“As Long As You Are Proud, You Cannot Know God. A Proud Man Is Always Looking Down On Things And People;

Heart and Soul Nebulae 

Every time I watch the Good Omens trailer, when we see Crowley dancing in the trippy disco scene in the very beginning I always just think, ‘Oop, Aziraphale just took LSD and it’s making him see things.’ Why does he see Crowley dancing in a trippy disco setting? Why is he taking LSD at all? I don’t know, you’d have to ask him.

🐌🐌🐌If you receive this it means you make someone happy! Go on anonymous and send this to ten blogs who make you happy or some you feel need cheering up. If you get some back, even better. 🐌🐌🐌

Thank you so much! It’s definitely made my day and I hope what I write makes you happy too! x)

Aziraphale’s and Crowley’s discussions are interesting in Good Omens simply because their such utterly different approaches to them. Now I really enjoy Crowley’s points but right now I’m focusing on Aziraphale’s side because despite the several years he’s lived on Earth and the books upon books he’s read he falls back on one simple reason for everything that happens.

Ineffability,

And maybe that reason works sometimes. And it certainly does; it leaves just enough wriggle room, just enough doubt, that his opponent can’t definitely say that he’s wrong. After all, in Good Omens God is real even if He hasn’t been seen or heard from in a few millennia. Crowley can’t say that there isn’t a Higher Plan.

But what he does do is learn how to counter-argue the Ineffability reason.

It seems to me that at this point Aziraphale is using the Ineffable Plan as an excuse. It’s like hearing all the churchgoers out there when questioned about God’s existence or why bad things happen to good people they simply reply, ‘You have to take it by faith, that’s all.’ Take it be faith, take it for Ineffability.

Which of course leads to Crowley’s logical rebuttals. That’s the key difference, I think, when looking at their conversations. Aziraphale relies on the possibility of the Ineffable Plan, while Crowley has taken the time to learn how to perceive an argument on all sides and come up with a counter argument for everything the angel says. His reasons make sense, which only highlights how desperate Aziraphale’s Ineffable argument sounds sometimes.

Which just makes it all the more brilliant when he uses the Ineffable argument to run circles around Metatron and Beelzabub later on in the story.

Wriggle room always wins an argument. He must have learned it from Crowley.

RED SKELTON’S CELLPHONE

This right here is one of my favorite moments for the dynamic between Hardy and Ellie. Throughout the first series he’s the one teaching her the finer points of interviewing suspects, he’s the one who leads. Then things go all to hell the last couple episodes and Ellie has to be the one who leads the questions. (Her talk with Susan Wright is fantastic, and showcases exactly what sort of detective Ellie is-- hard and steely when needs be, but soft and sympathetic when that’s needed too.)

And then here we have the climax of Sandbrook, when they’ve got their suspects in custody. Hardy leads initially, as he’s done throughout so much of the series, but as soon as Ellie finds a way to crack their suspect’s armor there is no moment of hesitation, no glances aside to see if Ellie should take the lead or not. No, he simply sits back and lets her.

He has absolute faith in her abilities as a detective, and this moment right here is where he proves it.

Also that grin on Ellie’s face conveys so much, and I love it. She’s been constantly looked down upon and underestimated in her abilities as the DS and it turns out she’s the secret weapon that breaks Sandbrook’s case wide open. That grin and her sitting forward like that is a hound smelling a hare, and it’s both thrilling and terrifying to see it.

people who don't wear glasses who are writing characters who wear glasses;

they get fogged up when we drink hot beverages. they get smudged for no reason. we will push them up using anything in our area (i.e shoulder, whatever is in my hand, scrunching my nose up so they get pushed up, etc.). they get knocked off our faces all. the. fucking. time. when we change clothes we either take them off or they fall off when we pull our shirts off. we have to clean them after being in the rain. we own multiple pairs of them, not just one lone pair for our whole lives. most people don’t wear them in the pool, but some have extra old pairs for the pool (like me). some people take them off during sex, that’s fine! but some people keep them on. they don’t get squished into your face when you kiss (most of the time. at least from what i’ve experienced and i’ve got some mf big glasses). if we look down and look back up while you talk/to peek up at something, we will just peek blindly over the top of them. we clean them on whatever item of clothing is closest. some of us have prescription sunglasses and some of us wear contacts when we need to wear sunglasses. please keep some of these in mind when you write characters with glasses cause y'all who have 20/20 vision keep telling me all characters sleep in their glasses and own the same singular pair from age 6-25 and they never clean them.

Jack Sparrow is our inner bookworm

Exhibit A: When you finish a book and don’t know whether to hug it or throw it across the room. 

Exhibit B: When you spend the whole night reading a book

Exhibit C: When people ask if you can do anything other than fangirl and you say you can do this:

Exhibit D: When writers keep separating your OTP

Exhibit E: When the author is writing the next book in the series

Exhibit F: When you open the first page of the book you’ve been waiting for and you know it’s gonna kill you in the most pleasurable ways:

Exhibit G: When you see a bookstore and start “walking” toward it with your friends, family, etc running after you trying to catch you before yet again you’re lost to the land of fiction:

Exhibit H: When your favorite character dies:

And so on and on…

Donna: hang on, I’ll handle the diplomacy this time

Donna: *turns to large angry alien*

Donna: hello there you big fat bone-bag. this is My Fist, lemme introduce it to your-

Doctor: do you have any idea what diplomacy is

Throughout all of my recent research into Ulysses S Grant and William T Sherman, I realized that we were never really taught in school about the Western Theatre of the Civil War; i.e., Grant’s mostly-successful campaigning around the States of Kentucky, and Tennessee, and Missouri. It’s his and others’ victories there that later helped win the Mississippi River and cut the Confederacy in two.

But what do we learn about in Social Studies/History? Gettysburg. Fort Sumter. Bull Run/Manassas. Antietam. In other words, the Eastern Theatre of the War. And those battles were dominated by incompetent Union commanders for a large majority of them: McClellan, Burnside, Hooker, McClellan again-- men who were more likely to retreat at the very cusp of victory than jump forward and seize the day. It’s bad enough learning about the Eastern Theatre that I remember saying to my parents that with such incompetent commanders the Union deserved to lose the Civil War.

I understand that History class has only so much time to teach students, and I understand that the Civil War is too big to teach in-depth, but why do we focus so much on McClellan and Lee, Hooker and Lee, Burnside and Lee, Meade and Lee, and brush over such an important part of the War as the Western Theatre? We effectively forget about Grant and Sherman until they’ve entered the Eastern campaign, let alone all of their fellow commanders and soldiers, and their years of fighting to take back and then keep the Mississippi in Union hands.