning from Mycenae, began to rule. In the chronology given by Apollodorus, the early rule of Mycenae coincides with the reign, in neighboring Tiryns, of Perseus, the legendary Greek hero who both slew Medusa and rescued the princess Andromeda. It is impossible to assess individual figures with any degree of certainty, yet there can be no doubt that there is a thin thread of fact to at least some individuals such as Perseus. Hypothetically, if Perseus were based off of a real person, then it is clear that his feats were wildly exaggerated. Furthermore, it is very likely that these exaggerations were encouraged by a local regime that used his character to promote its legitimacy in some way. For example, Perseus could have been used as the founding father of a ruling dynasty, or his status as a hero may have encouraged loyalty to the militia of a polis. While the myths themselves may be less fanciful, the use of national heroes by modern governments is no less significant. Some such heroes are very old, whereas others are much newer. Around the globe, for instance, leaders rally support by invoking the names of ancient religious figures, as modern societies continue to value them. On the other hand, they also invoke the names of individuals who in recent centuries fought struggles against class differences, imperial occupation, and foreign invaders.

Mycenae may have been one of the foremost urban centers of the Aegean Bronze Age, but the city faded in relevance once the better documented time periods arrived. Her last truly notable moment was that in the “Iliad” it is Agamemnon, the King of Mycenae and the brother of King Menelaus of Sparta, who leads the Greek expedition against Troy. Occasionally, powers and the individuals leading them will fade, and so does the international legitimacy of both. An easing of Cold War tensions towards the end of the 1980s, for example, greatly depleted support for juntas in industrializing nations from the great powers. Many once untouchable military dictators fell, including Augusto Pinochet in Chile in 1990 and Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire in 1997. Sometimes, however, seemingly doomed regimes can also recover. When civil war erupted in Syria in 2011, rebels swept across huge swathes of the country in a surprisingly short amount of time. Syria became a pariah state, with a government widely seen as illegitimate for its war crimes and human rights abuses. Against all expectations, President Bashar al-Assad remains in power today and has in the last several years regained control of all but a few key regions, and the country was very recently welcomed back into the Arab League.

Of course, when establishing the prehistory of the Peloponnese, the most important cities for the later, historical eras of Greek history are Corinth and, yes, Sparta. Eusebius provides semi-legendary dynastic chronologies for these two city-states as well. He does not bother to cover any such Corinthian or Spartan history prior to one legendary event often considered by scholars to have roots in actual history, the return of the Heraclids. Pivotal for the Peloponnese, this myth is recounted by Apollodorus. Following the myriad of adventures and eventual death of Hercules, the sons of Hercules took refuge first in Ceyx, then Trachis, and finally, Athens. The Heraclids were fleeing Eurystheus, his adversary in life, and war now resulted. According to the writings of Eusebius, the Heraclids emerged from hiding once the war was won in 1103 BC and conquered everywhere in the Peloponnese other than Arcadia, establishing new Heraclid dynasties in the process.

Since the nineteenth century, there has been a community of historians who have proposed that the tale of the return of the Heraclids is representative of a true phenomenon in the Greek Dark Ages that they have labeled the “Dorian invasion.” Several dialects were spoken in Greece during classical antiquity, one of which, Dorian, was spoken primarily in the Peloponnese. Proponents of the Dorian invasion theory argue that the return of the Heraclids in the timeline of Greek mythology coincides with the disappearance of the Mycenaeans in the Greek historical timeline. The key theory can be briefly summarized as Dorian speakers being invaders from the north who swept through the Peloponnese, plundered the cities of the Mycenaeans, built new cities such as Sparta that spoke in the Dorian tongue, and installed rulers claiming the right to rule through Heraclid ancestry. Defenders of the idea say that it would explain why the Mycenaeans seemed to disappear so swiftly and violently, Dorian was spoken heavily in the Peloponnese but not elsewhere, and such a large number of kings in the Archaic Era belonged to dynasties allegedly descended from the legendary Greek hero. An additional argument they make is that Sparta was the largest and one of the most southernmost of the Dorian settlements, indicating that it was where they settled after carving their path of destruction and explaining why Sparta was such a warlike society. While this theory is more scrutinized now than in years passed, it nonetheless remains very common for historians to believe some variation of it.

If there is indeed a substantial amount of truth to the theory, it would be difficult to claim that the events are directly mirrored by any in the modern world, as very few countries have hereditary rulers that are much more than ceremonial, much less ones claiming descent from demigods. A similar phenomenon has still occurred, albeit relatively rarely, in the last century, in which ethnic, racial, or national identity is used as a justification for forcibly and violently displacing another ethnic group viewed as inferior by a regime using hatred as a tool for legitimacy. The most cataclysmic example, of course, was during the Second World War, although related events have happened on a much smaller scale in the decades since. No region of the world has been completely spared from this menace, with some particularly disheartening examples including the Rohingya in the Myanmar Internal Conflict (1948 - present), Mayans in the Guatemalan Civil War (1960 - 1996), Tutsis in the Rwandan Civil War (1990 - 1994), Bosniaks in the Bosnian Civil War (1992 - 1995), and Kurds in the Syrian Civil War (2011 - present). Unlike the Second World War, however, politically motivated genocides during and after the Cold War have almost always been in the context of civil rather than interstate conflicts. In the rare recent example of the Russo-Ukrainian War, the offending party even is claiming to be fighting for the very people that they are targeting by stating that they desire their liberation. Unthinkable in ancient times, governments in the modern world are surprisingly cooperative about putting a halt to situations of ethnic cleansing before they spin out of control.

One can find in the dates provided by Eusebius that the Heraclids ruled Corinth until the tyranny of Cypselus deposed them in 656 BC. Supposedly the Corinthians were the subjects of twelve Heraclid kings until “descendants of Heracles who were more than 200 in number” changed to a system in which “each year they chose one of their number to be president.” In essence, Corinth had become an oligarchy rather than a monarchy, with the right to rule still being based on Heraclid ancestry. Meanwhile, Eusebius and his list of Spartan kings have the Heraclids ruling the polis until 739 BC. Eusebius writes of Lycurgus, a crucial figure in Spartan history, as having been born in 884 BC. Modern historians debate both the historicity of Lycurgus and, if he genuinely existed, when he lived. Estimates range from as early as the tenth to as late as the sixth centuries BC, thus making the date of birth given by Eusebius an exceptionally early one. Both Herodotus and Polybius, a Hellenistic Greek historian from the second century BC who wrote primarily about the Roman Republic, provide a few details about his life and times, with the two agreeing that he was the mind behind the Spartan Constitution. Polybius goes as far as to say that the constitution created by Lycurgus was the first ever, yet he also claims it to have been inferior to its Roman counterpart. A detailed biography of Lycurgus is given by Plutarch in “Parallel Lives.”

If Polybius is correct that Lycurgus crafted the first constitution in the history of the world, then he was indeed one of the most revolutionary men of his era. In modernity, it is arguably constitutional rule that, at least ideologically, is the greatest claim to legitimacy for a ruling government. Oftentimes in the modern world it is even a prerequisite for a government to not only have a constitution but to have one with strong democratic foundations in order to even be a candidate for legitimacy. Meanwhile, countries without constitutions, including the remaining African juntas such as Chad, Mali, and Sudan, are automatically regarded by the international community as having governments without a legal right to rule, even if the major powers can be selective in their application of this policy. Xenophon, a Spartan most famous today for his memoir “Anabasis” on serving as a mercenary with the “10,000” in the Persian army, also wrote a summary of the laws of Spartan society in his “Constitution of the Lacedaemonians.” Spartan society was an unquestionably harsh existence, although it is also just as unquestionable that they did make a major contribution to the evolution of governance. The polis became a major military power in the Peloponnese, establishing rule over the neighboring Messenians in 620 BC and defeating the local hegemony of the Argives of 546 BC.

The brave warriors of Sparta showed that their society gave Greece a polis to be proud of when a small band of only a few hundred fought to the death at the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC, inflicting heavy casualties on the invading Persians and helping to save Greek independence in the process. Sparta, although certainly not Greece, reached her peak of glory with a victory in the long and bloody Peloponnesian War against Athens in 404 BC, having been fighting off and on since 431 BC. A society whose strength was based solely around political will was fragile, however, and further wars with other city-states, especially Thebes, meant that the hegemony they had for so long sought after was vanquished within a matter of central decades. Perhaps even a constitutional society built around only military strength and loyalty to that concept is not a good example or leader to other states. After leaving the Achaean League in 149 or 148 BC, Sparta was finished. As Polybius noted, the Romans had a society with a more developed constitution, one with more developed institutions. Maybe the Romans, for all their bloody conquests, could still consider more than the sword and shield.

#ancient history #ancient greece #sparta #ancient sparta #ancient civilizations

1 note · View note

causeimanartist · 3 years

Note

Hi! Procrastination anon here! Thanks for the kindness. good job getting your first essay done and I’m sending you all the good vibes for your second. I hope you are struck by inspiration like a character in a cartoon getting hit by lightning. I believe in you!!!

Thank you dear anon!! And well, I got inspired to draw this

#ask #anon #my art #causeimanartist #vent art #drawing of me #doodle #this second essay is on the origins of the Cold War #in case that wasn’t clear with this stupid comic lol #specifically the historiography OF the origins #basically the history of the history #sigh

99 notes · View notes

yaku-soba · 3 years

Text

i’ve seen this film before (this is an old story)

༶•┈┈ oikawa tooru x gn!reader | angst

༶•┈┈ general m.list

tags/warnings: angst (with an okay ending), swear words, oikawa doesn’t become a pro, kinda college au, author was listening to the folklore album and also mother mother while writing this, i think that’s warning enough

word count: 1.48k

a/n: this was originally supposed to be some sort of prose poetry for my poetry sideblog but it didn’t work out so </3 also, trying out a somewhat new writing style hehe :3

“someone has to leave first. this is a very old story. there is no other version of this story.”

― richard siken, war of the foxes

»»————- ————- ————- ¤ ————- ————- ————-««

it goes like this: you fight over something small (it's never just something small), and after a while with whom the fault lies doesn't matter anymore (a double-edged sword: the fighting and the screaming and the shouting and the mocking).

it goes like this: radio silence, no missed calls, no unopened texts. oikawa, a character study: lover becomes roommate becomes a shadow you see slipping out the door if you wake up early enough. take-out ordered for one, a bed too large and cold. blankets that swamp you.

it ends like this: you cave first (you always cave first). oikawa is too proud to apologize and you are too tired and it is easier to brush all the broken pieces of each other under the rug (it's old, you don't remember where it came from, only that it's the colour of mold and smells like mothballs, despite your best efforts) and pretend the we are fucked up, we are fucking this up away. you hate the way this story ends, there is no other ending to this story.

»»————- ————- ————- ¤ ————- ————- ————-««

"tooru," you say, and the click of the door as he shuts it behind him rings like a gunshot. "do you know what day it is?"

oikawa is breathtaking, as always. "no," he says, casting his eyes to the moldy rug at your feet and then away, off to the side, "what day is it?" oikawa is breathtaking, and as always, he's a bad liar.

you smile, make no effort to pull it to your eyes. "it's pasta day," you answer, and it's as hollow as the ring-pop he gave you as a promise when you were younger (when you had thought you were in love; when you were in love).

he nods. "thanks for cooking dinner." he chucks off his shoes and socks in an act of practiced nonchalance.

there is no pasta day.

"welcome home," you tell him belatedly. he hums, says nothing in return.

(stilted conversation: the second stage of a terminal relationship.)

»»————- ————- ————- ¤ ————- ————- ————-««

once, you were young and in love.

it's been proven: youth and love makes one foolish.

the story, or the prologue - it goes like this: you meet oikawa at an impressionable age (the boy next door, the golden boy, the boy the coaches eye in a game, the boy all the girls talk about, the boy). he proceeds to make quite an impression on you (a burn from sparklers on a beach at a festival, a failed ollie that left a scar on your knee, bruised wrists from volleyball, the - invisible, but you know it’s there, just as oikawa knows - stitch over the exit wound in your chest). you grow up beside him and along the way, convince yourself that sticking with him is a natural progression (cherry blossoms bloom for only two weeks).

you and oikawa, him and you. it has always been the two of you. this story is very old, this story always ends the same way.

»»————- ————- ————- ¤ ————- ————- ————-««

you’re fucked up. you and oikawa, him and you - somewhere, along the way, you’d gotten fucked up. you don’t know who fucked it up first, it doesn’t matter anymore. (nothing matters but the brush of oikawa’s lips on your lips and the delicate flutter of his lashes and the rent that you cannot afford without a roommate).

oikawa is waiting on the couch when you come home (you came home later than usual - you’d seen him talking to a girl who had batted her lashes at him prettily the way he used to do to you). you shut the door behind you like a judge’s hammer, you slip out of your shoes and socks like water through earnest, cupped palms.

“late night?” he asks (no welcome home).

“yeah,” you reply (no i’m home). “i wanted to finish more of my project.”

oikawa hums, looks at you from beneath those damned lashes. “that essay?” he shifts, lifts his feet from the moldy-looking rug to sit cross-legged.

“yeah,” you say again. (you’d submitted the essay a month ago. you’re working on a presentation due in a week now).

“i ordered pizza,” oikawa says after a pause, “it should be arriving soon.”

you nod, step over the genkan and into the one-bedroom apartment. “thanks,” you tell him, “i’ll be right out.”

the bell rings while you’re changing into loungewear. you step out of the room just in time to see oikawa take the pizza out of the delivery girl’s hands - the same girl you’d seen touch his arm and smile (there is no home).

»»————- ————- ————- ¤ ————- ————- ————-««

oikawa’s working part-time at a local diner that keeps long hours. you’re working on a degree.

here’s the thing: he could probably afford a one-bedroom apartment of his own if he’s smart about his money.

here’s the thing: you can’t.

»»————- ————- ————- ¤ ————- ————- ————-««

“someone has to leave first,” wakatoshi tells you over lunch, “richard siken said so.”

“who?” there’s a tear right down the middle of your carrot-heart.

“someone who left first, or someone who was left. does it really matter?”

»»————- ————- ————- ¤ ————- ————- ————-««

here’s the point: oikawa with his long lashes and bedhead. oikawa’s sleepy smile in the mornings (you remember more than you know), the exact dip of his smile, the map you have of the lines of his palms.

the point is: oikawa staying out and not coming home (you stopped counting after the first month, but your heart still knows), waking up to a cold bed because oikawa started leaving earlier (to go the gym, he says). hesitancy in hands where there once was security, the subtle fall of a satellite out of orbit, the gradual fall out of the childhood familiarity of being young and in love. the point is -

the point is always oikawa.

»»————- ————- ————- ¤ ————- ————- ————-««

oikawa gets a new, better, actual job. he’s a volleyball coach at a high school, now.

you find out almost a month later, through takahiro and issei.

“oikawa’s confident they’ll make it to nationals this year,” issei says conversationally, sawing into his steak, “says his kids are promising.”

“what?” (you’ve seen this film before.)

“you know,” takahiro says, “the volleyball kids he’s coaching.” you did not know.

“ah,” you say anyway, fingers slipping around the fork in your hands and grasping onto the far edge of a cliff, “how could i forget.”

»»————- ————- ————- ¤ ————- ————- ————-««

you finish your degree. you get a (relatively) stable job at a nearby design office.

here’s the thing: they pay you well for a fresh graduate. here’s the thing: you can probably afford a one-bedroom apartment of your own if you’re smart about your money.

