#a meal fit for a king

Over the past month, 256 artists collaborated to recreate 310 frames of Ed and Stede’s S1 kiss to express our love for this show and these characters. This is animation is the result

If you'd like to take a look at each frame, check out the project website here

Also check out the project credits here! The doc has all the artists who participated listed in frame order with their social media links and ways to donate to them

So, what makes Ed Happy?

You turn off the light, cats light up the space

on June 2nd there will be a virtual ofmd panel for Outfest with Rhys, Taika, Nathan, Vico, and Con- free to watch!

So what are people's relationships to New York City like?

the thing is that in succession capitalism and abuse are one and the same. people tend to talk about it like they’re two discrete themes but really you can’t separate one from the other. capitalism is a metaphor for abuse and abuse is a metaphor for capitalism. logan and the chase for his approval represents the deception of capitalism that if you play the game right, you can beat it. you can win. you can succeed financially and be satisfied. but the goalposts keep shifting. you cant win. you have to. logan is capitalism and capitalism is a distant abusive father. and that’s why the roy siblings can’t let go of either one

thinking about how peoples blorbos tend to be men on here (makes sense with the trends in fandom of men being prioritised etc etc) SO please reblog and tag your female blorbo(s). this is NOT the post to be like “[male character] becuz he’s a woman to me” i Will come to your house and bite you. anyway i’ll go first mine are susie and julie from dbd and carly jones from house of wax 🖤

Ed, Jim, and The Beard as Metaphor

i cant stop thinking about my own ed/jim parallels post and the way that their stories and gender experience actually soooo closely mirror each other, and how the beard is such a critical locus to understanding both these parallels and their trajectories as characters

like, to articulate in actual words what i was thinking in that original post, i think of "beard" in this show, and certainly with these two characters, as being metaphorical for responsibility, outside expectations, and, as jim puts it, a prison of one's own making

because in both cases, that's exactly what it is. despite the social pressures and familial expectations that drove them there, both "Blackbeard" as an identity and the disguise of he/him, capital M "Man" that Jim takes on as part of their path to revenge are things that they build and choose for themselves. Ed built the legend of Blackbeard to escape the dangers of home, and to fulfill the things they needed to be to survive. Jim built their masculine persona to do the same thing: get revenge and survive the fallout of getting it. The beard is, in many ways a prison, which both Jim and Ed articulate in various ways: Jim commenting directly on the physical discomfort of the fake beard, and Ed mirroring this by talking about the emotional discomfort of outside perceptions of them as Blackbeard

one of the most critical moments in the whole show to me, honestly, is when Lucius explicitly brings in queerness to our understanding of what "beard" actually means in the logic of the story. "not all beards are actual beards" both cements "beard" as a metaphor, AND acknowledges "beard" in the gay sense as part of that. a beard as a concession to what the world thinks you should be, to your own need for safety, to your fear that the people you care about won't accept you as you are. A beard is explicitly a signifier of hiding your queerness, as much as it is a signifier of Responsibility to other kinds of social expectations. This is textually true for Jim in both senses: the beard hides their nonbinary identity AND keeps them locked into their hunt for revenge

When we meet Ed, it's immediately clear that Ed is being crushed by the latter in the same way Jim was--the responsibility and expectations of being Blackbeard are boring, wearying, so oppressive in some ways that Ed would rather die than keep bearing them--with the queer implications of the term left, at first, unspoken. I think it's also important that the show textually (both literally and through the ol' "run me through" scene) tells us that Ed has sex with men, and that they're comfortable doing so. so, if the metaphorical beard of queerness isn't about sexual orientation, the way it is for Lucius, maybe, like Jim, it's more about an expression of gender that feels right and true...

as i laid out in my original post, over the course of the show (though at different moments) both Ed and Jim shed some of the traditional expectations of manhood for something more nuanced. They ditch their beards, take on new (old) names that better fit who they are now, experience love at the hands of their new family--and finally rejection at the hands of the old. Nana and Izzy function in much the same way here: making Jim/Ed's newfound acceptance of who they are seem like a bad thing. a dangerous thing. the loss of their "beards" as something shameful.

what's interesting here is that in the text of the show so far, Jim's experience of "beard" has been more explicitly aligned with gender expectations and Ed's has been more explicitly aligned with responsibility and other social expectations. but in these moments of rejection by family, they're reversed.

