I made a website with every Neil Gaiman's book recommendations. Help me with recommendations not in the website yet?

https://www.bookselects.com/person/neil-gaiman

I have mixed feelings about the Good Omens Season 3 news. I want all SA victims to heal. I want Neil to get the help he needs. I want all of the cast, crew, and other affiliated people that have worked on Good Omens to heal from any wounds inflicted by this situation. I want the fandom to heal.

I also really want the full third season of Good Omens to be realized. I will take the “movie” if that is all on offer.

What also concerns me – and I am aware this is a “shallow” concern compared to the big issues facing the fandom – is that this 90-minute episode will be rushed. That it will not be promoted. That there will not be behind the scenes footage or merchandise. That there will be no joy in the project. The actors will be subdued and give short, attorney approved answers about the project if they speak of the project at all.

That this will just be a truncated consolation prize for the loyal fans of Sir Terry. That all the things about Good Omens that were healing for me will be perverted by not just Neil’s actions, but Amazon’s unnecessary over compensatory decisions.

All in all, I feel like this could be handled better by the network. But I am also grateful to the network for capitulating and giving us an ending, even if that means less of all the things that made me love these characters and this story so much.

How does everyone feel? Do you think that the disappointment will end with the loss of 4 and a half hours of story or do you think the entire project will be subdued and under-promoted? How will this affect the availability and promotion of the series going forward? How will this affect the convention scene? How will this affect the actor's willingness to engage with the fandom?

And lastly, do we all agree that this is probably the end of media for Good Omens? I cannot see any future projects or remakes after this.

I want to start by saying that I am a big Crowley/Aziraphale shipper. I've been one since the early 2000s, back when we were a small but enthusiastic group on LiveJournal. My AO3 is filled with Crowley/Aziraphale stories, and I dabble in fanfiction writing myself.

That being said, what I really loved about the Good Omens book when I first read it was the humanist element that Pratchett brought to it. A lot of stories that satirise religion can be quite cynical or slip into an easy “people are sheeple” storyline. What made Good Omens so outstanding was how it criticised moral absolutism and fatalism by holding it up to a mirror of human agency, imagination, and compassion. So much of this perspective is quintessentially Pratchett’s humanist outlook.

By making Crowley & Aziraphale the central characters in the show, I felt Gaiman diminished a lot of the book's humanist elements and thus Pratchett’s unique perspective. I have absolutely no issue with Crowley/Aziraphale being made overtly canon—like many of you, I absolutely love seeing Sheen and Tennant on screen. But I’ve always felt frustrated by how Gaiman choice to develop Heaven and Hell's role in the conflict came at the cost of focusing on humanity. Does any Gaiman/Good Omens/AziCrow Shipper/Pratchett fan feel this way?

What I loved about the book is that Crowley and Aziraphale morally complexity and defiance of their sides came from human beings. Their relationship was this slown burn from going native on Earth, where their experience with humans was the key to them finding common ground.

Aziraphale felt the occasional pang of guilt about this, Centuries of association with humanity was having the same effect on [Aziraphale] as it was on Crowley, except in the other direction.”

"On the whole, neither he nor Crowley would have chosen each other's company, but...you grew accustomed to the only other face that had been around more or less consistently for six millennia.”

It's the human characters who drive the plot in the books, while Crowley and Aziraphale’s interventions have little impact on the overall story. If you removed them, the apocalypse would still be averted. It’s Sister Mary Loquacious who mixes up the babies. It’s Anathema who gives Adam magazines about injustice and climate change. It’s Adam’s love for Earth and his compassion for others that make him so angry that he nearly becomes the Antichrist. It’s the Them’s belief in something better that defeats War, Famine, and Pollution. And it’s Newt’s flaw—his tendency to short-circuit technology—that averts a nuclear apocalypse.

This is purposefully plotted out to give weight to human agency. All of this culminates in the climax, where Adam rejects his role as the Antichrist:

"I don't see what's so triflic about creating people as people and then getting upset 'cos they act like people," said Adam severely. "Anyway, if you stopped telling people it's all sorted out after they're dead, they might try sorting it all out while they're alive. If I was in charge, I'd try making people live a lot longer, like ole Methuselah. It'd be a lot more interesting, and they might start thinking about the sort of things they’re doing to the environment and ecology, because they’d still be around in a hundred years' time."

"Ah," said Beelzebub, and he actually began to smile. "You wizzsh to rule the world. That'z more like thy Fath—"

"I thought about all that, an' I don't want to," said Adam, half-turning and nodding encouragingly at the Them. "I mean, there's some stuff could do with alterin', but then I expect people’d keep comin' up to me and gettin' me to sort out everything the whole time... It's like having to tidy up people's bedrooms for them.

"Anyway," said Adam, "it's bad enough having to think of things for Pepper and Wensley and Brian to do all the time so they don't get bored, so I don't want any more world than I've got. Thank you all the same."

The Metatron’s face began to take on the look familiar to all those subjected to Adam’s idiosyncratic line of reasoning. "You can't refuse to be who you are. Your birth and destiny are part of the Great Plan. Things have to happen like this. All the choices have been made!"

"Rebellion izz a fine thing," said Beelzebub, "but some thingz are beyond rebellion. You muzzt understand!"

"I'm not rebelling against anything," said Adam in a reasonable tone of voice. "I'm pointin' out things. Seems to me you can't blame people for pointin' out things... If you stop messin' them about, they might start thinkin' properly an' they might stop messin' the world around. I'm not sayin' they would," he added conscientiously, "but they might."

