Something else that was important to me this year: I reread and watched #GoodOmens. I saw the posters all around Hanover just when I got more and more frustrated with "American Gods" (the series - the book is great), I remembered that I had read the book fifteen years ago without
buying it - it belonged to my then boyfriend. At the time I did not enjoy it overly, I was just busy discovering Terry Pratchett and there books I liked much better. And, being honest, the book is not without its flaws, but when I bought it just after the seminar on Kant's
philosophy of history had ended (it was always from 8 to 10 am), sitting down in some cafe, I got hooked immediately while I listened to Crowley's thoughts about the origin of Good and Evil (the human heart) or about free will, which he and Aziraphale being a demon and an angel,
don't have, but after 6000 years of living among humans they have leant a few things. Most of all after having discussed the story about the "Depositum" twice a year for several years and having learnt that angels follow the law of morality just as a stone follows the law of
gravity it was fun to read how Aziraphale does not send back the book to Anathema. - Well, I guess it appears as some of the jokes I sometimes find in tweets from the philosophy bubble - only understandable to fellow philosophers, but all in all a bit flat. It's what you need
a couple of hours of serious thinking when you fear your head will explode. However, it got a bit more serious. Discussing philosophy of history also meant discussion the question whether history takes a certain direction or has a certain aim. I am sceptical of this idea as it is
incompatible with the idea of free will, and reading "Good Omens" helped me gain firm ground again. It's not very sophisticated and not the summit of philosophy, it's rather quite a simple argument, but the argument being simple does not mean it's wrong. So, all in all, "Good
Omens" was just the book I needed at the time, even though it may not be the best book every written, not even the best book by Terry Pratchett. In fact in some of his later books you can see how in "Good Omens" he was practising and later found perfection. For example I reread
the Johnny-Maxwell-series, and the children there are more interesting and wiser than Adam and his friends, but it retains some of the qualities of the Good-Omens-children, namely that you have modern children who play modern games with plastic toys and computers. I tried to find
out whether Agnes Nutter was invented before or after the Discworld-witches, but I am not certain. I think that "Equal Rites" is older than "Good Omens". I also reread "Small Gods" because there we have a similar combination: one character with some common-sense-morality
(understanding that Vorbis is evil) without being selfless, also with knowing about people and the world, often quite sarcastic - the other character idealistic, first naive and obedient, because he was taught so, later he understands that he was obedient to the worng people and
shakes off obedience, but remains absolutely loyal to his own sense of morality, which may include selflessness, and he will force his partner to follow him. - It is easy to underestimate Brutha or Aziraphale, because Om or Crowley are much cooler and also less naive and more
knowledgeable, but "Small Gods" ends with a complete victory of Brutha, with Om, who always was a selfish God longing for power and belief, having to act in a moral way and having to care for people. Also, it's easy to miss that in the book Aziraphale remains active, decoding
the messages of Agnes Nutter's book, trying to persuade Heaven not to destroy the world, looking for someone he may possess while Crowley disappears completely from the book for 150 pages (in my edition), waiting helplessly for the Apocalypse, only reentering the story after
Ligur and Hastur force him to do so. - Well, that was the book. Now the series. I enjoyed it just as much as the book. In some aspects the book is better, in other aspects the series is better. Most importantly Michael Sheen's performance made me like Aziraphale. When I first
read the book I did not like him. At the time I still occasionally bought books from used-books-bookshops, and normally they were paperpacks from some cardboard box outside the shop itself. When I entered the bookshop itself in order to pay for the book I would take a look at the
first editions and other valuable old books inside, and the shopkeeper would look at me in a way that said clearly: These books aren't for you - you don't belong here. So I did not particularly like Aziraphale. But I like him very much as he is portrayed by Michael Sheen in the
series, warm-hearted, a bit complicated, old fashioned, a lover of good food. Also I think it was a good idea to cut the "other horsemen", also known as Hell's Angels. I regret the loss of Jamie, but in the end I think it was necessary. I regret the loss of Marvin, but I don't
regret the loss of of the guys from Australia and Jamaica, and it was not possible to keep Marvin and give up those two. I don't regret the encounter between Aziraphale, Madame Tracy, Sergeant Shadwell and Mr. Tyler, on the contrary, I think that the encounter between Crowley and