Nana doesn't have much of a problem using Jim's new name and pronouns--it's their rejection of their responsibility, their destiny, the expectations she has for them that drives the rejection. With Izzy and Ed, what has previously only been a subtextual conversation about gender and presentation becomes very nearly explicitly gendered. Ed insists "I'm still Blackbeard," as an assertion of their capability, their ongoing acceptance of responsibility to crew. But it's Ed's PRESENTATION that Izzy takes issue with. It's Ed's new name, Ed's softer way of being, their acceptance of a life without the "beard," both literal and metaphorical, that Izzy can't stand.

It's a textbook transphobic rejection, and it makes it difficult to read what follows as anything other than a detransition: changing back into old clothes, taking back the old name of Blackbeard/the Kraken, LITERALLY drawing back on a beard, wearing a facade of that old identity and the responsibilities of it that Ed has found so oppressive for so long.

lots of people have read this as a detransition (and lots of people have read it otherwise, which is fine), but what i haven't seen talked about almost at all is that jim has their own detransition era! we just don't tend to think about it that way because a) it's so brief, and b) they aren't transitioning back to the gender they grew up with, but the one that's synonymous with disguise and pretense

after their journey recognizing that they don't have to be a man or a woman, they don't have to wear the literal or metaphorical beard to be loved and accepted, they can take on a name that suits them as they are, not as they once were--after all this, they dress up as a man again as part of their taking back on the burden of responsibility and expectations. when they go back to Jackie's, they dress up as a priest to get close to Geraldo. it's only for one scene, but they're taking back on that male persona to fulfill their nana's expectations, rejecting their newfound comfort being nonbinary

both Ed and Jim literally dress up as men, take back up their "beards," as a response to rejection from the people who have been in their lives the longest. the difference is that, for Jim, they found someone who would speak to them frankly about what the "beard" means. about what they'd be giving up to wear it. and critically, they have the possibility of distance from the person who would force them to keep wearing it. Jackie acts as a kind of grounding force for Jim, an equal who has seen her own share of revenge and lived with her own kinds of metaphorical beards, who shows Jim that when they're being forced to choose between A and B....they can just choose C instead.

as part of Ed's healing next season, i think it's going to take a similar kind of acceptance from an equal, and almost certainly some distance from Izzy to stick. Maybe Jim could even be that person for Ed, closing the loop of their parallels, allowing Ed the space to be who they want to be, to ditch the beard in both the literal and metaphorical sense. or even to open up a Plan C, where Ed doesn't get rid of the beard entirely in either sense, but finds a happier, healthier relationship to it!

i just cant get over the fact that they had the line "not all beards are actual beards." literally spoken out loud in this show. EXPLICITLY referring to queer gender identity. and then a character named BLACKBEARD......expresses dissatisfaction with the way they're perceived and they way they're expected to move through the world.........there's so much happening here with the way gender and presentation and expectation and responsibility intersect with experiences of masculinity, and i both hope and fully believe Ed will get space to explore it next season the way Jim has gotten to in this season

we need to talk about the fact that for many of the posters in season one, they are literally on opposite sides and/or have a dividing line between them

and now they're literally crossed over in some way for the season 2 posters

THEY'RE LITERALLY ON THEIR OWN SIDE NOW, PEOPLE!

CAN WE TALK ABOUT THIS?

I want to talk about how the duel scene in episode 6 must have been so healing to Ed’s trauma. In that moment he’s clearly been taken back to when he was a kid again, this time with Izzy in the role of his father and Stede in the role of his mother, and Ed once again too scared to do anything to protect the person he loves. (I don’t think Ed is being a coward, either here or back when he was a child, but I think that’s how Ed thinks of himself.) But he also knows that last time when he finally did take action to protect his mother, it led to what was probably the most traumatic experience of his entire life. And Ed is so deep in his own trauma at the moment, those are the only two options he can see: be a coward, do nothing, and let Stede die, or intervene and relive his greatest trauma. It’s a no-win scenario.