»»————- ————- ————- ¤ ————- ————- ————-««

“i’m moving out,” you say the moment oikawa opens the door, “thank you for everything.” (despite everything, you mean it. he’s taught you so many things.)

he smiles (it looks the same as what you imagine you’d smiled like the day of your first anniversary). “okay,” he says, and you think that that’s that.

“i’m sorry,” he says after a moment.

“yeah,” you say, “i am too.”

“thank you,” he continues, eyes almost the same shade as the day he’d brought you on a picnic, “i’ll always love you, you know that, right?”

you do (you feel the same, it is not the same love as when you had been fourteen and sixteen and seventeen and eighteen and nineteen, but it is still love).

“me too,” you say because there is nothing else to say, “you’re important to me. you’ll always be important to me.” it’s true: he was your first kiss and your first love and your first best friend and the first person you’re leaving first.

oikawa smiles, and disappears into the bathroom.

you stare at the ugly rug at your feet.

“is this okay?” you ask the broken pieces of you and him (curled around the jagged edges of each other, thorn to petal, bruise to open wound), “this is an okay ending, right?”

»»————- ————- ————- ¤ ————- ————- ————-««

here’s the point: oikawa as the boy you loved, oikawa as your youth, oikawa as a part of the past you will always hold close but not be held behind by.

a study in relationships: someone will always leave first, it is a very old story.

introspection and a universal truth: youth and love makes one foolish, being foolish is not always a bad thing.

the point is: someone will always leave first, sometimes people fall out of love, sometimes familiarity is not enough to hold them together.

an old story, another universal truth: someone will always leave first, it is not always a bad ending.

»»————- ————- ————- ¤ ————- ————- ————-««

as always, likes and reblogs are greatly appreciated!! :D do drop me an ask if you’d like to be added to my general taglist :”)

p.s if you liked this, it would Be Cool if you leave me an ask / scream in the reblog tags because it would satisfy my need for validation 💔💔

#oikawa tooru x reader #haikyuu x reader #haikyuucreations #oikawa tooru #haikyuu!!#kyouka writes

124 notes · View notes

lynkhart · 3 years

Text

MAJOR spoilers for the C2 finale of Critical Role so read at your own risk of you haven’t caught up!

I have so many feelings regarding Caleb and Essek’s intertwining character arcs I needed to explore, so strap in folks, you’re in for a bit of a ride! (But seriously though, this is like 4000 words long, I basically wrote an essay 😂)

At the start of the campaign, Caleb Widogast was dripping in guilt and self loathing and refused to believe he could ever absolve himself of his sins. Essek Thelyss was a cold, aloof individual who betrayed his people for selfish goals, and their differing yet mirrored narratives have been an absolute delight to watch unfold.

In the beginning Caleb truly hated himself. He shot down any attempt at a compliment, described himself as a ‘disgusting person’, outright rejected the idea that he was worthy of love, and never let the blame shift from him for what he’d done. When Beauregard and Veth/Nott pointed out that he was coerced and manipulated into killing his parents, he reacts in an incredibly visceral way, and I’ve seen several comments likening it to a victim of child abuse who was groomed into believing they were as responsible as their abuser, and I think that’s exactly how it was meant to be read. He doesn’t see himself as a victim, only a murderer, and punishes himself for it every day. We see this in the way he presents himself, dirty and unkempt because in his mind he doesn’t deserve to feel good about himself in any way. Other than Nott/Veth and Beau to a certain degree, he purposefully isolates himself from the rest of the group and it’s a long time until he feels relaxed enough in their company to drop his defences a little.

(Speaking from a purely meta point of view, Liam did an absolutely phenomenal job of showing this through body language and I’d love to see someone do a compilation video of it. He starts off very hunched and guarded, leaning his body away from the closest person to him and avoiding eye contact and physical touch; but by the end stands tall and sure of himself.)

Early on there were a few moments where he had the option to do some pretty dark shit, and I’m sure there’s a possible timeline where he gave into his desire for revenge and really lost his way, but I’m glad he stuck it out and worked through his trauma in the way he did. His PTSD and disassociation when casting with fire was tragic, but over time he was able to work through it thanks to the constant love and support of his friends who kept him from going off at the deep end.

Molly’s death was the catalyst for change in a lot of the party, and Caleb is no exception. On the verge of leaving the group prior to his death, the grief they shared, combined with their frantic attempt to rescue the other half of their party put things in perspective and gradually he learned how to be a person again, to care.

Altering time to save his family had been Caleb’s only goal in life, and so when Essek and by extension, dunamancy was introduced, you could see his eyes light up at the possibilities.

A huge turning point for him is aligned so closely with Essek’s redemption arc which feels quite apt I think. When Essek confesses to his crimes, Caleb delivers a beautifully iconic piece of dialogue where he acknowledges their similarities and how much he himself has changed as a person since meeting the Mighty Nein. (Source - CR wiki)

‘You listen to me. I know what you are talking about. I know. And the difference between you and I is thinner than a razor. I know what it means to have other people complicate your desires and wishes. And I was like you. Was. I know what a fool I have been for years. You didn't account for us. Good. That is life. Shit hits you sideways in life and no one is prepared. No one is ready. These people changed me. These people can change you. You were not born with venom in your veins. You learned it. You learned it. You have a rare opportunity here, Thelyss. One chance to save yourself, and we are offering it.’

This is not the same Caleb we met back in the Nestled Nook inn way back in the first episode. While not yet fulfilled or entirely convinced of his own worth, he knows he’s on the right path. That alone is progress enough, but that he uses his own experiences to help another escape those same chains of guilt says such a lot for his development. When he tells Essek that his ‘venom’ was learned, he’s also talking about himself and his own history of being manipulated and gaslit, with the implication being that it can be un-learned just as efficiently.

Caleb Widogast is selfish no more, or at the very least, doesn’t let his goals undermine anyone else’s anymore. Contrary to what he himself might still think, he is in no way a bad person. He loves fiercely and cannot abide seeing those he cares about in pain.

Early game Essek is what Caleb could have been if he’d rejected his friends and focused solely on his own selfish goal to undo his mistakes. Both are impassive at first and see the Mighty Nein as means to an end...until they get to know them and then their fate is sealed. The Power of Friendship wins once again!

At the beginning Caleb said he wanted to ‘bend reality to my will’ (sic) and in the end he does just that, though not in the way he originally intended. Destroying the T-Dock, and by extension the one thing he’d been building towards from the start, the chance to go back and change time, for me personally was the absolute peak of his journey. I rewatched the scene where Caleb revealed the truth about his parents death today, and it was really jarring to see just how far he’d come since then. It made me oddly proud actually.

I always felt like his plan to save his parents was the one thing holding him back from truly accepting their deaths, which is why the final scene of him in the cemetery with the letters for them hit so hard. He never truly gave up hope that they’d be reunited, but ultimately he realised he was merely postponing the inevitable and never allowing himself to live his own life. While time travel shenanigans would have been incredibly interesting to explore in game, choosing to let the past lie and not go back for them finally allows him to grieve and move on, and perhaps most importantly of all, to forgive himself at last.

I know some people were annoyed by Caleb’s decision in the finale to spend the rest of his life teaching rather than continuing to adventure, but I see it as the natural conclusion to his whole arc and his own personal victory.

He looked Trent Ikithon in the eyes, a man who he’d spent years wanting to kill and run from in equal measure, stripped him of his power and his voice (and ultimately his ability to harm anyone else) and finally spared his life so he had to live with the indignity of his defeat for the rest of his miserable existence. You couldn’t have asked for a more damning rejection of everything he’d been brainwashed into believing as a child. His dismissal of Trent’s position in the Assembly played into that as well. He never really wanted power for the sake of it; he had no desire for politics, he just wanted his family back, and while he didn’t get the one he started with, he made a new one for himself in the end.

As Caduceus once very wisely said:

‘Pain doesn’t make people; it's love that makes people. The pain is inconsequential; it's love that saves them.’

Caleb gets to break the cycle of abuse and teach a new generation of mages the way he should have been, with kindness and respect, and I’m pretty sure he’d have introduced a handsome drow as a guest lecturer from time to time. 😉

Speaking of...

Essek described himself as selfish and as a coward, forever putting his own wants and desires first, yet over the course of his journey with the Nein we see his priorities change drastically.

Having friends gives him people to care about, something he’s never had before, and it changes his outlook on life completely. For me, the first time we really see this is when he joins them for dinner in the Xorhaus and stops levitating. It’s a subtle thing, but meaningful. He explains that it had become an expectation of him, a quirk he’s known for, and so to feel comfortable enough around the Nein to drop that pretence is quite bold I think.

Much later, when he chooses to destroy the mini beacon they discover in Aeor in order to give everyone a long rest before the final confrontation with Lucian, he’s essentially giving up everything he betrayed his people for, just to keep his friends safe. The existence and context of that single artefact could have had an earthshattering impact on the Dynasty’s entire culture, forcing them to reevaluate their entire belief system and attitude to the Luxon, something he’d wanted from the start, something he helped start a war for, but he offered it up as a sacrifice without a second thought.

I’d say that’s a pretty big morality shift, and I’m super interested to see if Matt reveals if his alignment changed in the post campaign Q&A. I have a feeling he set him up as a potential BBEG but the party was like ‘no, you can’t have him, he’s ours now’ and that was the end of that. 😂

I think it says so much about the other characters too, that they befriended this person they barely knew, and when he was revealed to have done such terrible things, their first reaction was to give him comfort and an opportunity to atone. Jester held his hand while he confessed, and afterwards, while they didn’t immediately forgive him, they saw the good in him and wanted him to be better, which ultimately feels like what the entire campaign was about, leaving places (and people) better than they found them. It’s obvious that he’s never really had many friends before and has therefore never had the opportunity to be emotionally open with anyone, so seeing him gradually warm up to the Nein and allow himself to soften around them was really lovely to watch.

(Obviously, from a realistic moral perspective, he still fucked up big time. He’s still a godsdamned war criminal and really should have been put on trial for what he did, but I think from a narrative and personal point of view, his redemption arc was far more satisfying, so I’m glad it happened the way it did. (And not to derail but the rest of the gang have done some pretty horrific stuff as well, though perhaps not quite on the same scale)

He has a few moments towards the end that I absolutely love because they show that beneath the guilt and anguish, there’s an incredibly sweet and sensitive soul in there, just wanting acceptance. His dry jokes which often don’t quite hit, (the ‘I will punish the bakery’ line is such an under-appreciated one 😂) his simple joy at learning to garden in the Blooming Grove, and realising that he’d never been asked what his favourite food was before was actually kind of heartbreaking, because it highlighted how lonely his life must have been until that time. There was a moment pretty early on I think when he cast disguise on the party and Jester asked if he could cast it again to change the look of her outfit a bit and while he seemed to find it amusing, he refused, not wanting to waste a spell on such a frivolous request. Cut to their time in Aeor where he burns a fly spell just so he and Caleb can flirtatiously swoop around each other for a couple of minutes, all the while trying to beat Lucian to the city.

His breakdown when Molly’s resurrection failed really cemented to me how much he’d grown as a character. He never met Molly, his only knowledge of him was secondhand, through the eyes of his friends, but seeing it fail just broke him because he knew how much it hurt them to go through it all over again.

His comment to Caleb about not admitting defeat and wishing he could do more did get me wondering at the time if he was going to try and do something crazy, perhaps sacrificing himself via the Temporal Dock to make amends or somehow forcing another reroll, but I’m glad he didn’t. The conversation following that with Fjord was one of my favourites- he shows him acceptance and belief in his potential for the future, something he’s lacked for a long time, and when Caleb bluntly affirms afterwards that he is indeed an official member of the Mighty Nein, it’s the start of the rest of his life, and something he’s exceptionally grateful for.

It all leads to that final moment in Aeor with Caleb, when, presented with the opportunity to alter time and undo everything, he chooses to accept his decisions and carry the weight of his sins for the rest of his long life. That’s...huge.

He’s essentially choosing to live the rest of his existence as a fugitive, forever on the run, with no guaranteed peace or safety. He chooses to spend his life making up for his deeds, rather than looking for an easy way out.

I think that may have had a big impact on why Caleb ultimately made the same decision, as if Essek had been up for altering his timeline I think he’d have struggled to resist it himself. The conversation they had earlier in Aeor about their priorities and resisting temptation really comes to mind as well.

Now, to the relationship.

It was subtle, and not as ‘in your face’ obvious as the other characters, but I’ve been watching and hoping for a long time and I must say, it feels good to be vindicated.

(And if you have any doubt, both Matt and Liam confirmed on Twitter that their post finale relationship was 100% romantic)

I’d been hoping that Shadowgast would be a canon endgame relationship for a while, so the finale, and the aforementioned T-Dock scene in particular had me quite literally shaking with emotion as I watched live. Here you have two men, both damaged and guilt-stricken in their own ways, who find in each other a kindred spirit and a path to redemption.

They’re both very guarded and closed off people, but Essek in particular has a definite shift in the last arc of the campaign especially when it came to his interactions with Caleb. At the start he was quite aloof and stoic, though charming, and they had an instant connection through their shared love of the arcane, (anyone who couldn’t see them making heart eyes at each other when Essek was describing the different types of magic he could teach Caleb was clearly blind) but by the end he was incredibly open to showing his vulnerabilities and that takes a lot, especially for someone whose primary focus was to stay in control of every aspect of his life. The ‘Caleb, I’m scared’ moment during the Trent fight in particular made my heart ache.

No, we didn’t get a dramatic declaration of love or a cinematic mid-battle kiss, but I’d argue that their relationship was just as, if not more intimate than any of the other main characters were. They understood each other in a way the others didn’t, their shared guilt, feelings of inadequacy and their obsession with magic forged a deep connection from the get-go. Neither of them are big fans of PDA I think, though Caleb is tactile as hell (forehead touches and kisses, oh man, I’m so weak for those 😩👌) and some of their most iconic moments have them putting themselves in harm’s way to protect the other. Essek shaking off his forced guilt trip immediately after the now infamous forehead touch in ep140 was beautifully poetic, as was using his fortune’s favour to pull Caleb out of the rubble moments before. Caleb trying to include him in his Sphere of Invulnerability in the finale and Essek staying close to him the whole fight despite being obviously terrified of Trent was the icing on the cake. It’s clear that they care for each other a great deal; whether by the finale they’d consider it love is up for debate, but we know that’s eventually where it ended up and honestly, I love that. I deeply appreciated the fact Matt and Liam both emphasised that they took their time with their relationship, letting each other heal in their own way before they took the next step. All too often in media, and real life too sadly, a romantic relationship is seen as some kind of quick fix, and that a lover will somehow complete you or make all your problems vanish. They knew this wasn’t the case here, and that made it all the better.

While I would have *loved* to have seen them together as a couple right to the very end, the change in their relationship felt right, if bittersweet. I doubt they ever stopped loving each other, and if anything, choosing to shift to a deep and lifelong friendship over a romance that would cause them both so much pain is one of the kindest things you could do for someone you love. After all, friendship isn’t a downgrade, just another way of experiencing that same love, and it wasn’t as though they broke up and never saw each other again, it was pretty strongly implied that they remained a major feature in each other’s lives, they just changed their label slightly. Caleb would hate to have forced Essek to watch him wither away, and although his eventual passing would hurt Essek regardless, incompatible lifespans being what they are, having a period of time to adjust to it, to give them a buffer between the inevitable heartbreak was actually really sweet.

Their romance was no accident, they knew going in that it had a time limit, that it wasn’t going to be forever for one of them, and the fact they did it anyway says so much. They began their adventure wholeheartedly believing that they were both, in their own way incapable of love, only to later find it with each other. Whether their relationship lasted for a couple of years or multiple decades is irrelevant, what matters is that while it did they had a happy and fulfilled life together.