Mr. Tyler should have been cut as well. All those scenes add "fat" to the story, slowing it down at a point when it should hurry towards the showdown. I also like the scenes between Aziraphale and his fellow angels, or rather his superiors in heaven, just as well as the extra
scenes in hell, though the scenes in hell are not that much of a change: you can find them in the book as well, while in the book there's almost no mention of other angels besides Aziraphale: at one point, Gabriel is mentioned, and there's the metatron of course, but that's it:
no Michael, Uriel or Sandalphon. Dagon, Beelzebub, Ligur and Hastur also appear in the book, the only additions are Usher and the disposable demon. Then in the series we see much more clearly that Crowley and Aziraphale don't have an idea what to do about the Antichrist once they
have found him. Killing him or eliminating him is not a solution. In the series both Sergeant Shadwell and Madame Tracy prevent Aziraphale from killing Adam, and that's a good thing. Which gets me to the fanfiction: The series contains a couple of scenes between Aziraphale and
Crowley that cannot be found in the book. I have now heard and watched the DVD with audiocomment, and episodes 1,3 and 6 are done by the showrunners, Neil Gaiman and someone else. Neil Gaiman explains why he added those scenes in episode 3: he had discovered that if he divides
the book into six parts of equal lengths, Aziraphale and Crowley won't be seen in episode 3. Well, Aziraphale would be busy decoding Agnes Nutter's prophecies, but Crowley would not be there. If you read the book closely you might see that: on Thursday and Friday they vanish from
the story, and it's only on Saturday that we see them again. As a reader, my naive assumption was that maybe Aziraphale and Crowley are not the lead characters but that Adam and his friends are, or maybe Anathema and Newt. But Aziraphale and Crowley are by far the most
fascinating characters, also, being older, their acting is much better than that of Anathema or Newt or the kids of course, so they cannot vanish, and so, because there is not enough Aziraphale and Crowley to satify us, we get some fanfiction, and as with all fanfiction, it's a
love story. We see their relationship developing in the course of six millenia, we learn when Aziraphale falls in love with Crowley (according to Michael Sheen) which is in the scene when Crowley saves not only himself from some evil Nazi spys, but also his books from being
destroyed in some air raid. We see the last scene of that back story, Aziraphale declaring that Crowley is going too fast, which I first took as referring to Crowley's driving style, and only later I understood that it is a sentence a shy and caustious and somewhat prudish girl
might say to the guy who's courting her. Even after six thousand years Aziraphale has not made up his mind about Crowley, but well, with those parents, no, superiors, it's understandable: their relationship means that they are betraying their respective sides, and Aziraphale is
not ready yet, he still hopes that he can persuade heaven not to destroy the Earth, meaning he might remain loyal to heaven. One of the best additions to the story I forgot to mention: Aziraphale declaring that he won't fight in any war. Then there's the breakup at the end of
episode 3, and this too is one of the most beautiful of the series. Neil Gaiman explains it's the breakup of the love story which is necessary so that they can get together again. When I first saw it I was shocked: Aziraphale betraying his friend. Later I understood that it was
more complicated: they break up because of a number of unresolved conflicts, mainly that they don't know what to do about the Antichrist. Neither of them wants to kill him, neither of them has any other idea. Crowley suggests to find some other planet, but Aziraphale refuses. All
in all Crowley comes across wiser and more realistic, but I am not certain whether refusing to run off is a point where Aziraphale is wiser: he is not yet ready to abandon the Earth, and he will not abandon it at any point of the story: rather he will try to pursuade Shadwell to
kill the Antichrist, and in the end he is ready to do it himself. So growing up for Aziraphale does not only mean to break loyalty with heaven but also to give up his rigid moral standards and do something that's evil - killing a child - in order to save the world - it's only
Shadwell and Madame Tracy who are not ready to give up their moral standards; they won't kill a child. It turns out they are correct, but I guess that giving up his rigid standards means maturity for Aziraphale. (It's not only about killing Adam but also about sending away the
guardian at the entrance of the air base.) Returning to the fanfiction in episode 3: I love the way David Tennant moves, but I also love how Michael Sheen smiles for the fraction of a second when he realizes that Crowley likes him and then controls himself again and gets serious.