And then here comes Stede ready to Jim Kirk this Kobayashi Maru ass situation and find us a third option. He wins the duel without Ed’s intervention, but crucially by using a skill that Ed has previously taught him. It serves as a reassurance to Ed that it’s okay if he can’t be strong all the time, if he ever needs a minute to be weak and scared; Stede will be here for him and has him covered. Simultaneously, it soothes the desire Ed has to protect this person that he cares for so deeply. Immediately after getting stabbed, Stede is turning to Ed asking if he did it right, and that question reassures Ed that Stede managed to win because of what Ed taught him, he managed to survive because of Ed. Ed has two almost contradictory needs here and Stede still somehow (and not really intentionally I don’t think) manages to thread that needle. Goddamn.

It’s just a beautiful thing y’all.

Prince-Bythewood pushed hard to have Nile’s character integral to the third act to give her more agency. “One of the things that was important to add to Nile and Andy’s characters was the fact that killing was not an easy thing for them,” says Prince-Bythewood. “It’s not something that you do and forget, which I think you see often in this genre, where you kill somebody, make a funny quip, forget about it and move on to the next set piece. It was important to me to show the reality of soldiers and what the toll of taking lives does to you.” This decision influenced in particular a scene in the final act of the film where the camera stays on Nile in real time as she ascends 15 floors in an elevator, knowing what she’s about to do in order to save her new family. “Knowing the importance, having seen the good that the Old Guard does, she understands now that they take a life to save a life.” (x)

remember when good omens (2019) came out and neil gaiman made it clear in no uncertain terms that angels and demons were inherently nonbinary, that angels and demons (and crowley in particular) can and Do have a variety of presentations that they choose for themselves, and that the story is a Love Story between two nonbinary entities fighting for their right to love each other openly in the face of religiously charged black and white thinking that’d forced them to hide and deny their love for each other at the threat of punishment.

and then instead of celebrating the openly queer, openly trans, openly fluid and neutral and non-conforming relationships and people presented by the series people were just Legitimately like “Wow, can’t believe neil won’t say that aziraphale and crowley are gay (read: Cis) men, looks like queerbaiting is alive and well 🙄“ and nobody stopped them

people have switched their understanding of queerbaiting from “intentionally implying representation that they have no intention of following through on to attract gay people’s Money but not isolate their straight audience” to “queer representation, but not the kind that I want”

I appreciate all of the people insisting that they Tried to stop them by explaining the importance of nb representation and how explicit both neil and the show/book are about their relationship (thank you for your service), but personally I meant with this gun I just found

I’ve seen a few people asking about the representation in the show itself as well as what neil’s said about it, so here’s a semi-cohesive discussion on it!

first, lets start with the claim that angels and demons are inherently nonbinary. This is something that’s been especially highlighted with the adaptation, but has been present since the original novel!

the novel was published in 1990, so the term used then is “sexless,” but it’s stated plainly that angels (and by extension demons) aren’t men or women. The implication here is that they Physically don’t present one way or the other by default, but that they can Choose to if they want to. I think it’s also worth noting that with the addition of Physicality (they’re nonbinary in the identity sense, but they also aren’t gendered at all by default) that angels and demons Also fall along the lines of intersex (which is something that I don’t see brought up often). they can Choose how their physical parts manifest, and there’s absolutely nothing that says that that choice has to be limited to cis or perisex ideas of what bodies “should” look like.

and of course, we have Many Many instances of neil confirming that this was the intention.