I know some folk wanted Caleb to use the transmogrification spell on himself so he could live on with Essek as another elf, or make him human instead, but that would have been way out of character for both I think. If they could have backwards engineered one of the rejuvenation stations in Aeor and used it to extend Caleb’s life by a hundred years or so, so he’d have a similar lifespan to Veth, now, I could have seen him possibly doing that, so he could spend more time with his best friend too, but nothing further I think. He longed to be reunited with his parents too much to postpone death unnaturally like that.

That both Caleb and Essek ultimately chose to live with their mistakes and make peace with themselves was incredibly cathartic, and I couldn’t imagine it playing out any better.

The fact Matt has explicitly stated Essek is Demi too means so much to me personally because the latter is a label I’ve been identifying with a lot recently, and it’s so rare for aspec relationships to get any representation! It has honestly given me a lot to think about over the last few days, and I really appreciate it.

To conclude, here’s a bit of shameless self promotion. I wrote this after watching the finale and honestly feel like it sums up my feelings on the nature of their relationship pretty well.

‘A casual hand on a shoulder, a waist, a wrist; a gentle kiss placed on a forehead is common between them now, an intimacy born of trust and mutual affection. Over time it grows, like a fire born of seasoned timber; gradual and steady, no spluttering kindling that flares and sparks, but a slow burn, one which lasts.

Their love is embroidered into every aspect of their lives together. Acts of service, of comfort, of understanding.

Sometimes a kiss leads to more than a kiss, sometimes it doesn’t. Either way they are content.‘

So yeah, I love these two wizard boys so very much and I couldn’t be happier with the conclusion of their stories. ❤️

#Critical Role #Critical Role Spoilers #CR Spoilers #shadowgast #Essek thelyss #Caleb Widogast #C2ep141 #C2ep141 spoilers #critical role finale

64 notes · View notes

edgysaintjust · 2 years

Note

For the ask game, the Enlightenment duo: Voltaire and Rousseau 😈

I read and treasure their works, often see some of them as my personal favourites, but besides the literary aspect my knowledge on their lives is rather poor. Just to warn you!

Voltaire first >:))

• Why I like them: No matter what I will say about him next I really admire Voltaire. He's one of my favourite writers; his esprit never fails to amuse me and the eloquence combined with abnormal amount of irony is just my kind of humour. I'm probably missing half of the jokes and alusions he puts into his works but they still impress me like nothing else.

• Why I don't: Do you want me to send you an essay?

• Favorite ancectode: The fact that mans was always cold. Also, putting his own footnotes in his work and praising the thoughtful author. Outstanding, you go king.

• Favorite quote (from them or about them): "All kinds are good, except the boring one" simple, but I feel like most of his quotes don't work without context.

• BROTP: V and Frederick, hurray for the toxic white men!

• OTP: Like I said, my knowledge on his personal life is very poor. I believe I'm not able to answer this one 😅

• an-oh-god-why-did-that-have-to-happen: that he had been imprisoned and banned from england. Seriously let the man speak.

• Unpopular opinion: He would get trashed on Twitter.

• A wish 5 words to best describe them: sarcastic, annoyingly eloquent, humorous, and a prick.

• My nickname for them: Storytime! I was once recommending V's contes philosophiques to a friend. For a second she confused him with another writer and asked me how would 'Voltaire' (she said it correctly) be pronounced if he was French. She immediatelly tried to answer herself and said sth that sounded like 'vol toi' and that's the only way I refer to him since then.

• If you could say one thing to them: "so you're the one who dumped your kids!"

• Favourite portrayal of them: I'm not that fluent in V's portrayals in culture but if I could simply choose a painting I'm going with the T-posing one ;))

• LEAST favourite portrayal of them: nothing in particular comes to my mind.

JJ time.

• Why I like them: He's my favourite philosopher (well maybe besides Camus), so obviously I respect him for some of his ideas. Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men was a great reading which changed my mindset and helped me shape my personal vievs; his philosophy is overall comforting and optimistic. I agree with his theory of human nature, excluding the part about women.

• Why I don't: Oh my god NOW I could write an essay. However, being a whiny prick in personal life, supporting the death penalty as a normal part of a functional country and being a raging sexist are my top 3.

• Favorite ancectode: nothing really comes to my mind but I still make fun of his tomb being next to voltaire's.

• Favorite quote (from them or about them): here comes a long one.

The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared, had some one pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: "Do not listen to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one!

• BROTP: none, really. Again i don't have enough knowledge on his personal life ://

• OTP: exactly same here

• an-oh-god-why-did-that-have-to-happen: It's gonna be an obvious one but the damn kids he left.

• Unpopular opinion: he's got a point about primitivism.

• A wish 5 words to best describe them: problematic, irresponsible, whiny, egoistic, but overall rather kind

• My nickname for them: just JJ ;))

• If you could say one thing to them: "Voltaire was a better writer." I'm sorry but I'm not gonna be polite with these two, I won't even bother. If I had a chance to talk to them a bit more, then sure! But 'one thing' that has to be said will definitely be rude.

• Favourite portrayal of them: once again, I have no idea ://

• LEAST favourite portrayal of them: and same here.

#ask game #voltaire and rousseau #thanks for the ask the game is nuce ;))#nice*

11 notes · View notes

anika-ann · 4 years

Text

Attached - Pt.1

The Words of Doom

Type: (mini)-series, college AU, professor AU (technically)

Pairing: Steve Rogers x reader Word count: 1880

Summary for the series: You messed up. Your very sleep-deprived Self attached the wrong document when emailing a professor and sent him one of the stories you wrote instead of an assignment. It should be embarrassing, really, but it wasn’t. It was worse.

Why did it have to be the smutty one? Why did it have to be the one starring his best friend, Professor Rogers? You were so screwed.

Aka the ‘you sent the wrong attachment to hot professor A that just happens to be about his friend hot professor B and now professor A is not able to look at professor B without wheezing in laughter anymore and you are unable to look at either of them’ AU

Warnings: swearing, literally one mention of a possible daddy kink, double entendre

⊱-◦-◦-◦-◦-◦-◦ ✉ ◦-◦-◦-◦-◦-◦-⊰

Your eyes felt like on fire, burning hotter than the sun above Sahara Desert; the metaphor your sleep-deprived mind came up with was only perfected by the huge dunes of the bags under your eyes.

You were running on disgustingly strong coffee and three energy drinks, but you summoned the rest of your strength and clicked on ‘send’, slumping so heavily into your chair that when your back hit the backrest, it almost toppled over—but never mind, you made it!

Penny, your gracious roommate, would inform you that had you started earlier and were writing the actual essay instead of wasting words on steamy stories that somehow filled the desired wordcount with considerably less effort, you wouldn’t have been turning into a zombie sending assignments several minutes before eight a.m., the actual deadline.

Yeah, well, sue me, I prefer romance to the World War II., no matter how important history is.

You were certain Professor Barnes would understand if you told him that anyway – he was a pretty easy-going guy for a scholar after all. Then again, you sure as hell didn’t want to test the theory out and so you tended to hand in your homework perhaps ‘minute to midnight’, but still in time.

You grinned as you checked the sent e-mail, proudly reading it had been sent at 7:56. You mentally patted your back, not having the energy to actually move to do that.

And then your Sahara-dry eyeballs fell lower on the screen and you let out a shriek of horror.

Your heart stopped in your chest before kicking in faster than it had been pumping after three Red Bulls.

The attachment.

Oh no.

OH FUCK, the attachment!

Now, it happened on occasion that people forgot to attach the files they spoke of in an e-mail, right? Sometimes shit like that happened.

But this… this was so, so much worse.

“Oh no,” you uttered under your breath, shooting up and suddenly sitting with back straight as a ruler just to look at the screen from shorter distance to-- nope, still there. “Oh fuck.”

You quickly scrambled to send another e-mail with similar text but the right file, along with a swift apology.

Sent 7:59.

You should be relieved. Perhaps Professor Barnes would notice the correct one first and automatically deleted the one that obviously must have been wrong.

So why couldn’t you find it in you to think you would have such luck?

At least if he opened the wrong document, he would understand very quickly that it was not what he had asked the students to do and would delete it before diving in fully, right?

But a worm of doubt – or intuition, whatever you wanted to call it – told you that it wouldn’t be the case.

You covered your mouth with your palms and screamed at the top of your lungs.

Penny, sleep-deprived considerably less than you because she was an actual responsible human being, walked from her room to the bathroom and blatantly ignored you, probably thinking you had missed the deadline by a minute and were now freaking out.

Oh, you wished.

“Pennyyyyyyyyy!” you cried out in a whiny tone, but she clicked the door shut as if nothing was happening. As if your whole life wasn’t in shambles because of one single e-mail. “Penelope, you get your ass back here! I need to know how to switch schools without having to repeat a year!”

Her wild black curls peeked from the bathroom, followed by an annoyed sleep-raspy voice. “Why? You accidently called Barnes a daddy in your message or somethin’?”

Your heart was still beating its way out of your chest, a low ominous hum in your ears. Gods above, you wished. Still would be easier to explain, like… you could claim it was a dare or something.

No, this was much, much worse.

Penny, apparently taken aback by the lack of your response, left the safety of the bathroom and approached your lair (probably stinking of sugary drinks and caffeine) and peeked over your shoulder, searching an explanation for your antics.

You only gulped, moved the cursor to the title of the document you had sent in your first e-mail and closed your eyes, actually feeling tears of humiliation stinging in them.

The silence that followed spoke volumes until-

“OH SHIT.”

You had just shared your smutty one-shot with your history professor, but that wasn’t even the worst part. The worst part was that it was starring his rumoured one and only best friend he shared an office with. One who had acted like a substitute for two weeks when Professor Barnes got a particularly bad case of cold, but wouldn’t leave you without a lecture. Needless to say, Professor Rogers had also starred several of your steamy dreams after that and became a source of inspiration for your occasional writing streaks.

And now your history professor could read all about it and, god forbid, share it with the man who was the template of the main character of the story. You weren’t dumb; you alternated the names, just in case of you didn’t even know what (and it might have made you feel better about writing filthy stuff about a prof), but you went with the same looks including hair and skin colour, hairstyle, Rogers’ glorious beard and you certainly didn’t omit his surprisingly ripped body.

So, yeah. Penny’s ‘OH SHIT’ was pretty accurate.

You were so screwed.

Yes, once again, you wished.

⊱-◦-◦-◦-◦-◦-◦ ✉ ◦-◦-◦-◦-◦-◦-⊰

You had handed in your work on Friday morning and had been jittery all weekend, practically unable to focus on any of the studying you desperately needed to do. Normally, you might write some comforting piece to relieve your frustration, but that was not an option right now as simply opening a text editor gave you palpitations.

The all-nighter you had pulled didn’t exactly help your already non-existent ability to get your head on straight either.

You were looking forward to Monday and dreaded it at the same time – Professor Barnes was to give your assignments back with a mark and commentary. You were praying for Monday to come already, because you just needed to know the consequences of your actions. You were freaking out about Monday for very obvious reasons.

You had no idea what was happening in your first Monday class. Your lunch consisted of half bottle of coke.

And now here you were, seated in the second row of three, because that seemed like the safest place, a seat where Barnes couldn’t approach you from any angle.

When he entered the class, you decided to stubbornly watch the desk in front of you. Under any circumstances, you would not make eye-contact, wouldn’t raise your gaze. There was no fucking way anything would force you look his in the eye.

Or you thought so.

You hadn’t realized he would call out each of your names and would say the necessary commentary about doing well, missing something, excellent work, this one feeling a bit sloppy… out loud, which would made it truly impolite to keep staring ahead. With each work sent through the sea of people to hand it to those in the second row, your stomach was turning heavier, your heart beating faster.

And then Professor Barnes said your name and you winced in your seat, squeezing your eyes shut on instinct, the childish if I can’t see you, you can’t see me either kicking in.

He called out your name again as if there was a chance you missed it the first time and with a huge lump of panic in your throat, you blinked your eyes open and raised your gaze, only to meet his neutral face with just the tinniest twitch to the corners of his lips and a barely visible twinkle to his eye.

Your stomach dropped to the floor, your face burning with embarrassment and humiliation.

He held out the papers to the person in the first row in front of you, whose name you didn’t care for at the moment, and nodded his head.

“Not bad at all,” he said and that was the end of it.

Your essay landed in front of you and you finally breathed in properly, your hand trembling slightly as you noticed the circled B+ in the corner.

You were deaf to his next words, your heart jumping as you read the note by the mark.

B for the cliché used, + for the originality.

Huh. What a strange way to word an evaluation… but hey, you wouldn’t complain. For one, no one had filled a harassment complaint for your stupid ass so far and you had written this shit during an all-nighter and still got B+. This was the best outcome you could hope for; Barnes didn’t even give you shit about your... error.

A smile slowly found a way to your lips, a shy little thing, but definitely present, your mimic muscles, so stiff from trying to keep a poker face, relaxing.

You browsed over the other notes in red ink scattered over the pages, some sentences and phrases unlined and commented on, sometimes corrected, sometimes complimented to.

It wasn’t until you reached the red note that had one word from it actually crossed out and replaced.

Really hits the spot mark.

Your smile froze on your lips, your heart ceased to beat before kicking in with furious pace, loud pounding humming in your temples.

Oh god. Oh no.

Hitting a spot? He could have written it was ‘spot on’ or that it ‘hit the mark’… he made the mistake deliberately, you were certain of it – all of his other notes were so neat and thought through-

You checked the individual notes, your stomach twisting when you re-read them in a new light.

Nearly all the wording he had used was referencing to your… special assignment you had handed in.

Oh god, please, let the lightning hit me. Let the floor swallow me. Let the cardiac arrest momentarily trying to kill me actually kill me.

Interesting work for certain with a winky face?! Really? That would be innocent enough on its own, but it was feeling like a conspiratorial wink. The I know more than I let on and you know what I’m talking about wink.

The next one was a blatant double-entendre and you could bang your head against your desk for not realizing it first time reading it. Good writing, nice flow, clearly heading to the climax.

Your face was set aflame once more and despite your better judgement, you glanced at the professor momentarily showing whatever in his presentation.

He caught your gaze and had the audacity to wink.

You snapped your head away and silently whined, sliding down your chair nearly enough to lie on the floor.

OH. MY. FUCKING. GOD.

Why did it have to be the smutty one you sent? Why couldn’t it be a cute one at least? You had loads of those! Why did it have to be the one about Steven damn Rogers, his friend?

Why, just WHY?!

Professor Barnes had definitely read it. And for some reason, you had a hunch that he had showed it to his friend slash colleague he shared an office with too.

You whined some more and pretended that this day was the apocalypse and that you would never have to face either of the professors ever again.

Of course, you could not have such luck.

⊱-◦-◦-◦-◦-◦-◦ ✉ ◦-◦-◦-◦-◦-◦-⊰

Part 2

⊱-◦-◦-◦-◦-◦-◦ ✉ ◦-◦-◦-◦-◦-◦-⊰

There it is! Shorter chapter for starters. Just you wait ;)

I’m pretty sure something like this have been written before, but plot bunnies are little shits that refuse to leave no matter how much you kick them and beg them to go away.

I blame @pies-writes-and-more @kayteewritessteve and @queen-kass-the-writer for supporting bad behaviour, but they are not the only ones. You know who you are, don’t YOU? I am a weak human being and you are corrupting me. Thanks, sweeties ;)

Thank you for reading!