It happens a couple of times, the most important one is when Crowley suggests that they might run off together. Another one is when Crowley offers him to stay at his place. I love the sadness in his face when Crowley leaves for real, I love the happiness when Crowley says: I lost
my best friend. (He knows that Crowley is referring to him, and when he says "I am sorry" he does not sound sorry at all.) So that's the breakup, and meeting again after Aziraphale has declared that he won't fight in any war the get together again, only that Aziraphale does not
have a body. - The second half of episode 6 means the conclusion of the love story. Both are ready to face heaven or hell, but well, the rest is very spoilerish, so it will go into a new tweet.
They know that none of them can survive the punishment heaven or hell have planned for them, but they can survive the punishment that's planned for the other one, so they change their appearance: Crowley looks like Aziraphale and faces his superiors in heaven, Aziraphale looks
like Crowley and faces his superiors in hell. Neil Gaiman explains that neither of them gets the other's behaviour exactly right: Crowley as Aziraphale is much calmer and much more heroic than the real Aziraphale when he has to talk to Gabriel or Michael, he does not beg and he
does not say "erm" so often. Aziraphale as Crowley is cooler, more flippant, more insouciant. Well, they are in love and have idealized visions of each other. - The last scene in the series belongs to the two of them, while in book the last scene is about Adam, and this shows
well the change from book to the series. The book begins with Crowley and Aziraphale, but their scenes seem more like a prelude before the humans take over. In the book, Adam's speech during his confrontation with Beelzebub and Gabrial/Metatron is much longer, and it's him, not
Aziraphale's and Crowley's interventions who gains victory over the representatives of heaven and hell. He explains to them that there is nothing written that cannot be crossed out and rewritten, not when it's about humans, so there cannot be a great or ineffable plan. - I guess
that such a speech would have been too long for a child to deliver well. Also, the hidden centre of the story cut down compared to the book: Adam and his friends realizing that you cannot play with people as if they were action figures that can be put back into their box once you
are tired of them, and that you must not change a real place like Tadfield with real people, and Adam realizes that controlling his friends changes them into something else, puppets, but not friends. In the series it's more about being liked by his friends, while in the book it's
about respecting people as people, that is, not turning them into things, that is, acknowledging that they are free. Compared to this, the series is somewhat banal, on the other hand given that most the change is simply about ideas, and not quite clear ideas in the bargain, I
understand that this was difficult in an adaptation. The result, however, is that the book's protagonist is Adam, growing up, understanding that when it comes to real life, he must renounce his imagination and let people save the world and find ways to deal with war, famine and
pollution, while the series' protagonist is Aziraphale, also growing up, learning not to obey but to judge for himself and to act according to his judgement, and in the end to follow his heart and open up to the demon he truly loves. - Also, the confrontation with Satan is a bit
banalised compared to the book, though in the book it's not done well either. Actually it's barely understandable in the book if you don't take it as some kind of exercise: practising for the confrontation between Tiffany Aching and the Fairy Queen. It's Adam, or, later, Tiffany
realizing or remembering who they are, and then they cannot be defeated. - So in some way this is why "Good Omens" was so important to me this summer in spite of its flaws: it helped me remember who I am and what my convictions are.