[Link]

and we can see this followed through on in both the casting and presentation for the angelic and demonic characters! according to neil, the casting itself completely dropped the barrier of gender, with people of any identity and presentation auditioning for the exact same roles. [Link]

as a result of that we have casting like the archangel michael, a character with a traditionally masculine name and traditionally masculine presentation played by the actress doon mackichan.

we have beelzebub, the prince of hell who’s pointedly never referred to with pronouns at all throughout the course of the show (though neil has suggested the possibility of zem using zir pronouns [Link], which would be the first time I’ve seen neopronouns in Any piece of mainstream media, which I really hope makes it into season two) who’s portrayed by anna maxwell martin.

We have pollution (not an angel or a demon but certainly related) using exclusively they/them pronouns while baring the title of king, who’s portrayed by lourdes faberes.

all of this is to say ! angels and demons are canonically nonbinary, canonically not constrained to gender or physical sex at all, and this is present in both the novel and the show and was carefully considered in both the casting and presentation of these characters. this Alone is overt and intentional queer representation. but naturally, this isn’t the main course when people talk about queer representation in good omens, so lets turn our attention towards our leads!

crowley is an obvious first start, fans of the show are likely to jump straight to nanny ashtoreth and for good reason, but I’d like to wait for a moment.

crowley, a being defined both by change and by pushing boundaries, actually shakes up his presentation quite often! though it’s more commonly in ways that aren’t as obvious to the audience, either because it’s more subtle, or because the style is so old it’s not recognizable.

for the latter, crowley was presenting femininely during the crucifixion scene ! wearing a style of robe and headdress that women wore at the time (which was confirmed as intentional by neil gaiman on twitter [Link]).

and then of course, what many people don’t realize is that crowley’s more modern looks are filled with subtle feminine touches ! This post goes into it all in more detail: [Link]

but for instance ! his iconic shades are women’s valentino glasses [Link], his pants are Mostly women’s jeans, his accessories are Very Often women’s, and his waistcoat and jacket are a women’s cut (low to accommodate breasts). Every article of clothing crowley is wearing in the picture below was designed for women, even the scarf.

he’s generally read masculinely in modern times, but the truth is that it’s a Mix of masculine And feminine.

which is where I’d like to acknowledge nanny ashtoreth. this is the point where crowley’s feminine presentation is the most overt (neither subtle Nor lost to a modern audience), but it’s also unfortunately not always taken in good faith. quite a few people have expressed concern that it’s an example of the transphobic man in a dress trope, which is a common kneejerk reaction to plot beats like this in media.

here’s the Truly important aspects of nanny ashtoreth:

1: while it’s true that crowley presents femininely while he’s posing as nanny, this is far from the Only time that he presents this way (as we’ve covered!). he wasn’t trying to “pretend” to be a woman for ill gain, he simply had to take on the role as warlock’s caretaker and chose to spend that time presenting femininely, as he’s done before and after. there was nothing about the situation that Necessitated that crowley present that way, he chose to because he Wanted to, simple as that.

2: nanny ashtoreth isn’t supposed to be funny. at least, no more than the situational comedy of a demon and an angel trying to raise the antichrist together in the hopes that their influences would cancel each other out creates. nanny is filmed neutrally, the show doesn’t call attention to or question her presentation at any point. and in fact, the script book describes crowley’s reveal as nanny as “sexy and domineering.”

which itself is Toned Down from the description the book uses for her.

good omens doesn’t want us to think that nanny ashtoreth is funny or strange or off putting, good omens wants us to think that nanny ashtoreth can get it. just like Canonically.

and notice how the book And the script book uses she/her pronouns for nanny, even when it’s in narration or description as opposed to dialogue. when crowley’s presentation changes her pronouns do too.

it’s also worth noting that neil himself has acknowledged the “man in a dress” reading of crowley as nanny and expressed Sadness at it coming across that way to anyone. this was also in the context of him agreeing with a post all about the nonbinary presentation of the characters in good omens. [Link]

which is to say ! crowley has a history of playing with gender presentation, presenting femininely and masculinely and everything in between, since the very Creation of presentation itself to modern day. he is an Overtly fluid nonbinary character, which is particularly important because that also sets him apart from other demons and angels. crowley is defined by the fact that he Does understand and Love humanity in a way that other demons simply don’t. while demons are simply Devoid of gender, crowley is intimately familiar with humans and their presentation and chooses to be All of it. he pushes boundaries for presentation by choice rather than incidentally.