⊱-◦-◦-◦-◦-◦-◦ ✉ ◦-◦-◦-◦-◦-◦-⊰

Tags: @scentedsongrebel @patzammit @donutloverxo @annathesillyfriend @orions-nebula @iheartsebastianstan @wxstedhexrt

If anyone wants on the taglist or out, lemme know via DM or an ask :)

-.-.-

ALSO. A friend of mine created a perfect artwork for this chapter/series and I wanted to share 😍🥰🤩:

Thank you, @chase-your-dreams-away 🥺

#marvel #fanfiction #steve rogers x reader #steve rogers x you #steve rogers imagine #college au #professor au #professor!steve rogers #professor!bucky barnes #bucky barnes #captain america x you #captain america x reader #captain america imagine #student!reader #mcu #steve rogers #steve rogers fanfic #attached #anika ann

588 notes · View notes

shipskicksandgiggles · 3 years

Note

Ok so I preface this with the fact I am in love with Sam Wilson as Captain America. Saying this means I want the absolute best for him because he truly deserves it. I am big into characters costumes they can show progression and change like with Steve’s or Vision or they can show intentions or character traits like in Black panther with the opposing silver and gold suits. Now on this strain what are your opinions of Sam’s costume? This may not seem like a big question but the way the design team presents a character is very important. (can you tell I’m a design buff) in my opinion, especially for an originally bird inspired hero, the costume seemed like that a costume a bit bulky and not as well thought out as other characters. The reason for this could be many things (if you agree with me on this) I again restate that I love Sam Wilson as captain America and this is not an attack on his role but rather the way he was presented by the directors, designers, and writers. Thanks for reading this essay lol and have a nice night!

ooo. oooo. okay okay okay you're not ready for the thoughts I have because hhhh movie nerd/leftover symbolism from AP english brain meets logical physics brain and i yell every time

so. we we meet sam in tws

this is our man. I will tell you right now how intentional costuming departments are because we have: Air Force sweater (establishes Sam as military along with his connection to flying), the light color and soft material (seriously i would trust him right away), not to mention the obvious fact that they’re workout clothes and draws Steve in. throughout the course of the movie his clothes start to fall back from civilian to the muted green or grey tones typically associated with military, which I think is interesting, but then we get the falcon suit

we have the original military, what I think is either ant man or civil war, endgame, and then the suit we see in the first few episodes of tfatws

now. I don’t know who designed these. but we will be having WORDS you hear me??? look I don’t have the stats on how fast or high he’s flying, but that doesn’t matter that much. his forearms aren’t protected. he’s going to get cold. he’s going to have windburn. there is no helmet and apart from the goggles he really doesn’t have much going to protect his face either

also, the tfatws suit is my favorite if these. why?? it’s the sleekest. when you’re flying like that you cannot have drag. if the fabric bunches up or rips you’re going to be in bad shape. he’s not like Tony or Rhodey in a metal suit, that’s just Kevlar. durable yes, but not indestructible (probably especially at high velocity)

the color development is also interesting red but mostly grey in his early hero-ing days, almost entirely dark grey with red accents after hes in the run, and that primary Very Recognizable Red with light grey after he comes back and gets pardoned. you know what that is? that’s growth. that’s sending the message that people are able to recognize him and he’s back on his game

which brings us to your point. the Cap suit

hello. look at that angel right there. still no helmet, again an issue, but the vibranium is giving me more confidence in his safety (and his arms are fully covered, bless). the vibrant red white and blue screams Captain America (think about how bright Steve’s uniform was in tfa or the avengers), and the tech is seamless enough that it looks almost elegant

coming back your original ask though, you’re right, it’s not very bird-like. the only nod Sam ever really has (that I can think of at this exact second) to that original inspiration is 1. the wings and 2. EXO-FALCON. that was just the name of the program. it was tied to the bird, but mostly in the metaphorical sense yeah he swoops in and rescues people. they clearly tried to incorporate some of the elements from the comics (the color red, the goggles, the partial head piece and I’m still mad about the no helmet thing, you can see small similarities in the belt area, etc), but overall I think they just tried to make it practical for military usage. because that’s what it was originally in the context of the MCU

if you really want me to get into how I would have designed the suit, I will, I have a lot of thoughts personally, but I’ve already written an essay and I think I might be overdoing it

#asks #answers #spring canary tag #suit eval #oh my GOD I totally get the bird thing tho #if Sam/the Falcon weren’t already established he’d be the eagle if the propaganda weren’t so obvious #obviously you can take my opinions with a grain of salt #but the mcu’s attention to detail in costuming blows my mind #sam wilson #ellis writes

12 notes · View notes

becuzitisbitter · 3 years

Text

All Cops Are Bad

The last of the essays i will be posting that I wrote for school, this one is an attempt at an approachable ACAB argument (my professor said that she was persuaded, at least)

There is an old slogan with roots at least as far back as the 1920’s and is yet becoming more and more popular across the globe today: “All coppers are bastards.” Of course, most people just say “cops” these days. The extensive history of the slogan might even make one stop to wonder why the police have been the object of such long-standing antagonism, if one isn’t the sort to grasp the slogan’s truth intuitively. The reality is that all cops really are bastards, not in a literal sense, of course, but in the derogatory usage which communicates despicability. The goal of this essay is to convince the reader that the police are bad and that policing should be done away with entirely. After all, the police present themselves as the vanguard of the state’s repressive urges and as the guarantors of an order defined by deprivation and violence.

Olivia B. Waxman, writing for Time Magazine, points to economic forces as dictating the development of the means and aims utilized by policing institutions in the U.S. She writes that businesses had already been hiring private security to protect the transport and storage of their property, and that, “These merchants came up with a way to save money by transferring to the cost of maintaining a police force to citizens by arguing that it was for the “collective good.” (Waxman) In other words, America’s first publicly funded police force was simply picking up after the work of private businesses to protect their own property, but with the cost foisted upon those who were being kept out. She continues this economic argument as she traces the lineage of the modern police force back to its forerunners in the Southern runaway slave patrols. She writes, “the economics that drove the creation of police forces were centered not on the protection of shipping interests but on the preservation of the slavery system”. Thus, the primary policing institutions in the South were the slave patrols, the first of which was formally established in 1704. (Waxman)

The police developed historically to enforce property rights rather than to ensure the wellbeing of the populace. If it is understood that white supremacy encodes human skin with either privilege or dispossession, it should be understood that, as Mariame Kaba writes in an opinion piece published by the New York Times, “when you see a police officer pressing his knee into a black man’s neck until he dies, that’s the logical result of policing in America. When a police officer brutalizes a black person, he is doing what he sees as his job.” (Kaba) Kaba is an organizer against criminalization and a self-described police abolitionist because she believes that “a ‘safe’ world is not one in which the police keep black and other marginalized people in check through threats of arrest, incarceration, violence and death.” The police, then, are not focused on creating a safe world. They are interested in preserving the world as it is, which demands a tacit defense of misogynistic and white supremacist institutions.

Regardless of personal attitudes or goals, the undeniable outcome of two hundred years of policing in America has been an uninterrupted avalanche of mostly arbitrary violence aimed at preserving the rule of law, that is, the sanctity of private property. In just the last year, the discourse about the role and place of police in our society has exploded with new questions and new ideas. What makes this conversation so powerful is that the police are considered so essential to the functioning of the modern world that the abolitionist movement must necessarily carry indictments on many other institutions and ways of relating that are bound-up with policing.

Of course, many readers will be quick to react defensively. Most disagreements with the argument presented here will take one of two forms: the claim that the argument over-generalizes police, and the claim that the police fill such an essential role that society couldn’t hope to provide an acceptable standard of life in their absence. Both will be addressed below.

The former argument comes in many varieties. One might even say, “It is unfair to judge such a large group by the actions of a few bad apples,” without being aware that they were reversing the meaning of the idiom they are attempting to make use of, which actually originated as “A rotten apple quickly infects its neighbor,” according to Ben Zimmer, who is a linguist and language columnist for The Wall Street Journal. (Cunningham) Regardless of the backwardness of this idiom, many would maintain that it is wrong to generalize police or stereotype their actions based on our perceptions of a few bad actors. Some police may abuse their power, or harbor prejudice, many readers would contend, but most police officers are decent people doing their best under difficult conditions. The truth, however, is that literally all cops bring about harm simply by doing the jobs that they signed up for. To go a step further, even if every police officer were to act in good faith, the task of maintaining a status quo defined by inequality would still force officers into the position of beating the cold, poor, and hungry back from the resources they need to live comfortably. This world of deprivation is not worth defending, and yet every cop has signed up to defend it. Some readers might still say that to pain the police with such a broad brush, is to commit an act of prejudice on par with the attitudes the police are criticized for, but they are grasping at straws. No one becomes a police officer by accident. By switching careers, they could avoid such judgement entirely. One wonders if they would feel the same about criticizing other groups which are entirely opt-in, such as MS-13 or the Taliban.

Could there ever be such a thing as a good cop? No. Here is one example that I think demonstrates a larger principle: even if a given police officer is a dedicated and educated anti-racist, the logistical deployment of police departments across the US places more officers in poor neighborhoods and communities of color than in wealthy or majority-white areas. This means that even the most kind-hearted police would be more likely to detain or arrest poor people and people of color than affluent whites. This is only one facet of a fundamentally unjust system. The development of police departments as racist and anti-working-class institutions across History means that they are structurally and institutionally racist and anti-working-class in the here and now. Police departments continue to defy reform because the problem is intentionally encoded into their purpose. They must be done away with entirely.

When a protestor or graffiti artist echoes the old slogan that, “All cops are bastards,” it is an expression of a tautology. Like the phrase “All triangles have three sides,” the slogan contains its own truth. All triangles have three sides because it is part of the definition of triangles to have three sides. We can’t even conceive of a triangle with four sides because by having four sides, it would cease to be a triangle. Despicability is written into the definition of policing because the aims of policing are themselves despicable. Any cop that ceased to work toward the aims of policing would cease to be deplorable, maybe, but he would also cease to be a cop as surely as a triangle with four sides would cease to be a triangle.

The second primary counter argument to criticism of the police is that the police are a necessary evil, essential to protecting us from a rousseauian war of all against all. This assumption that humanity could not get by without police seems silly, after all, the police are only a modern institution, hardly a blip in humanity’s story. It has already been shown that the police were not created to protect the average person from harm, but to protect private property rights. In any case, a counter argument from consequences is not the same as a refutation. One need not know the correct answer to a problem to recognize a wrong one. When asked, “What would you do with the psycho serial killers?” one should be unabashedly honest about not knowing the answer because there is no one answer. The answer to each problem can only be located in the context in which the problem occurs. This reflex to reach for a one-size-fits-all answer for all of life’s problems, along with its concomitant desire to preserve the tedious “peace” of the status quo, do a lot to explain the psychology of pro-police arguments.

Neither the means nor ends of policing are acceptable. The forces that shape and control our world, be they corporate or political, tower over us such that we only ever meet with their basest appendages. The police are their piggy-toes, pun-intended. Admittedly, the arguments presented here will be significantly weaker in the mind of anyone who really feels good about the state of the world which police maintain, however little is likely to be gained in dialogue with someone who could maintain a positive view of concentration camps, needless and ceaseless killings, the continuation of slave labor in the prison system, mass food-insecurity, etc.

It is incumbent upon each of us to improve the world around us. The police are an impediment to a better, safer, freer world. They are antithetical to equity, autonomy, and community; that is why all who fight too hard for a better life eventually find themselves faced with the police, one way or another. Nevertheless, while so much hangs in the balance, we can’t let the bastards get us down.

Works Cited

Olivia B. Waxman. “How the U.S. Got Its Police Force” Time Magazine, https://time.com/4779112/police-history-origins/ Published: 5/18/2017, Date of Access: 12/2/2020

Mariame Kaba. “Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police” The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html Published: 6/12/2020, Date of Access: 12/2/2020

Malorie Cunningham. “'A few bad apples': Phrase describing rotten police officers used to have different meaning”

https://abcnews.go.com/US/bad-apples-phrase-describing-rotten-police-officers-meaning/story?id=71201096 Published: 6/14/2020, Date of Access: 12/2/2020

