#tldr: rhi gets on her uneducated philosophical bullshit once again | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

thesherrinfordfacility · 10 months

Note

Longwinded anon from yesterday again:) The thing about Crowley's self-contradictory narratives about his Fall, which are a warning that the viewer/reader should PROCEED WITH CAUTION, is that Gaiman writes all of them in ways that don't just diminish Crowley's responsibility, but also diminish just whom he was "hanging out" with. At the end of the day, there is nothing in canon or in Word of God *cough* to suggest that Lucifer & co. are anything other than evil according to our understanding of the term. God is also horrible--the novel and the series both take the bog-standard theological position "God's ways cannot be reduced to human concepts of good and evil" and push it to the logical conclusion--but "Lucy and the boys" are not an improvement, even though Crowley conceals that by talking about them as though they're random teenagers hanging out on the street corner getting up to random teenage mischief. (Insert my irritated rant here about the "God ships it!" trope in this fandom, which in the moral universe of the novel/series has horrific implications.) It's a revolt in which the revolutionary leaders are at best identical to the regime they're revolting against, and produce an outcome that's just as oppressive.

Crowley keeps trying to pretend that he didn't choose to do anything, but he's in a plot where free will means that it's paramount that you admit you have choices, make them, and then take responsibility for the results. Both the novel & the series explicitly come out and say this, in different ways, during the climax at the airfield. Crowley /chose/ to hang out with some terrible people, even though Crowley himself is not fundamentally terrible. He's just morally flawed like Aziraphale is (and Aziraphale's own journey in series one involves realizing that he has also /chosen/ to be with some terrible people and taking action to remedy that). But if you decide to chill out with [insert horrible political group here], then other people get to ask some hard questions and arrive at some hard conclusions about your own politico-moral beliefs. There's been a summary of the standard Vimes plot in Discworld circulating around Tumblr for a while, in which Vimes screws up, realizes that he screwed up, and decides to stop screwing up, but still has to accept the consequences of screwing up. That's also Crowley's plot, by and large, except Crowley so far has not been so great with step four.

hello Longwinded Anon✨ hope you dont mind the delay but after your first ask, and now this one, I wanted to ruminate on it all a little more in the hope i can respond with my own thoughts perhaps a little more intelligently... rather than you catching me when my feed was going beserk and also having to work in human-being world which was (as impeccable cosmic timing wills it so) also very busy - hence brain at the time being the consistency of melted chocolate icing.

for anyone else reading, the previous ask is here along with my original dumbass reply, but full response to that and this current ask are under the cut (she's lengthy, apologies in advance) (no seriously, a huge post but in my defence there is a lot to unpack from these asks)

first off, i think your reflection on how crowley was written, honestly, is exactly how he should be written, or at least is a very authentic way to write him.

i feel like some writers write characters the same way that one raises a child; the situations and dynamics you expose them to, the lessons you teach them... and what - over time - comes out are decisions, thought processes, personality traits and opinions that one is sometimes shocked by, surprised by, and even sometimes appalled by. this to me is the most truthful way you can make a character come alive off the page; they feel like theyve not just stepped fully formed out of someone's imagination, but have been nurtured into being exactly who they were always going to be, and even then may still have some growing to do.

so this is how i see crowley's character, in the abstract. he is, the same as any one of us, a product of his experiences and lessons. it doesnt matter if he only exists on paper or indeed on tv; any well written character will feel like they are a person that sometimes you will be shocked, surprised, or appalled by. you'd hope that whatever situation they come across, they make the right decisions. and that's why crowley being an arguably immoral character is so fascinating to me, and right, correct, and appropriate. i think he's written exactly how he should be written for this reason.

anyway i digress. i see your point about how possibly an overarching concept of 'political allegory', as you succinctly put it, morphed somewhat into being something way more subjective and personal, and possibly wasnt meant to be. but respectfully (genuinely welcome your thoughts here, i think i might have misinterpreted), isnt that the entire point? whatever kaleidoscope the concept of objective morality - the argument of right vs. wrong, good vs. evil - is seen through, doesnt it all boil down to how we think and act as people on the smallest of scales?

to me yes, crowley's self justification of his actions are very reminiscent of the idea of responsibility in command, in that he effectively appears to wash his hands of said responsibility when there is a higher entity to own it for him. there is validity to the nuremberg defence as a concept, but it has to be rationalised against the result - "do the ends justify the means?", as ive said before - and in many peoples lives, we literally justify our actions because we're just doing what we're told.

hardly the same scale as say the apocalypse or mass genocide, granted. but my point stands; morality to me is a fallible construct, same as anything else. why is what is evil, evil? and what is good, good? who decides that? and when is a good action necessary for the sake of evil, and an evil action necessary for the sake of good? doesnt that by definition mean that the good action becomes an evil one, and vice versa? how far does the stain spread when it makes contact?

a lot of what i do in my own job could be considered immoral on paper in actual physical words (and i wont go into further detail for risk of doxxing myself lol). but who is to decide that, when i can justify what i do because im told to do it by far more significant people than myself, and that accountability is removed from me? and also because i know that i am doing it for a good reason? things that on face value, in black and white, seem questionable, until i told you the context in which i do them?

context is key to morality. someone that gives to charity and promotes for good causes to the point of being awarded prestigious titles and rewards can be found to have essentially done it in order to commit evil atrocities. and suddenly, that evil taints the good immediately... the good even amplifies the evil of that initial action. what was initially evil is now even more evil because the conduit was something good.

context, and full, complete context, is not only key, but it is inescapably necessary when discussing morality.