and then we have aziraphale! zira is, of course, nonbinary by the very nature of him being an angel, but of course his presentation doesn’t play with gender as overtly as someone like crowley does (or even archangel michael), but I do think it’s still There.

while crowley is defined by Change, aziraphale is defined by Comfort, Routine, and Indulgence. crowley is othered from the other demons with his overt presentation, while aziraphale is othered from other angels by the things that he Likes and the ways that he Acts.

where crowley is more likely to embrace the outright feminine, aziraphale is Effeminate. he’s Soft, he’s clean, he likes his clothes Posh (even when dressing like an aristocrat got him in trouble in revolutionary france), he likes good food and dancing old slang and his library (and he of course loves his crowley). and the story doesn’t fault him for these things, it wants him to Drop the shame that heaven makes him feel for them. Drop the shame that he’s not the perfect solder represented in gabriel, uriel, or michael (drop the shame of a guardian of the eastern gate who gave his sword away to humanity because he loved them).

and on the face of it, none of these traits Have to be related to queerness in and of themselves. but good omens directly makes that connection. lets go back to that book quote from earlier, now with slightly more context.

aziraphale is interpreted as a gay man by the people around him, and he has been for a Very Long Time. and this fact is, quite literally, one of the many things that aziraphale Happily claims for himself. that he learns to wear with Pride when he lets go of the notion of having to be what an angel is “supposed” to be.

this line in particular doesn’t make it into the show, but this makes it way through in shadwell (the bigoted old man set in his ways) who reacts to aziraphale the ways you think a character like him might. when shadwell calls aziraphale a “southern pansy” aziraphale knows exactly what that means. he was alive when that slang was popular, he was alive and Knew shadwell when shadwell learned that slang in the first place.

which is why its significant, then, when aziraphale finally drops all pretenses of needing to abide by heaven’s rules, when he possesses a body so he can find crowley and stop the war that heaven wants (a feminine body, which is significant as this is the first time that aziraphale has been allowed to present overtly Femininely. which I highlight because neil himself always includes it with the instances of crowley presenting that way, making it intentional), and shadwell uses that term for him again and we get this

aziraphale affirms himself, affirms his life on earth, affirms his individuality, affirms his desire to leave heaven behind to choose earth and humanity and Crowley, by declaring that he’s The southern pansy, that he’s Queer.

and of course, this is far from the only instances of aziraphale being overtly queer, but I wanted to highlight how it’s framed by the narrative. that it’s not just there but Celebrated. that the fact that he is the way that he is, that he’s able to Embrace it and Love himself as he is, is exactly what saves humanity. that We’re supposed to love him as he is too.

but while we’re here, lets talk about the subtler details for aziraphale’s queerness.

- Soho, the area his bookshop is located, has been a historically queer area for quite literally hundreds of years, populated with gay bars and clubs, and is still a hub for queer culture in london in the present day. [Link 1, Link 2, Link 3]

- aziraphale learning how to dance isn’t just queer for the fact that it’s something that no other angels do. aziraphale learned the gavotte in a “gentlemen’s club” in the 1800s. the gavotte is a kissing dance wherein you kiss your partner, eventually working your way through the room. kissing a room full of men in a gentlemen’s club recreationally is already pretty Queer, but we have further confirmation outside of the series itself ! neil confirmed on twitter that the club aziraphale learned in was “the hundred guineas club,” which was not only a real gay club in london at the time but was one of the Most Prestigious, Expensive, and Exclusive of its time (”The” southern pansy indeed). [Link 1, Link 2, Link 3]

- aziraphale’s Impressive collection of oscar wilde books. which of course ties him to queer culture on its own, but it can also be noted that it’s rumored that oscar wilde gave his first editions to his lovers. which michael sheen (aziraphale actor) has readily played into on twitter [Link] commenting on fanart of aziraphale looking smitten surrounded by flowers Like This