#school #homework #essay

33 notes · View notes

newnitz · 3 years

Text

Howl's Moving Castle & the Power Narrative Holds Over Reality

Like most 90s borns, my first anime was Pokémon. I watched the first three seasons diligently, and my tooth fairy gifts were always VHSs of memorable episodes. But like most Millennials and even Gen-X before us, my first real entryway to Japanese culture was Hayao Miyazaki. On the tiny TV screen, behind even for 2002, where my mother would watch her TV shows as she worked out, I watched Spirited Away. Chihiro/Sen's coming-of-age story and the movie's numerous themes deserves their own essay, and one I think better bloggers, vloggers and ordinary people have written before me. But after such a masterpiece, I jumped at the chance to see the next Studio Ghibli movie, Howl's Moving Castle. I rushed to the local library to read the book before it aired in the nearby city's bus station mall's small cinema. 18 years later, too nauseous for schoolwork and mooching off of my dad's Netflix account, I decided to rewatch this film. ***Spoiler alert for both book AND film*** The film itself is a staunch anti-war message, released around the same time as the invasion of Iraq, informed by Miyazaki's own childhood in the final years of Imperial Japan and the horrors inflicted on his home country to set the stage of the Cold War. The exposition includes a bombing of Sophie's hometown with...banners. The citizens of Ingary are terrified of the flying machines descending upon their skies, they expect bombs and destruction and untold death and unspeakable horrors. So when they instead get rained down paper pieces with pictures and words we are never privy to, they treat it with suspicion. They refuse to so much as touch them, since it's of the enemy. And the day after, when Ingary soldiers distribute their own country's propaganda banners, they drink it down without a second thought. Again, we are never privy to what they say. Perhaps it was meaningless. Perhaps, to the common contemporary viewer, the content would be incomprehensible. But for me, it got me thinking: What if this was the "enemy" spreading missing posters of their prince? What if this was a warning for the townspeople to evacuate, as they expect to take point there? And if it was, what the hell did it accomplish, outside of everything BUT what it tried to? The people are too scared. They see it as psychological warfare, whether intentional or not, and therefore the papers become a terrorizing presence, whether they were filled with graphic threats or pleas for cooperation, all it ended up doing is scaring the population into a deeper layer of hatred. I personally disagree with the film's apparent message, but I agree with how much of war is the matter of spinning the truth. No character represents a better allegory for spinning the truth than Sophie Hatter, the main character of the movie. The first thing we notice about her is how intricate and colorful all her creations are, while she sticks to a plain hat with minimal detail. We see her displeasure with her own appearance even when trying it on in front of the mirror. She dresses plainly for she thinks herself plain - wearing a mousy dress in both the source book and the film adaption. The book elaborates on this narrative and its subversion: In Ingary, fairytale tropes are accepted as divine truths. Sophie and her sister Lettie have had their mother die as toddlers, so when their father remarried and produced a third sister(briefly referenced in the film), Martha, Sophie and Lettie were doomed to be wicked, hideous stepsisters. But not only did their stepmother raised them as her own, but both all the Hatters were stated to be beautiful, with Lettie in particular having the entire town's male population vying for her affection in both book and film. In fact, the cunning one is the designated "Cinderella", Martha, who uses her guile to warn her half-sisters. See, another trope specific to Ingary was that the firstborn of three siblings will never find their luck - if they ever dare try, they will encounter disaster after misfortune and end up poor and miserable. According to Martha, her mother wanted to enjoy a life of luxury, so she sent Lettie to work in a bakery where she will surely find a man of her liking to start a life with, and shipped her own daughter off to be a magic apprentice far far away from her. Sophie is the only one she kept close, because she knew she buys into the tropes and will make her fortune for her, preferring the safety of her late father's shop to the dangers of the unlucky life of a firstborn. But in both film and book, this blissful avoidance of any exploration is torn away in a chance encounter Sophie has with the notorious wizard Howl. While her sister(s) are terrified for her safety, Sophie has no fear of the 'heart-eating monster' as "he only eats the hearts of beautiful girls", believing her plainness protected her. But oh, how she was wrong. Or was she? In both book and film, the Witch of the Wastes barges into the hat shop. In the book, she seeks Lettie whom Howl is taken with(like literally every man in town) and enters the shop where an overworked Sophie loses her temper at her, and mistaking the hatter for her sister, she curses the girl to become old. In the film, she's explicitly exacting revenge on Sophie, whom Howl is interested in, and follows her and invades her shop after closing time, cursing her to be ninety years old. This is supposed to devastate Sophie - rob her of her youth, beauty and health, ending her life before she started them. But in both versions, Sophie acclimates to the change rather well, constantly noticing the perks of living as an old lady - she can mumble to herself and be seen as normal, she can be assertive and commanding without being inappropriate and/or bossy, and since she has nothing to lose, she might as well go exploring the world, if only to lift the curse. To revisit this as someone who didn’t expect to have the option of growing old, this is an empowering message on its own - growing old is what you make of it. But despite subverting the Witch's narrative, Sophie remains a helpless victim of her own narrative. Book Sophie is explicitly said to be a powerful sorceress unaware of her own powers, even enchanting her hats into the client's shape with her words alone, while in the film it's only implied. But in both versions she Unconsciously Maintains Her Own Curse: She reverts to the eighteen year old in her sleep, or when something silences her insecurities enough. In the film, she's explicitly shown to de-age as she gains confidence in herself under the role of the household maid, going from the frail ninety-year-old into someone who looks and acts as a woman just past middle age - I don't think this is incidental, as many women are at their most confident at that age, when they no longer feel pressured to worry about trivial matters such as beauty and childrearing, and retreat back into the original cursed form when Howl calls her beautiful - a compliment she can never accept. In the book, Howl eventually comes to the conclusion that she likes being old and gives up trying to guide her out of it. The book takes narrative subversion even further. Remember cunning Martha? Turns out, the Hatters didn't conform to their mother's narrative either - Martha was bored by wizardry while Lettie craved it. The two concocted a plan to glamour as one another, which of course the mentor witch saw right though, and preferred Lettie's genuine interest to Martha ghosting the craft. This stings extra once Fanny is shown to be a caring mother who attacks who he thought cursed her stepdaughter - perhaps she fell for the same sort of thinking Sophie did, and wanted her stepdaughter to have the best life possible for someone doomed to fail, thought extroverted Lettie enjoyed the attention and choice of men and wanted Martha to be a powerful, self-sufficient young woman who led a life more glamorous than she did, as someone who lacked magic? That Fanny was a real parent - a well-intentioned woman who completely misjudged her children and their future? Is it possible Martha’s own narrative has poisoned her relationship with her mother, perhaps beyond repair? As for Sophie, in the book she breaks her own curse by breaking the contract between Calcifer and Howl. But the film gives it more nuance - Calcifer and Howl are clearly in a codependent relationship: In both versions Howl gave Calcifer his heart in exchange for magical powers (as well as saving the fallen star's life, depending on your interpretation of the character), but by the time Sophie employs herself at the Castle, Calcifer feels more like a slave than a powerful demon. Howl himself has his own internal struggles, and many online have made convincing cases for BPD being among them. Calcifer is an essential part of his support system. Each one of them believes that if Calcifer isn't fed properly, or gets dunked with water, they'll both die. And once Sophie does so to stop the wizened, depowered Witch of the Wastes from literally being consumed by her obsessive desire for Howl, she too believes to have killed them both with her rash actions. But they live, because Sophie's part in a time loop led her to think otherwise and refuse to give up on them. Within the film’s universe, this ties into Sophie’s innate magical powers talking reality into her perception. But I know real-life, ordinary people who’s own narratives have changed grim fates. Now, I don’t live in Ingary. I don’t believe the world around me has literal, reality-warping magic. I’m not a spiritual person. But this is precisely why Howl’s Moving Castle appealed to me - because the characters’ thoughts don’t perfectly dictate reality, but the way they act on their perceptions does. I know a man who is alive because his (now ex-)wife changed the narrative of his deathbed to one of optimism and efficacy. When I stopped trying to have my self-image reflected in the eyes of others, I transformed into a more confident, capable person practically overnight. I’m not delusional - I’m well aware of the Dunning-Krueger effect, of how reality exists whether you live in it or not. I’d like to think I live strictly within the boundaries of what is proven beyond reasonable doubt to be real.

But your spin on reality dictates your life. It can dictate parts of the lives of your close ones. But the message isn’t one of just changing your own view of a situation around you to become happy, oh no. Lettie and Martha didn’t just choose to be happy in apprenticeships they had no passion for. Sophie didn’t just relocate to some quaint cottage to live the few years that weren’t stolen from her as an old hermit. They acted to transform the existent reality within their means, but they could only do so because they felt empowered enough to question their life’s narratives.

#howl's moving castle #movie essay

15 notes · View notes

laboratorioautoral · 4 years

Text

The original outline and why it is still relevant to ASOIF

Since the original outline for A Song of Ice and Fire was leaked there’s been a massive effort, both in fandom and mainstream media, to discredit everything that was revealed there as a potential clue for the future of the story.

Although I agree that some changes happened, I don’t subscribe to the idea that the outline is irrelevant at this point. This little essay is my attempt to analyze the outline and compare it with what has already happened and still could happen in the future books, how much was changed and more importantly, how it was changed. I won’t say this is an impartial analysis (because I don’t believe that such a thing exists) but an honest effort of textual interpretation.

Here we go:

“Dear Ralph,

Here are the first thirteen chapters (170 pages) of the high fantasy novel I promised you, which I'm calling 'A Game of Thrones.' When completed, this will be the first volume in what I see as an epic trilogy with the overall title, 'A Song of Ice and Fire.'”

First things first. A Song of Ice and Fire was first imagined as a trilogy and the fact that GRRM extended it to 7 books obviously has an impact in terms of structure. It seems quite reasonable to assume that a lot more would have to happen to fill the gap occupied by 4 additional books. That alone is a huge influencing factor, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that the essence of the story was changed as we can see in the following paragraphs.

“As you know, I don't outline my novels. I find that if I know exactly where a book is going, I lose all interest in writing it. I do, however, have some strong notions as to the overall structure of the story I'm telling, and the eventual fate of many of the principle characters in the drama. Roughly speaking, there are three major conflicts set in motion in the chapters enclosed. These will form the major plot threads of the trilogy, [unclear] each other in what should be a complex but exciting (I hope [unclear] tapestry. Each of the [unclear] presents a major threat [unclear] of my imaginary realm, the Seven Kingdoms, and to the live [unclear] principal characters.”

Here we have Martin admitting that he usually doesn’t outline his novels over fear that he will lose interest while writing it. However, he also clarifies that he has “some strong notions” for the story he is telling, especially in which concerns those he considers to be the main characters.

In some of interviews Martin already said that the ending he had planned many years ago is still in place and he has known the characters’ endings ever since. It’s safe to assume, I think, that the core of his plans hasn’t changed much. What might have changed is the path that leads the characters from one point to another.

“The first threat grows from the enmity between the great houses of Lannister and Stark as it plays out in a cycle of plot, counter-plot, ambition, murder, and revenge, with the iron throne of the Seven Kingdoms as the ultimate prize. This will form the backbone of the first volume of the trilogy, A Game of Thrones.”

Can anyone say that this didn’t happen? Of course not. This is the spark that lights the fire that will consume the Seven Kingdoms throughout the story, with major and minor consequences that will shape both the narrative and the characters’ development. The conflict between Starks and Lannisters is the first of three conflicts that represent the core of the story.

“While the lion of Lannister and the direwolf of Stark snarl and scrap, however, a second and greater threat takes shape across the narrow sea, where the Dothraki horselords mass their barbarian hordes for a great invasion of the Seven Kingdoms, led by the fierce and beautiful Daenerys Stormborn, the last of the Targaryen dragonlords. The Dothraki invasion will be the central story of my second volume, A Dance with Dragons.”

Here we have the second major conflict and with this one in particular I’ll have to take my time to elaborate some points. First of all, A Dance With Dragons became the 5th book of the series instead of the second. So far everything we saw about Daenerys was her preparing to take her place at the center of the stage.

Dany has her own arc which hasn’t integrated to the events in Westeros so far given to her geographic location. That doesn’t mean that Daenerys has no relevance to what’s happening in Westeros, but her existence wasn’t directly noticed by the seven kingdoms yet. Daenerys is preparing for her role in the main story: She is gathering a military force based on the Dothraki to invade Westeros.

We already know that Daenerys will have more than just the Dothraki on her side. The Unsullied were added to the plot and my guess is that they exist to humanize Daenerys and make us sympathize with her cause as she creates the great narrative of “Breaker of Chains”. This makes Daenerys sound heroic and noble, but I would like to point that Martin is very specific about one thing: The fierce and beautiful Daenerys Stormborn is first and foremost a threat. She is ready to invade Westeros and invasions are not peaceful.

At this point we already know two things worth being mentioned that are related both with Daenerys and the title of this book: The Dance of Dragons was a civil war involving two Targaryen claimants to the Iron Throne. On one side we had Rhaenyra, firstborn of the king and rightful heir if gender wasn’t an issue in Westerosi succession laws. On the other side we had Aegon, a son born from the king’s second marriage. His claim was mostly based on gender norms that favor male heirs in detriment of primogeniture.

It isn’t much of a dance if we only have one dragon, is it? Yes, Daenerys is the first half of this equation, but there is another half that Martin hadn’t created yet (or didn’t mention) when he wrote the outline. There is a second Targaryen, or at least someone who claims to be one.

Aegon VI, or Young Griff, is actually the first one to arrive in Westeros with invasion in mind. Does it mean that Dany is less of a threat or that she was suddenly placed in a heroic position? Absolutely not. No one with three dragons is a harmless creature and Dany is even more dangerous now that she has a direct enemy in position to take away everything she fought for.

I know that there’s a lot of speculation on whether Aegon is a Blackfire or not, but honestly I think his true lineage will be irrelevant as long as he has at least a drop of Targaryen blood and the right looks. Legitimate or not, Aegon looks like a Targaryen, has the house’s ancestral sword and a story that is convincing enough. More than that, by posing as Prince Rhaegar’s legitimate son, Aegon makes his claim stronger than Daenerys’. On top of that, he would be the Targaryen male heir in opposition to a Targaryen woman, repeating at least a part of the scenery that led Westeros to the Dance of Dragons.

Aegon and Daenerys are bound to become enemies because of their own ambitions. I don’t see Dany accepting him as a suitor or even the rightful heir. She doesn’t need Aegon to take Westeros and a queen without a king is, historically speaking, more powerful.

Everything said about Aegon can also be applied to Jon once his true parentage is revealed. Jon and Daenerys are a threat to each other and only one will survive this.

“The greatest danger of all, however, comes from the north, from the icy wastes beyond the Wall, where half-forgotten demons out of legend, the inhuman others, raise cold legions of the undead and the neverborn and prepare to ride down on the winds of winter to extinguish everything that we would call "life." The only thing that stands between the Seven Kingdoms and an endless night is the Wall, and a handful of men in black called the Night's Watch. Their story will be [sic] heart of my third volume, The Winds of Winter. The final battle will also draw together characters and plot threads left from the first two books and resolve all in one huge climax.”

The third and greatest danger also remains just the same. The Others are still the core of the last book and the major battle. There isn’t much to elaborate on in this part except for the title of what was supposed to be the last book, The Winds of Winter.

I don’t think A Dream of Spring will be some sort of extended epilogue, but most of the action and conflict should take part during The Winds of Winter. At the very least the center of the whole debate will be both the North, with all the plots there, and what lies beyond the Wall.

“The thirteen chapters on hand should give you a notion as to my narrative strategy. All three books will feature a complex mosaic of inter-cutting points-of-view among various of my large and diverse cast of players. The cast will not always remain the same. Old characters will die, and new ones will be introduced. Some of the fatalities will include sympathetic viewpoint characters. I want the reader to feel that no one is ever completely safe, not even the characters who seem to be the heroes. The suspense always ratchets up a notch when you know that any character can die at any time.”

Needless to say anything about this. The books are well-known for these hallmarks. Now we are getting to the juicy part.

“Five central characters will make it through all three volumes, however, growing from children to adults and changing the world and themselves in the process. In a sense, my trilogy is almost a generational saga, telling the life stories of these five characters, three men and two women. The five key players are Tyrion Lannister, Daenerys Targaryen, and three of the children of Winterfell, Arya, Bran, and the bastard Jon Snow. All of them are introduced at some length in the chapters you have to hand.”

I would like to make a point here. The five characters will grow from children to adults, changing the world and themselves in the process.

Although I believe that Martin made a bit of a mess in which concerns the characters’ ages, I think we can understand that the characters will not only be forced to act like adults, but also will be perceived as such by those around them and given positions of power or leadership.

Specifically in which concerns the female characters, both Daenerys and Arya will be perceived as adult women by Westerosi society and this is important for several reasons, mainly in that being an adult noblewoman is a relevant component to form political alliances via marriage. In Arya’s case in particular, it reinforces the idea that she won’t be a nine year old girl forever. This impacts her relevance in the political game (something people usually overlook or ignore) and also makes it possible for Arya to have romantic interests.

“This is going to be (I hope) quite an epic. Epic in its scale, epic in its action, and epic in its length. I see all three volumes as big books, running about 700 to 800 manuscript pages, so things are just barely getting underway in the thirteen chapters I've sent you.”

Can anyone say it isn’t an epic? Sometimes I wish it wasn’t so intense so the books would come earlier, but here we are.

“I have quite a clear notion of how the story is going to unfold in the first volume, A Game of Thrones. Things will get a lot worse for the poor Starks before they get better, I'm afraid. Lord Eddard Stark and his wife Catelyn Tully are both doomed, and will perish at the hands of their enemies. Ned will discover what happened to his friend Jon Arryn, [unclear] can act on his knowledge [unclear] will have an unfortunate accident, and the throne will [unclear] to [unclear] and brutal [unclear] Joffrey [unclear] still a minor. Joffrey will not be sympathetic and Ned [what appears to say] will be accused of treason, but before he is taken he will help his wife and his daughter Arya escape back to Winterfell.”

Here we have proof that Ned and Catelyn were doomed from the start. Basically everything in this paragraph happened, even the part in which Ned helps Arya to escape by giving her position to Yoren. The only problem is that Arya never reached Winterfell and her mother had left the capital before Ned was arrested. Also the part that says that “things will get much worse for the poor Starks before they get better” makes me think that it’s quite clear that the Starks (or some of them) are the main protagonists of this story.

Why am I saying the Starks (or some of them) are the main heroes? Because being a charismatic character, created with the intention of getting the readers’ sympathy, isn’t necessarily what makes this character a protagonist. You can like whoever you want in the story, this doesn’t make a secondary character a main character, nor does it make a likable character the ‘hero’. The structure of the story and who are the main players is already given.