this is where i come back to my interpretation of not only aziraphale and crowley, but good omens in general. the bureaucratic setting for this story's concept of good and evil trivialises this, and i think its meant to. the sterile nature of heaven/hell in GO is the perfect backdrop because i think it makes you as the reader/viewer misguidedly downplay the concept of morality, when instead as the reader you should be seeing it even more obviously than before.

yes its obviously comedic and very droll - and i love it equally for that reason; most of us have all had shitty office jobs and equally shitty bosses - but to me the main thing i take away from the sterile, efficient nature of penthouse heaven and the messy, filthy chaos of basement hell is that evil has nowhere to hide in the former, and good is practically a beacon in the latter.

crowley to me - for all the things that i love about him - is the character out of our duo that actively warps amd distorts the context. he plainly chooses to remain blind to certain aspects, because, frankly, it suits him. he completely disregards that he is in fact in charge of his actions, and that he alone is accountable for them. "but he loves the earth, wants to save it, he's threatened by hell, he's traumatised from the fall, he just wants a home", yes, that's all possibly true, and thats the context, but all of it is to his own benefit.

(i will add here that the descriptor of crowley as a "proto-Marxist with demon-class consciousness" was - well, to this house comprising of two political history enthusiasts, VERY funny)

he is, first and foremost a demon, and it's not a demons job to be altruistic, that's true. and crowley has moments of kindness yes (debatable book vs show imo), but does that justify his actions? him doing a bad thing (planning to kill a child) for a good reason (save the world) - shouldnt that, by the same logic, stain the good? in my opinion, it does. because he wants to save the earth for his own ends (which to be fair to him- absolutely understandable), but saving humanity seems to be just a byproduct. and in the same vein, just because he is under pressure and is scared, does not mean that he has any moral high ground in tempting aziraphale to kill warlock.

i still cannot fathom how anyone would try to trick their friend (crush? lover? partner?) into committing such an act. antichrist or not, killing an eleven year old boy. in the show specifically, aziraphale evidently displays discomfort with the idea, and abruptly shakes off the temptation and changes the subject. but even when aziraphale is clearly upset by the prospect, crowley pushes. and pushes. silver tongue indeed. to me, and this again would be a separate post, makes me wonder how convenient it has been all along for crowley to be friends with aziraphale. his feelings may have developed since or he may have had an initial crush, I don't know, but how much of that emerging and later established friendship went hand-in-hand with aziraphale just simply being useful to crowley?

theres no apology for the warlock temptation, and this to me is because aziraphale either doesn't realise that he did what he did, or because he's choosing to dismiss it; either option shows the huge amount of blind and arguably naive faith that aziraphale has in crowley (not going over this again, but ive touched on this here, but put it this way - aziraphale really has his faults where faith is concerned, and imo is part of why he and crowley came to verbal blows about how to handle armageddon - aziraphale has real issues with faith and pedestals). and like you intimated, anon, does crowley realise this? take advantage of this, because it suits him? yes, i think he does.

honestly congratulations to anyone who has made it this far (including you, anon), but the party isn't over yet!

so i made a post earlier about crowley's fall, and how obvious it now seems (anon may agree or disagree) that crowley's reason for falling is either complete bullshit, or was concocted by a higher power than himself. now i said jokingly in the tags that i hope its the latter because im a sucker for a It Was All For A Reason trope, the romantic that i am, but of course it may be neither, or even a bit of both. only time will tell, just have to wait and see.

but in response to your point about the difference (or there lack of) between god and the archangels, and 'lucifer and the guyyyys', it too (as i think youre getting at) demonstrates to me the differences in the respective definitions of revolution vs rebellion. a power vacuum that is replaced with an equally shit alternative is not change, progressive or inert; its just an insurrection that only succeeds to change the letterhead on the stationery.

i take it from the next bit of your ask that you consider free will to be a complete, comprehensive concept in heaven; that they are free to ask questions, to hang out with who they want etc. and i completely agree based on those examples; it must exist. but i come back to my previous point on whether (in essence) morality can truly be defined without context, and if so how this works with free will.

so, i appreciate that there must be the concept of fear in heaven if angels are discouraged (forbidden?) from questioning god, but is there any concept of punishment in heaven at this point, do you think?

my understanding is that there isn't; that falling wasnt a concept until The Fall, so what else could happen to an angel that starting exercising free will a bit too far? do you think it would follow the same bit (refrained from the word 'gimmick' here) as heaven being a corporate office; if you ask god a question she doesn't like, do you get stuck on the recycling roster? /j

the archangels are portrayed as being practically morally vacant; is that not similarly punishable? i guess what im leading to is: do you think crowley, at this point, whilst able to exercise free will, even understood the implications of hanging out with these people? would he have continued to do so if he had had the benefit of experience to know why they were a Bad Thing that he Shouldnt Get Involved With - experience of which presumably he didnt have before he fell?

obviously this doesnt invalidate the simple fact that crowley doesnt appear to have learnt from his experiences when he rises again as a demon and up until where his story is now. but if crowley is still mentally and emotionally stuck at the moment in time that he fell, stuck in that moment like a perpetually shaken snowglobe, unable to accept that that was the consequence of his actions, does that say more about his character, or more about whether his fall was justifiable in the first place? or... is that the point?

i hope you don't mind that i barely talked about aziraphale; my mental acuity has dropped significantly in the last two hours, but in any case i hope to see you in my asks again soon, anon✨

#good omens #crowley #not a shitpost but its good omens babyyyy #as may be abundantly clear from this post #i have a habit of Not Getting To The Point #and a similarly frustrating habit of talking about stuff noone asked for #but enjoy i... guess?#ask #tldr: rhi gets on her uneducated philosophical bullshit once again #personal #because of the personal reference that i may live to regret #the legend of the longwinded anon✨

19 notes · View notes