- the script book gives us more context on what aziraphale (and crowley) were doing in rome thanks to a few lines that were apparently cut for time.

aziraphale was in rome in the first place to influence Nero, who (after aziraphale’s apparent Influence) would become the first emperor to marry another man (three times in fact).

now, you may be asking yourself, if aziraphale is so strongly coded like a gay man, with this fact being reinforced by both other characters (and even the narration) throughout the book and show, then why can’t he be interpreted As a gay man? well, the simple answer is that he can be, as long as we also acknowledge that he’s still nonbinary. I’m a nonbinary gay man, and the fact that I’m one of these things doesn’t erase or Diminish the other. it just comes down to Respecting both aspects of his character.

that said, he doesn’t Have to be gay or aligned for his presentation and personality and coding to be this way. there are nonbinary people who Don’t identify as gay or as masc-aligned who look and act like aziraphale. and that’s exactly Why neil insists on refusing to label him that way, just like he’s always insisted that Fans can and should interpret his work however they want. he will not say that aziraphale is a gay man because he wrote him as nonbinary, but he fully supports people reading him as an aligned nonbinary gay man (or any interpretation at all, as long as they still acknowledge that he and crowley love each other).

and all of That is to say that crowley and aziraphale (along with all of the angels and demons on the show) are Overt and Intentional queer representation Regardless of how you read their relationship (if you think it wasn’t overt enough or, bizarrely, you try to insist that crowley and aziraphale weren’t intended to be in love at all). it is, in fact, Transphobic to say that Overt Nonbinary Representation isn’t “enough,” or worse that it’s Queerbaiting. if you think they should’ve kissed on screen, if you think they should’ve said “I love you” in so many words, if you think they should’ve said with their mouths that they were dating now, you’re free to feel that way. but none of that means that good omens Doesn’t Have overt queer representation.

this was Mainly focused on the queerness in good omens in terms of gender and presentation, so I may come back and do a breakdown of Exactly how much I disagree with the notion that aziraphale and crowley aren’t overtly in love in the show (not the least because neil says says as much every opportunity he can, and both the actors playing the leads have said as much themselves), but this is long enough and I’m sick of writing it now afkjlsd

so to close this off: the next person who calls good omens “queerbait” has to personally pay for my top surgery.

I will always love the image from this article lmao. it looks like stede accidentally got on the gay sex boat and ed is like aww we can make the best of it 🤷🏽‍♂️👀

"To support feature film and television writers in our community as they stand for fair pay and protections in the workplace, recognizing that this action may result in financial hardship for writers and their families, Humanitas is distributing grocery store gift cards to current WGA writers in need.

"These will be dispersed while supplies last. Humanitas will be prioritizing writers who are early in their careers."

Please reblog, folka? Many thanks.

So, a funny thing happened on trigun twitter

(amazon link where its 50% off as of May 8th: https://www.amazon.com/This-How-You-Lose-Time/dp/1534430997/)

Update, “this is how you lose the time war” is now #21 on Amazon’s bestseller’s list

(semi-related note but I too have now ordered the book)

another update: Amal El -Mohtar wrote a small article on her blog (https://amalelmohtar.com/i-tried-to-title-this-post-for-twenty-minutes-and-failed/), one which contains the words “[…] and the upshot of it all is that corporate marketing people at Simon & Schuster now know the name Bigolas Dickolas.”

Further update!

Time war has reached #7 on the amazon bestseller’s list and is still discounted!

(thread found here: https://twitter.com/tithenai/status/1655613629604016151?s=20)

In addition:

GOOD OMENS SEASON 2 IS COMING JULY 28😍😍😍🥳🥳🥳❤❤❤

WAHOOOOOO!

ALT

don’t forget during the WGA strike that animation is not covered under the WGA deals and as a result animation has gotten the shortest possible end of the stick in under-staffing, under-paying, and generally turning the field into gig employment.

please sign the petition here for Disney to recognize animation production workers as a union and reblog this post!

girls with no car on grocery day