“Each of the contending families will learn it has a member of dubious loyalty in its midst. Sansa Stark, wed to Joffrey Baratheon, will bear him a son, the heir to the throne, and when the crunch comes she will choose her husband and child over her parents and siblings, a choice she will later bitterly rue. Tyrion Lannister, meanwhile, will befriend both Sansa and her sister Arya, while growing more and more disenchanted with his own family.”

Tyrion and Sansa were set to be the ones with dubious loyalties to their families. This also happened with slight differences. Tyrion befriends Jon and is somewhat sympathetic to Sansa and Bran. Sansa didn’t marry Joffrey, but she did choose him over her own family the moment she went to Cersei to tell her Ned’s plans to get Sansa and Arya out of the capital. This might or might not indicate that she will have the chance to repent and atone for this, but her dubious loyalty is consolidated. Also Sansa has no children so far.

“Young Bran will come out of his coma, after a strange prophetic dream, only to discover that he will never walk again. He will turn to magic, at first in the hope of restoring his legs, but later for its own sake. When his father Eddard Stark is executed, Bran will see the shape of doom descending on all of them, but nothing he can say will stop his brother Robb from calling the banners in rebellion. All the north will be inflamed by war. Robb will win several splendid victories, and maim Joffrey Baratheon on the battlefield, but in the end he will not be able to stand against Jaime and Tyrion Lannister and their allies. Robb Stark will die in battle, and Tyrion Lannister will besiege and burn Winterfell.”

Bran’s arc is pretty much the same. We saw all of these things happen to him. The biggest change is in Robb’s part and even so most of it remains untouched. Robb did win splendid victories and in the books he even strategically beats both Jaime and Tyrion. What changed is that Robb and Joffrey never fought each other personally. Also Robb’s death was not on the battlefield but during the Red Wedding and Tyrion wasn't the one to sack Winterfell and burn it.

Tyrion’s first act of explicit villainy in the outline was transferred to Houses Bolton and Frey with participation of Theon Greyjoy. Still it was all part of the Lannisters’ plot and it was executed by their allies.

“Jon Snow, the bastard, will remain in the far north. He will mature into a ranger of great daring, and ultimately will succeed his uncle as the commander of the Night's Watch. When Winterfell burns, Catelyn Stark will be forced to flee north with her son Bran and her daughter Arya. Wounded by Lannister riders, they will seek refuge at the Wall, but the men of the Night's Watch give up their families when they take the black, and Jon and Benjen will not be able to help, to Jon's anguish. It will lead to a bitter estrangement between Jon and Bran. Arya will be more forgiving ... until she realizes, with terror, that she has fallen in love with Jon, who is not only her half-brother but a man of the Night's Watch, sworn to celibacy. Their passion will continue to torment Jon and Arya throughout the trilogy, until the secret of Jon's true parentage is finally revealed in the last book.”

Here we have some changes. What doesn’t change is that Jon becomes a member of the Night’s Watch and ultimately ascends to the position of Lord Commander. Benjen is a famous member of the Night’s Watch and I believe he was the first choice to take the position of Lord Commander after Mormont, but Ben’s disappearance accelerated Jon’s ascension.

Catelyn and Arya never fled Winterfell, since their paths had already taken them somewhere else, but Bran did and his first impulse is to go to the Wall. Given the fact that the three eyed raven calls him, Bran’s magical journey leads him to go beyond the Wall before he can be reunited with Jon.

Arya and Cat had completely different journeys, or at least partially. Cat seeks her eldest son and stays by Robb’s side during his campaign. Arya, on the other hand, is stranded all over the Riverlands trying to find her way to either Winterfell or the Wall, although she explicitly says that she prefers to go to Wall, where she can find Jon. There was a clear intention to send both Bran and Arya to the Wall, but as the story progressed this decision might have been abandoned temporarily.

Thanks to his vows, Jon can’t take part in the realm’s politics. When news of Ned’s fate arrive at the Wall, Jon is devastated by the impossibility to help his family and fight side by side with Robb. Jon’s moral boundaries and his code of honor become a huge issue for him in the books, and they are tested the most whenever his family is involved. This seems to be his main dilemma in the outline as well.

Jon’s relationship with his family is also ambiguous in some aspects, especially when it’s revealed that his greatest dream since he was young was to be the Lord of Winterfell. This implies a level of rivalry and envy of his true born siblings. Jon repressed these feelings as much as he could out of love for the Starks.

Now I’ll make some guesses here, I don’t think it’s impossible for Bran and Jon to have some bitter estrangement between them, but it won’t be because of the Night’s Watch: If Jon is released from his vows once he is resurrected and takes back Winterfell along with the titles, it will undoubtedly lead to a succession crisis involving not only rights of conquest but also Robb’s will. Bran’s rights are directly affected in this scenario and, unlike the show, Bran never once questioned his position as Robb’s heir. It’s not impossible to imagine that factions will gather behind both claimants and this can cause another crisis in the North and bitterness between brothers in a moment when union is crucial.

Arya has a close relationship with both Bran and Jon and she is someone both of them feel inclined to listen to. I think Arya will be the bridge between them and the one to diplomatically avoid a rupture in the North, but it doesn’t mean the bitterness between Bran and Jon will disappear.

Now we reach the hugest taboo of the outline and the main reason why people claim “it’s no longer relevant” or that “Martin changed his mind”. Jon and Arya falling in love.

Let’s get one thing very clear, Jon and Arya already love each other in the books. This is not my opinion, this is the literal text.

Jon’s best friend was Robb and still Jon affirms that he missed Arya the most. Just go back to the books and count how many times and how affectionately they think of each other. They repeatedly say how they miss finishing each other’s sentences and how Jon loves to mess Arya’s hair. “The memory of her laughter kept him warm during the long journey north.” and “Needle was Jon Snow’s smile” are two small quotes that speak volumes of how deep this love is.

Am I saying this is a romantic sort of love? No. I’m not saying this. What I’m doing is highlighting the fact that this particular relationship stands out as one of the strongest (if not the strongest) bond in the books to the point where it’s not even questionable that Jon and Arya love each other the most. It’s strong enough to make Jon forsake his vows and decide to march to Winterfell to rescue a girl he thinks to be Arya. It’s strong enough to make Arya lie to Ned because she would never betray Jon.

Jon didn’t break his vows for any other sibling, no matter how much he wanted to, but he did it to save whom he thought was Arya. His love for her is the cause of Jon’s death in the books. He committed treason the moment he received the pink letter and decided to march against Ramsay Bolton. Jon’s last thought is “stick’em with the pointy end”.

I think it’s safe to assume that Jon will be resurrected and Melissandre is probably the one to perform the ritual. We already know that resurrections have some side effects in the asoiaf universe, the most evident one being some sort of obsessive thought that keeps guiding the resurrected’s actions (like Beric Dondarrion’s obsession with keeping the king’s peace, and Lady Stoneheart killing Freys to avenge Robb’s death). Jon’s last thought was directly related to Arya and there’s no other possible interpretation. His last thought is likely to become his obsession.

I also think it’s safe to say that Jon’s memory will stay inside Ghost at least for a while and we will have to wait and see the effects that will have on Jon’s personality once he comes back to life.

Varamir said that Ghost would be a second life fit for a king and I think this is a clear foreshadowing of Jon’s true identity. There are also some other aspects of wolf pack dynamics that deserve some consideration: Wolves are social animals that have hierarchy and well divided roles inside the pack and although Ghost is a lonely wolf that was separated from his original group, it would only take one female for him to start his own pack. Curiously Nymeria is an alpha female already, leading a pack of regular wolves, but she rejects her smaller cousins as potential mates. Ghost and Nymeria are the alpha male and female of a new pack. The wolves of Winterfell will come back; stronger and more dangerous.

I think all of these elements will play a significant role in how Jon and Arya’s love will change once they are reunited. It won’t be immediate, but as the story goes the sexual tension will become evident. Jon’s perception of Arya as a sister will be blurred as a teenage Arya starts to see him as a love interest. At this point Arya will already be perceived as an adult woman according to Westerosi society, as I pointed out before. My guess is that she will be close to Daenerys’ age when she married Drogo. I’m not judging if this is right or wrong by our own moral standards. What I’m saying is that it’s acceptable in the world created by GRRM.

As the outline says, their passion will continue to torment Jon and Arya throughout the trilogy, until Jon’s true parentage is revealed. This necessarily implies that: 1) they are not siblings; 2) their passion brings a lot of moral issues and they are not comfortable with it; 3) their agony has an end when Jon’s parentage is revealed. Jon’s true parentage is a moral free pass for them and, at least from what we can read in the outline, this is more relevant than any potential succession rights.

This moral free pass wouldn’t be applied in a romantic relationship between Jon and Daenerys for example. It would actually have the opposite effect, giving Jon reason to question his moral choices and torment himself with doubts. This plot point is not applicable to Sansa either, mostly because Sansa and Jon don’t have a close relationship that’s already been established. They have a distant one and don’t even think much about each other. The whole point of Jon and Arya’s strong bond is to lay the foundations for a romance, establishing a relationship based on love, mutual loyalty and respect.

Do we have any indication that Jon and Arya’s romance was scrapped based on the books? No. Do we have any conclusive evidence in the text that Arya was replaced by any other female character? No. Why do I think Jon and Arya are endgame? Because we have only two books left and a lot of events that must be covered by them. It’s way easier to use an already established loving relationship with 5 books of consistent development and make it a romantic one (and make it believable as an epic romance because all the dramatic elements are already there), than to write a brand new one from scratch and make the reader believe that this is the ultimate love story.

“Abandoned by the Night's Watch, Catelyn and her children will find their only hope of safety lies even further north, beyond the Wall, where they fall into the hands of Mance Rayder, the King-beyond-the-Wall, and get a dreadful glimpse of the inhuman others as they attack the wilding encampment. Bran's magic, Arya's sword Needle, and the savagery of their direwolves will help them survive, but their mother Catelyn will die at the hands of the others.”

Catelyn was meant to be killed by the Others. It’s not hard to conclude that she would have become one of them. The major difference from the outline to the books is that Catelyn died elsewhere, however she was brought back to life by fire magic as Lady Stoneheart. I can also see Bran and Arya fighting against the Others with the help of their direwolves in the event of a great battle by the end of the books. There’s nothing indicating that this part was cut, it just hasn’t happened yet.

“Over across the narrow sea, Daenerys Targaryen will discover that her new husband, the Dothraki Khal Drogo, has little interest in invading the Seven Kingdoms, much to her brother's frustration. When Viserys presses his claims past the point of tact or wisdom, Khal Drogo will finally grow annoyed and kill him out of hand, eliminating the Targaryen pretender and leaving Daenerys as the last of her line. Danerys [sic] will bide her time, but she will not forget. When the moment is right, she will kill her husband to avenge her brother, and then flee with a trusted friend into the wilderness beyond Vaes Dothrak. There, hunted by [unclear] of her life, she stumbles on a [something about dragon eggs] a young dragon will give Daenerys [unclear] bend [unclear] to her will. Then she begins to plan for her invasion of the Seven Kingdoms.”

Daenerys’ arc here didn’t change much. What changed was her motivation to kill Drogo and how she gets the dragons. Everything else that happens to her since the second book is her preparing to invade Westeros.

“Tyrion Lannister will continue to travel, to plot, and to play the game of thrones, finally removing his nephew Joffrey in disgust at the boy king's brutality. Jaime Lannister will follow Joffrey on the throne of the Seven Kingdoms, by the simple expedient of killing everyone ahead of him in the line of succession and blaming his brother Tyrion for the murders. Exiled, Tyrion will change sides, making common cause with the surviving Starks to bring his brother down, and falling helplessly in love with Arya Stark while he's at it. His passion is, alas, unreciprocated, but no less intense for that, and it will lead to a deadly rivalry between Tyrion and Jon Snow.”

There’s only one character that was replaced, I think. The Jaime Lannister of the outline seems to have been replaced by Cersei in the books, and it makes much more sense. The Baratheons are briefly mentioned and we know Joffrey to be officially one. We know that Tyrion and Jaime are Lannisters and that Tyrion and Jaime are brothers. Unless Joffrey’s official father was a Lannister, Jaime would have no place in the line of succession to the throne whatsoever and this is important even when you want to use the rights of conquest. Cersei could have one, by becoming her son’s heiress in case there’s no one else left.

Also, although Sansa didn’t marry Joffrey, her wedding to Tyrion still makes her a Lannister and ties her to the enemy. Her loyalty was put to the test because of Joffrey, but her ties to the Lannisters were consolidated with Tyrion. Her arc is still in place. Her marriage wasn’t declared null so far and I don’t think it will happen anytime soon. As far as public knowledge goes, Sansa is Lady Lannister.

As for the love triangle Jon Snow x Tyrion x Arya, I don’t think it’s impossible at all. While it’s true that so far Tyrion hasn't interacted with Arya and I doubt he even remembers her face from the short time he stayed at Winterfell, the Arya he will eventually meet will be an educated young woman that had many intriguing experiences in Braavos, is very charismatic and makes friends with everyone and anyone. Tyrion, being a man profoundly affected by his physical condition would gravitate towards her. I don’t think it’s hard to imagine him falling for someone capable of seeing him as an individual as Arya is.

There’s also an argument to be made that this love triangle might have been replaced by Ramsay x Arya x Jon in some ways. After all Tyrion didn’t burn Winterfell, Ramsay did. He also married a fake Arya (Jeyne Poole) to claim Winterfell in her name, leading to a violent rivalry between Ramsay and Jon.

This plot point might have just been either altered to replace Tyrion with Ramsay, or it hasn’t happened yet.

“[The next graph is blocked out.]

But that's the second book ...

I hope you will find some editors who are as excited about all of this as I am. Feel free to share this letter with anyone who wants to know how the story will go.

All best,

George R.R. Martin”

With everything said so far we can conclude a few things:

1) The three major conflicts remain the same.

2) Ned, Cat, Robb, Viserys and Drogo’s fate didn’t change.

3) Bran still went through a coma and can’t walk anymore. He also developed magical abilities. An eventual strained relationship with Jon is still possible.

4) Tyrion and Sansa’s dubious loyalties to their families weren't removed from the books and Sansa still got tied to the enemy via marriage, although to a different character.

5) Tyrion continues to travel, to plot, and to play the game of thrones. He didn’t kill Joffrey, but was blamed for it anyway. Eventually he will make alliances with enemies of his house.

6) Jon joined the Night’s Watch and became Lord Commander. His vows are constantly challenged, especially when his family is endangered. His incapacity to help them keeps torturing him and in the books it leads to his death.

7) Jon and Arya share a strong bond, based on love, mutual trust and loyalty, and respect. This relationship remains one of the most important ones in the books. This relationship was consistently developed throughout the 5 books already published and turning it into a romantic one is still possible.

8) Jon’s true parentage is super relevant.

9) Daenerys’ arc didn’t change.

10) The love triangle Jon x Arya x Tyrion was either replaced by Jon x FArya x Ramsay, or could still happen in its original form once Tyrion and Arya have the chance to interact with each other.

This was my lengthy analysis of the original outline and why I think it’s still valid. I hope you enjoyed it.

#ASoIaF #origial outline #waterstone letter #a song of ice and fire #jon and arya #jon x arya #jon/arya #jonrya #jonarya #meta

176 notes · View notes

thegoodomensdumpster · 5 years

Text

An angel and a demon facing the greatest problem of their time: the crucial difference between Book!Omens and Miniseries!Omens

A follower who doesn’t have Tumblr sent me this AMAZING essay about the differences between the book and the series, and focuses especially on the context of the Cold War to go deep into establishing how the whole book works. It’s impressive. It’s clever. It’s enlightening and rather exhaustive. And very long, but I swear, you will not regret reading it. After this sentence, you’ll be reading OP’s work. So, I saw this post comparing the differences between book!A/C and miniseries!A/C and I just couldn’t repress myself any longer. Here it is, a short essay on how the most crucial difference between Book!Omens and Miniseries!Omens arises from the story adapting to the context in which the book was written and the miniseries has been filmed.

I’ll be using the Corgi Edition, reissued in 2019 whenever I reference the book.

An angel and a demon facing the greatest problem of their time: the crucial difference between Book!Omens and Miniseries!Omens

As it has been said many times already, there is a substantial difference between Good Omens as a book and as a series, namely, the shift in the dynamics between Aziraphale and Crowley. While their relationship is pretty much established in the book from the very beginning, in the series it becomes the main narrative focus. Series!Omens deals primarily with Aziraphale’s and Crowley’s coming out of the closet, as it were, with them daring to be themselves and freely acknowledging the profound love they feel for one another. Meanwhile, the original novel did also deal with an element of self-freeing, but the context in which the book was written made for the focus of that struggle to be slightly different. In Book!Omens the pivotal difficulty is gaining freedom from a system, from a well-defined authority. In Series!Omens, the challenge is to get rid of our internal fears, of our own demons (no pun intended) and insecurities, and dare to reach out for love and tenderness. As I would argue, I ascribe this shift to a change of the worldwide context when each work was produced. In that sense, much has been said and analysed about Series!Omens already. So, I will devote most of this essay to exploring how Book!Omens works perfectly well as a metaphor of the historical time when it was produced, that is, the Cold War.

The book was written in 1990, one year after the falling of the Berlin Wall and just one year before the collapse of the URSS. More importantly, both Pratchett and Gaiman were old enough to have a direct, fully conscious and first-hand experience of what it was like to live during the Cold War. So much so, that Good Omens can be read pretty easily as a great metaphor of it. Just in case, let me sketch the main rough ideas of what the Cold War entailed: two sides with opposite believes, both so inhumanly powerful that if to face each other directly the entire universe would be blown out in a nuclear Armageddon. So, instead of going directly to war with one another, they had areas of influence and agents dedicated to gaining supporters for their sides while trying to neutralise the other side’s agents. Sounds familiar, right?

From Heaven with love, the name’s Crowley, A. J. Crowley

The most blatant evidence to support this reading of Good Omens can be found in nearly every scene where Aziraphale and Crowley meet in a public place to discuss their guidelines, their respective courses of action and what they are going to do about it as friends. At some point during those, a reference is been made to British, Russian or American spies and agents being around them, doing exactly the same our angel and demon are doing. The first time we see Aziraphale and Crowley interacting together in the book is on PP. 44-45, in St James’s Park. Before their dialogue starts, we are told about the ducks and how they have developed a Pavlovian reaction to certain types of humans, because the park is the place where agents from both sides (capitalist and communist) meet under the pretence of feeding them. Which coincidentally is exactly the same cover Aziraphale and Crowley use. As if that was not enough, Aziraphale runs out of bread mid-conversion, and the duck that was being fed

“[…] went off to pester the Bulgarian [communist] naval attaché and a furtive-looking man in a Cambridge tie [capitalist], […]” (P.44)

Thus it is stablished that the ducks see no difference between Aziraphale and Crowley, or any other secret agents meeting clandestinely.

Something similar occurs when they meet at the British Museum to discuss that Warlock is all too normal:

“They were in the cafeteria of the British Museum, another refuge for all weary foot soldiers of the Cold War. At the table to their left two ramrod-straight Americans in suits were surreptitiously handing over a briefcase full of deniable dollars to a small dark woman in sunglasses; at the table on their right the deputy head of MI7 and the local KGB section officer argued over who got to keep the receipt for the tea and buns.” (P. 68)

This is interesting for various reasons. Before the first interaction at St James’s Park we had already been told about the Arrangement and how it was basically a non-interference deal that made both Aziraphale’s and Crowley’s life easier and gave them more free time. But now they are openly working together to raise Warlock. Notice that in this paragraph the idea of the angel and the demon being two agents from each block is again reinforced by sheer spatial proximity. But even better, as if that was not enough, the agents are once more doing exactly the same that Aziraphale and Crowley are. Thus, the Americans are handing money over a soviet agent in dark glasses, probably as payment for non-interference, or better yet collaboration. Moreover, the British MI7 agent and the soviet KGB officer are arguing about who should get the bill. Aziraphale and Crowley are also sharing their third mentioned meal, albeit without arguing about the bill. However, we already know that they eat together frequently and that just like the agents, they take turns to pay. At the end of their interaction at St James’ Park, right before heading to the Ritz, they had their own “this time bill’s on me” moment of sorts, with the famous owed lunch from Paris 1793.

To finish this first point, I would like to mention the last meeting at St James’s Park, after the Armageddon’t:

“St James’s Park was comparatively quiet. The ducks, who were experts in realpolitik as seen from the bread end, put it down to a decrease in world tension. […] The park was deserted except for a member of MI9 trying to recruit someone who, to their later mutual embarrassment, would turn out to be also a member of MI9 […]” (P. 380)

Once more, a meeting of our favourite couple is framed in the context of the Cold War. Especially remarkable here is the mention of the ducks’ realpolitik views. Roughly explained, the German term Realpolitik is deployed in political sciences to describe an incredibly pragmatic approach to diplomatic relationships. In Realpolitik actions are not guided by any ideological principles, moral or ethic premises, but rather by a calibration of what is objectively possible to achieve, given the present circumstances. Remember that that is the first day after Armagewasn’t, after the nearly end of the world due to the tension between two sides with opposite believes. Much like Aziraphale and Crowley, Adam and the Them, or any single being on Earth, so far the ducks were experts in dealing from a very pragmatic approach with the consequences (namely, bread in this case) of two sides battling with one another. The first day after the failed Armageddon, the ducks have less bread, and they correctly attribute this change to tension having gone down. But here Terry and Neil are once more mixing human and non-human agents; the ducks were not getting most of their bread from Heaven or Hell’s agents, but from the human ones.

So, it’s rather clear that throughout the entire book a very strong parallelism between Cold War agents and Aziraphale and Crowley is established. Even the running fascination with James Bond that plagues the book points towards that direction. As we are about to see, Aziraphale and Crowley fit into the two main characters to be found in a James Bond film, albeit if as a grotesque parody of them.

Soviet Heaven and Capitalist Hell

As far as I can see, this mimesis between the Cold War and the war between Heaven and Hell is further emphasised by the many little descriptions we get from each supra-human side. This second point relies more on my own interpretation, but nonetheless I am offering it since I believe there is enough ground on which to base it. The first clear representation of two directly opposite sides colliding is to be found in Aziraphale and Crowley themselves. The portrayal in the miniseries is absolutely beautiful, but adorable as it is, I think of it as paradoxically less nuanced, although extremely fitting within the narrative and dynamics the characters have. In the show, Crowley tries to look as cool as our collective image expects a bad demon to be. Aziraphale looks as sweet and warm as one would imagine an angel to do. More importantly, they are both of similar age. In the book, however, it is stressed time and again that Crowley looks young. We do not know much about Aziraphale’s age until, once recorporated, Madam Tracy confesses to have expected him to look younger (P. 353) It is therefore reasonable to infer that there seems to be an age gap between them.

Moreover, Crowley is very clearly portrayed as a yuppie (think Patrick Bateman, from American Psycho). Apart from his shades, he is dressed in a suit (“Hastur gestured, and the plastic bulb dissolved […] spilling water all over Crowley’s desk, and all over Crowley’s suit.” P. 249) He has an incredibly luxurious watch that gives the time of 20 capitals while deep-diving (P. 16). His pen […] was sleek and matt black. It looked as though it could exceed the speed limit.” (P. 20) His flat is modern and unlived, with a full office, and a modern kitchen with a fridge full of gourmet food. There is a TV, music system, a fax and two phone lines, one of them with the ansaphone (P. 241, let us not forget by the time the book was written this was peak technology) Crowley even has a computer that he updates regularly “[…] because a sleek computer was the sort of thing Crowley felt that the sor to human he tried to be would have.” (P.241) This line is extremely relevant, inasmuch as it tells us that Crowley is actively seeking to project not just a “cool” look, but the look of a certain sort of human, namely, a successful, rich, young, businessman. A yuppie, the epitome of capitalist culture.

Meanwhile, Aziraphale has a vaguely mature appearance, yet a rather defined look too. Although we donot get as detailed a description for him as we do for Crowley (who has good cheekbones and dark hair, P. 16), we get to form a picture out of certain details. He has well-manicured and fleshy hands. He wears a camel hair coat (cannot find the reference), which is an expensive garment. He has a taste for good food (he licks himself clean of Warlock’s birthday cake, P. 76; he upgrades his wine at the British Museum after stealing Crowley’s angel cake, P.70). He does not swear, which goes well with his angelic nature, but also contributes to the Southern Pansy Look, for which everybody takes him for gay. People also assume he is clever (which he is, P. 159) and British. The Britishness matches with his camel hair coat and his manicured hands (sort of gentleman-like), and contributes to giving him the appearance of somebody cultivated and polite (his books, his language), if a little bit behind times. To round the look, there is a suspicion of homosexuality on it. If you are familiarised with the history of intellectualism you will easily recognise that Aziraphale looks like the stereotypical continental intellectual: slightly old-fashioned, with a penchant for hedonism, so well-mannered and cultivated that you have to wonder: Is he gay, or European? As anybody in 4chan would tell you, what is for sure is that he is a leftist.

The connection between being educated, well-spoken, well-mannered, homosexual and a leftist is not something that the altright has come up with recently, but steams out of a rather long tradition. Even before the fascist regimes of the 30s institutionalized this connection, leftist and progressive intellectuals had already been consistently slandered with suspicion of being corruptly hedonistic and weak (because they do not work like men and instead are femininely sensitive towards art, literature, music, etc.) and homosexuality (because, well, homophobia).All in all, what I am trying to say is that even with the sparse information we have from him, Aziraphale fits perfectly into the stereotype, so prevalent in British history, of a noble-born intellectual who has turned towards progressive ideas but has not really lost his manners and refined tastes inherited from his upper-class background. As I mentioned earlier, Aziraphale and Crowley bear a caricature-like resemblance with the two main characters of every James Bond film: the effeminate, poised, intellectual Russian baddie (that would be Aziraphale, who is an angel), and the stylish, nice-car-driving, always-with-a-come-back-ready (“ngk”, P. 274) hero. Crowley even bought petrol to get the James Bond’s bullet transfer for the Bentley, which he quite fancied at that time.

That Aziraphale could be seen as the agent from Communism and Crowley the agent representing Capitalism does not only seem plausible after examining what little description we have from them, but it also befits Heaven’s and Hell’s portrayal in the book:

“Well, Hell was worse, of course, by definition. But Crowley remembered hat Heaven was like, and it had quite a few things in common with Hell. You couldn’t get a decent drink in either of them, for a start. And the boredom you got in Heaven was almost as bad as the excitement you got in Hell.” (P. 22)

In just a couple of sentences Pratchett and Gaiman tell us that Heaven and Hell are each other’s flipped coin. They are the same, because they are both the end of a spectrum: Heaven is so peaceful and calm that you will die of boredom; Hell is so restless and fast-paced that you will suffer from excitement. Aziraphale and Crowley do a fair job as representants of both sides. Book!Aziraphale is not as much soft and sweet as maturely calm, collected and paused. He literally does not keep up with the time, and in the 90s he is still stuck in the 50s, both in terms of fashion and speech. His luxuries and tastes could not be more traditional (good wine, books, classically rich clothes –tartan, camel hair coat) but he is surely going to enjoy them all the same. Instead, Crowley rushes and dashes around during the whole story. Book!Crowley is not only always driving way over the speed limit, but we are told that he is a lithe figure (P. 20), a young, flashy man living to the latest trend. His music system does not have speakers because Crowley eventually forgot about the most crucial part of any music system. He is surrounded with luxuries he does not enjoy, because he actually has them for conspicuous consumption. In fact, the only possession he cherishes is the one that truly frees him, allowing him to go around as quickly as his live requires, but comfortably (horses were not really his thing). Befitting for a demon, Crowley life is so fast-paced that he does not really have the time to enjoy its niceties, and sometimes forgets the most relevant aspect of things (putting speakers, double-checking which room he is delivering the Antichrist to). Coincidentally, for us Millennials, this may sound like a familiar description of our lives under capitalism.

To round up the parallelism between Communism!Heaven and Capitalism!Hell, I will comment on the little facts we got about both sides from the book. Unlike the miniseries, we never get to see Heaven or Hell in the book and there is hardly any description of Heaven and Hell other than the one I quoted before. That is not to say, however, that we have no information regarding them. We are told that Hell does take Crowley suggestion to use electronics to communicate, even if they got it wrong. In fact, as it has been pointed out more than once, Book!Crowley gets recognition from his achievements. At the same time, though, he is constantly reminded of the dangers of failing. Interestingly, that does not only apply to Crowley (who is just a demon) but to every single hellish entity. In the book, Hastur kills all the call-centre workers not solely out of malice, but also because he knows he has failed (has lost Crowley) and is consequently scared of reporting back:

“And anyway, he reflected, if he were going to have to face the possible wrath of the Dark Council, at least it wouldn’t be on an empty stomach.” (P. 300)

Hastur is basically that employee having a snickers bar at the common area before facing a difficult meeting. Moreover, we are told Crowley is able to trick him because “Hastur was paranoid, which was simply a sensible and well-adjusted reaction to living in Hell, where they really were all out to get you.” (P. 250) Hell is thus a place of all-against-all, where you can be doing relatively fine until one mistake gets you horribly punished. Hell is flexible and ready to incorporate change (Crowley not only suggest electronics as a channel for communicating, but also sends the computer warranty as inspiration). Lastly, Hell communicates with its employees in a direct manner, either by high-jacking whatever medium Crowley is using, or by straight up getting into his head.

What is fascinating is that the dynamics that are attributed to Hell are also shown in the book on another group of people. More specifically, the employees of Industrial Holdings (Holdings PLC partaking in their management training. Through pages 98 and 99, and through the character of Tompkins, Assistant Head (Purchasing) it is made clear how things at the Industrial Holdings are. Although theoretically their paintball exercise aims to team building, they all know that in reality it is a “all-against-all” battle. The young trainees are hungry to escalate. The old ones like Tompkins are eager to climb the Holdings ladder too, while eliminating concurrence. Their communication style is as rough and direct as Hell’s. It was simply impossible for Crowley not to understand their desires, since it could be said both the Industrial Holdings and Hell operate on the same frequency:

“Tompkins thumbed another paint pellet into the gun and muttered business mantras to himself. Do Unto Others Before They Do Unto You. Kill Or Be Killed. Either Shit Or Get Out Of The Kitchen. Survival Of The Fittest. Make My Day.” (P. 99)

Again, if it sounds too familiar altogether it is because we Millennials know a couple of things about living in Hell… or Capitalism.

On the flipped side of the coin, we got Heaven, for which precisely the lack of information is the information. Like communist regimes, in the book it is truly impossible to discern how Heaven operates and who is ultimately responsible for it. On Tumblr it has been already pointed out that Hell seems to be more efficient, since Crowley appears to be under a stricter supervision and reporting-basis than Aziraphale. Indeed, this impression is remarkable, specially once we remember that Aziraphale “[…] was a Principality, but people made jokes about that these days.” (P. 42) Although in the most purely Good Omens’ fashion this sentence is obscure enough to be interpreted as one wished (who are the people? Humans? Other angels?) it is at least clear that allegedly Aziraphale has a higher charge in Heaven than Crowley does in Hell. Yet his (nobiliary) title does not make that much of a difference in how unattended he is left.

An even greater, and factually more sinister example of how remote and inaccessible Heaven is, specially for its primary supporters (those who work for its cause), is to be found when Aziraphale tries to report his findings of concerning Adam’s whereabouts:

“Getting in touch with Heaven for two-way communications was far more difficult for Aziraphale than it is for humans, who don’t expect an answer and in nearly all cases would be rather surprised to get one.” (P. 235)

Notice how Pratchett and Gaiman mention that it is difficult for Aziraphale to get a two-way communication. The implication is that, like communist regimes, communication in Heaven only happens from the higher-ups downwards, never from the bottom “citizens” upwards. The parallelism can border on dark humour when it is said that it is easy for humans to get an answer from Heaven, even if they were not expecting one. As if Heaven, not unlike the Stalin’s URSS or North Korea, was randomly listening to conversations, and acting upon them regardless of whether that conversation was public or private.

Moreover, the adherence Aziraphale has for Heaven is as reminiscent of that expected in communist regimes, as Crowley’s acceptance of Hell parallels our own resignation with capitalism. Aziraphale ascribes his support to Heaven to his very nature. Unlike Crowley, who belongs to Hell circumstantially (he fell) Aziraphale belongs to Heaven in as literal a sense as those under communist regimes belonged to the state. Thus, he tells Crowley:

“All right. All right. I don’t like it any more than you, but I told you. I can’t disod – disoy – not do what I’m told. ‘M a’nangel.” (P. 54)

And again, when he realises that he wants to share his discovery about Adam with Crowley, but should report to Heaven instead:

“He was an angel, after all. You had to do the right thing. It was built-in- You see a wile, you thwart.” (P. 234)

It is easy to recognise in this reasoning the same course of mindless obedience indoctrinated in communist regimes: as a citizen of the state, one should behave as it is expected from them, that is, to the benefit of the state always in mind. What really matters is to never diverge from the party’s line, which Aziraphale valiantly tries to do. Meanwhile, Capitalism!Hell, it is all about maximising results, which by the way Crowley tries to achieve as well, even if Hastur and Ligur fail to see so.

Finally, the entire conversation Aziraphale holds with the Metatron further evidences how detached Heaven as an institution is from its most devoted acolytes. A quick rereading of the entire passage will prove that Aziraphale gets no clue as who is picking up the phone, so to speak. Neither does the Metatron see it fit to identify himself to Aziraphale (the angel has to explicitly ask him to do so). Even though Aziraphale’s eagerness and willingness to provide alternatives is clear in his speech, the Metatron never warms up and stays in his role of an annoyed high-ranked official who suddenly has to attend a petty man’s administrative request. Nonetheless, although it could seem that Heaven can hardly be bothered to take Aziraphale seriously, after being admonished, our angel notices that

“[t]he light faded, but did not quite vanish. They’re leaving the line open, Aziraphale thought. I’m not getting out of this one.” (P. 237)

Heaven exerts the same control over its workers as Hell does, but for those of us who have always lived in a capitalist system, Hell’s ways are recognisable, and thus look more efficient. However, Heaven has got a firm grip over its employees too. While Aziraphale was keeping a low profile (allegedly working within party’s line) he was left unbothered, even if in reality he was not being that productive. As soon as he raises his voice, even if a little, even if it is not to express disagreement but a mere alternative, they claim him back, they leave him no possibility of escaping. Most dismal of all is, Aziraphale realises so straight away and knows to have no possible way out, unlike Crowley. Similarly, notice how in the book we never know what happens once Aziraphale goes back to Heaven, nor how he manages to return to Earth and start his search for a receptive body at a convenient geographic location. Much like in the URSS, within Heaven’s walls everything is a secret.

What’s going to be left for you?

The third way in which Book!Good Omens brings to mind the Cold War is to be found in the notion of Armageddon, and in how it is avoid. Pratchett and Gaiman go as far as jokingly have the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse baffled at the fact that the end of the world will not be triggered in a traditional fashion. Instead, as the Metatron explains to Aziraphale, it will all begin “[…] a multi-nation nuclear exchange” (P. 237) I am sure the dark humour did not fly under the radar for the first readers of the book.

Although by 1990 the idea that computers, and more broadly technology, could destroy the world was already flourishing (The Matrix was just 9 years away), the real fear was for nuclear war. Again, James Bond’s movies are brought to mind. In them, the mere pressing of a red button sets into motion a technological weapon able to erase all life around. Thankfully, Sean Connery is always around, knowing exactly how to fix the mess while looking dapper. I would like to quickly point out that in keeping with the James Bond mockery, in Good Omens this job is performed by Newt Pulsifer, who Anathema notices “[…] was tall, but with a rolled-out, thin look. And while his hair was undoubtedly dark, it wasn’t any sort fashion accessory; […] It was the same with suits. The clothing hadn’t been invented that would make him look suave and sophisticated and comfortable. […] And he wasn’t handsome.” (PP. 202-203). To round up the joke, Newt is able to deactivate nuclear Armageddon precisely because he has not a clue of what he is doing.

Thus, the idea of a nuclear Armageddon was not really something that Pratchett and Gaiman came up with, but rather, like any good writers, the result of their ability to pick up the general ambience of their time and express it artistically. And in that sense, Book!Good Omens is the reallt punk tale of getting rid of not one, but two systems. Like the Western and Eastern blocks, Heaven and Hell must be stopped because both of them had become so wrapped up in their ideology, so devoted to their own glory, that they have completely forgotten about the people they both pretended to serve, and for whom they both were allegedly created. Book!Good Omens is truly the hilarious journey to return power to the people, to the collective. It is really a cry towards tolerance and acceptance, towards embracing even those who appear to be your complete opposite, because in becoming united we become unstoppable. I would argue that that is precisely the reason behind the constant mockery of the James Bond films. Book!Good Omens tells us that the world will not be saved by transferring the power from the systems to a single individual (the Hero), but by transferring it to a collective that embraces each and every of its members, because they are all valid. In this sense, one of the wisest choices that Pratchett and Gaiman made was to never get God to meddle in the story. God remains entirely unknown, since in keeping up with the Christian tradition and the Good Omens universe, his/her appearance would mark the revealing of the ultimate truth, the ultimate right (or the ineffable truth and right). But the story is not really about sorting out who is right, so God must stay out of the way.

In that regard, many book fans have complained about Greasy Johnson and the Johnsonites being omitted from the series. Out of all the wonderful details that could not make it to the final cut, I must agree that this is the one I believe to be the most detrimental, since it undermines Adam’s arch and part of the narrative. Both in the book and the series, Adam’s powers awaken with his awareness of how the world is being polluted, deforested, and shortly, destroyed. We manage to sympathise with him even in his darkest hour because all the time his intentions are good. He might be getting his means wrong (antichristing around) but his ends are commendable. We all would like to save the world too. But the entire point of Good Omens is precisely that that is what Heaven and Hell intended to do as well: “‘But after we win life will be better!’ croaked the angel.” (P. 45) Pratchett and Gaiman are being as generous as giving both capitalism (Hell) and communism (Heaven) the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they both sprang from good intentions, but the direction that the whole thing has taken is deplorable. Eventually it has all being reduced to who is going to get to administer the world, who is going to impose their view. That is why Pepper really manages to shake Adam up by asking the crucial question, the question that makes him realises how pointless his intend is: “What bit’re you going to have, Adam?” (P. 303) As Pepper realises, if you transform everything, if you change everything –even if for the good– nothing that you knew before will be left.

However, although that is what helps Adam come back to his senses, it is not what allows him to argue Heaven’s and Hell’s discourse back. Again, that is such a feather in Pratchett and Gaiman’s cap; sometimes you know what you want to do, but you are clueless at how to do it (like a certain angel and demon). Enter here the Johnsonites. Adam eventually realises that Heaven and Hell are like the Them and the Johnsonites, only that the latter pair are clever enough to acknowledge that what makes life fun is actually having a rival to wrestle with:

“I just don’t see why everyone and everything has to be burned up and everything. […] An’ not even for anything important. Jus’ to see who’s got the best gang. […] But even if you win, you can’t really beat the other side, because you don’t really want to. I mean, not for good.” (P. 356)

Just as Crowley slyly pointed out to Aziraphale at the beginning, if Heaven wins maybe life may become better, but it will not be that interesting. His point is exactly the same that Pepper makes to Adam: what is going to be left for you?

More interestingly, as the Metatron and Beelzebub try to rebuke Adam’s argument, the boy tells them:

“I don’t see what’s so triffic about creating people as people and then getting’ upset ‘cos they act like people […]” (P. 357)

And again, that is the same thing Aziraphale and Crowley have been saying all along. As many have noticed, in Book!Omens the angel and the demon are more explicitly united by their love towards humanity. Aziraphale and Crowley have come to love humanity even with all its flaws. They were meant to try and influence (change) humans and instead they have eventually accepted them as they are. Which is exactly what Adam realises in the end: it is not about trying to perfect humanity or the world, even if you intentions are the best. It is about accepting that there is no definite right or truth (God is ) and that good and evil are so tightly laced that the same politician can be in Aziraphale’s and Crowley’s list. Neither communism nor capitalism are 100% good or bad. However, they become dangerous when they try to change people, to transform the world entirely, because in doing so they annihilate the very reason for which they exerted themselves: the people.

Thanks to the Them, and the Johnsonites, and Anathema and her wacky magazines, and Mr. R. Tyler who chases them around town, Adam understands that the world needs no fixing and embraces it as it is. The generosity that such acceptance involves is what enables him to to free himself from his “nature”. Similarly, all along the story Aziraphale and Crowley knew that they had zero interest in changing the world. But both of them –and I can stress this enough, in the book it’s both of them– struggled to free themselves. Crowley, being always under direct threat, was too afraid to disobey; Aziraphale, being wrapped up in his party’s discourse, thought he was incapable of disobeying. But just as Adam Young eventually finds the generosity to repress his young and naïve impulse to change the world for the better, so do Aziraphale and Crowley. For most of the story, Crowley has been the one who knew that neither of them wanted for the world to change. Aziraphale had trouble admitting that because as I have said, he had to break some mental barriers (“I cannot possibly do that). But once he breaks them, he is the one helping Crowley overcome his fear of Hell’s punishment by using the very argument Crowley has put forward to him. As Satan is approaching, Aziraphale talks Crowley into adopting as generous a course of action as Adam has already done:

“ ‘There are humans here,’ he [Aziraphale] said.

‘Yes,’ said Crowley. ‘And me.’

‘I mean we shouldn’t let this happen to them […] we’ve got them into enough trouble as it is. You and me. Over the years. […]

‘We were only doing our jobs,’ muttered Crowley.

‘Yes. So what? Lots of people in history have only done their jobs and look at the trouble they caused.’

‘You don’t mean we should actually try to stop Him?’

‘What have you got to lose?’ (P. 363)

Just as we do not get to see or hear God (the ultimate good), in Book!Omens we do not get to see Satan either. In the Dramatis Personae at the beginning, Satan is defined as “the Adversary”. And rightly so. If God is that ineffable goodness, Satan is the ineffable badness. Hence why, once Adam is rejecting to obey his nature out of sheer generosity (goodness) Satan stars raising to scold him. It is the ultimate attempt of all evil in the world (all selfishness, all self-entitlement) to take things back to the status quo. But it is to late already. What Satan (evil) is about to face when he raises up is a compactly united world where everybody has accepted ad embraced their opposite. The Them cherish the Johnsonites; the Witch and the Witchfinder love each other; Madam Tracy and Shadwell are together. And the two agents, the angel and the demon, have just finally told each other that they are together not because the circumstance have forced them to, but because the appreciate each other.

That is exactly why I would argue that their love confession of sorts in the books is as powerful as the final Ritz scene in the series. All throughout the story, Aziraphale and Crowley have tried to tell themselves that their relationship, the Arrangement, steams out of circumstances:

“It was the sort of sensible arrangement that many isolated agents, working in awkward conditions a long way from their superiors, reach with their opposite number when they realize that they have more in common with their immediate opponents than their remote allies.” (P. 43)

“They got along. They nearly understood one another He [Aziraphale] sometimes suspected they had far more in common with one another than with their respective superiors.” (P. 234)

Hence why their open declaration right before facing the Adversary becomes so striking. As readers we have been able to recognise all along that the angel and the demon like each other, even if they do not want to admit so. But once faced with utter destruction, and ready to try to protect the humanity out of pure generosity and acceptance for humans as they are, they become free to accept each other openly as well. And they do so by acknowledging the impossible in the other. Thus, Aziraphale, the one who was wrapped up in a black&white discourse of right and wrong tells Crowley that there is good in him. Meanwhile, Crowley, the one imbued in a all-against-all system based on appearances and excitement, tells the old-fashioned and bookish angel that he is enough of a bastard to be worth liking. Try to imagine a communist saying to a capitalist that there is good in them and you will get how powerful a confession that is. Try to imagine a wolf of Wallstreet saying to a leftist intellectual that they are enough of a bastard to be cool and likeable and you will get how unlikely a confession that is.

Pratchett and Gaiman eventually come to exemplify how powerless evil is when faced with such a united world, where all are supporting one another despite their differences. Satan does not make it to the surface because it has already been defeated. In the end, in Book!Omens each and every single character relies so much so on the others that as it has been pointed out by many, there is no individual hero. It is not that Aziraphale and Crowley are useless. It is that they needed to rely on humanity as much as humanity needed for them to leave their sides. Just as Adam could not have made it without the Them and the Johnsonites, Anathema could not have been successful without Newt, and Newt would still be the outsider without Anathema. The same applies to Madam Tracy and Shadwell. And that is the whole point of Book!Omens: there is no single hero, no James Bond. Instead, Armageddon, the Adversary, the Cold War are prevented when opposites embrace each other and accept each other. Because the miniseries has been made at a different time, it is accordingly more focused on what is most missing in nowadays ultra-liberal world: love and tenderness, the brave act of allowing oneself to be soft and vulnerable, to confide in others. Paradoxically, what we lack in our current, extremely individualistic world, is the ability to accept ourselves as we are, and demand to treat others and be treated by others with tenderness. But at the time of Book!Omens, the most punk and radical act was paradoxically to abandon two incredibly well-established discourses, two solid blocks that offered equally solid definitions of good vs wrong. Instead, the bravest act was to choose to adhere no narrative, and take part for nobody but humanity itself, embracing all of it. What makes both Good Omens the same work is the struggle for freedom; what makes them different is what that freedom is. But in both Book!Omens and Series!Omens not fighting for freedom entails the same danger: eventually the most precious thing would be lost, namely, the world itself, be it humanity or the most loved being on Earth.

Accordingly, on the first day of the rest of their lives the only two agents to be found at St James’s Park turn out to be working for the same side, although neither of them realised so, to their mutual embarrassment. Aziraphale and Crowley were also on the same side all along, although they did not –or wanted not– to acknowledge so. But now that they have embraced each other, they are free. Like their human counterparts, they are no longer under the influence of Above, Below, or even the Past (as is the case of Anathema). Very much like the rest of the characters, they can look at the future freely and with their own eyes and minds. And so, a nightingale sings in Berkeley Square and an angel and a demon dine at the Ritz.

#submission #meta #text post #long post #good omens #book omens #cold war

2K notes · View notes