This emphasises the humanist idea that moral responsibility rests on our shoulders, not a higher power or divine intervention. Our choices drive our capacity to learn, grow, and decide between good and evil. This is what defines our humanity. If you've read Pratchett’s Discworld, this theme appears time and time again.

In the TV show, Gaiman’s focus on Crowley/Aziraphale comes at the cost of significant character moments for the humans. The Them’s role is significantly reduced. Adam’s defiance of becoming the Antichrist and challenging Lucifer is overshadowed by an added change thy faces storyline. In the book’s final confrontation, Aziraphale is inspired by Adam’s words and finds the courage to defy Heaven. But in the TV show, Aziraphale begs Crowley to “do something” or he’ll never speak to him again when Lucifer arrives. Although it’s a fun line for us shippers, it takes away from Aziraphale's connection to humanity once again. By Season 2, the human characters are so underdeveloped that Maggie and Nina don’t even receive original names; they’re simply named after the actors and cardboard parallels to Crowley/Aziraphale.

I completely understand that Sheen and Tennant are outstanding actors with a lot of chemistry that’s fun to watch on screen. Even so, some of Gaiman’s choices in his original scripts take away from the balanced elements of their dynamic that I loved in the books. In the book, Aziraphale challenges Crowley just as much as Crowley challenges Aziraphale.

"There are humans here," Aziraphale said.

"Yes," said Crowley. "And me."

"I mean we shouldn't let this happen to them."

"Well, what—" Crowley began, and stopped.

"I mean, when you think about it, 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.”

The balance struck is to give neither Heaven nor Hell the moral high ground. Because we do not hear from God, we don't know if she's malevolent or kind, if she's planned this all out, or had her plans defied or is completely absent. The point is asking this is like asking How Many Angels Can Dance on the Head of a Pin? It doesn't matter. What matters is what we choose to do now - so let's just eat lunch.

"Metaphorically, I mean. I mean, why do that if you really don't want them to eat it, eh? I mean, maybe you just want to see how it all turns out. Maybe it's all part of a great big ineffable plan. All of it. You, me, him, everything. Some great big test to see if what you've built all works properly, eh? You start thinking: it can't be a great cosmic game of chess, it has to be just very complicated Solitaire. And don't bother to answer. If we could understand, we wouldn't be us. Because it's all—all—"

INEFFABLE, said the figure feeding the ducks.

"Yeah. Right. Thanks."

They watched the tall stranger carefully dispose of the empty bag in a litter bin, and stalk away across the grass. Then Crowley shook his head.

"What was I saying?" he said.

"Don't know," said Aziraphale. "Nothing very important, I think."

Crowley nodded gloomily. "Let me tempt you to some lunch," he hissed.

Meanwhile, in the TV show, Crowley challenges Aziraphale constantly about Heaven. By Season 2, the show further escalates this dynamic where in the Jobe and Wee Morag minisode. While these criticisms aren’t unfounded, they've been said before. I feel like Pratchett’s approach to these minisodes would have placed human beings as the primary agents, for better or worse, with Crowley and Aziraphale bickering over their role and responsibilities.

Don’t get me wrong—there’s so much I like about the TV show and how its brought so many new fans to a very beloved story. I understand that books and TV shows are very different beasts. I also am of the opinion that Gaiman isn't a very good screenwriter compared to penning a book/comic.

I guess what I’m trying to say, as many of us reassess Neil Gaiman’s works in light of his sexual assault allegations, I've realised that so much of what I loved about Good Omens—and Crowley/Aziraphale—came from Pratchett. Much of the substance, philosophical underpinnings and nuance was his really unique, absurd and joyful perspective.

And I miss him so much.

Firstly; Be kind to yourself. It’s perfectly normal (reasonable even) to feel a mixture of anger, disgust and betrayal when this type stuff comes to light. But never, ever resort to berating yourself for not having known sooner. Your relationship with the guy was parasocial first and foremost so there’s no way you could have known what he was hiding behind the scenes.

Reserve the anger and shame for the abusers who’ve done harm. The best thing we can do at the present is show kindness and empathy towards the victims.

Secondly; if Neil’s work some way inspired you to write or inspired your love of fiction, remember that your love of writing and your love of fiction is yours. Not Neil’s. Not anybody else. Yours

EDIT2- It's come to my attention through other replies on this post, that when I wrote the original post, I was not as fully informed as I should have been, and my views on the accusations were therefore somewhat skewed by this. If my post seemed blasé or reductive in any way to the very real suffering and hurt caused, that was not my intention. But still, it was, in retrospect, wrong of me to post as I did, while being not entirely informed, and for that, I apologise.

For now, I'll leave this post up, as in general, I think it's generated some important and interesting discussion about the nature of the entertainment workplace in general, and the issues therein.

EDIT Thank you so much for such amazing and thought provoking replies. I will get round to replying to all of them, I promise, and I want to give them the attention they deserve in a reply made with a clearer head than right now. But for now, sleep beckons... ❤️

TW SA discussion

I've been reading up on the allegations, and trying to glean the common threads, and even found myself feeling almost defensive about Gaiman and the situations that were allegedly consensual. I've always felt, in general, that absolute judgement should wait until actual judgement is passed, however equally I wouldn't condone the harmful actions he's done, and especially without genuine remorse on his part.

It then occurred to me part of the reason why I might feel like this. Why am I not quite as vehemently up in arms about it, as I see so many others? I feel I should be, and yet.. I'm just not. If anything, I almost feel like this was inevitable. Why is that? So I got to thinking...

Without doxxing myself, or the people in question, I've worked in various facets of the entertainment industries, where consent is seen as a malleable concept. That's not to say that behind every dressing room door, rap3 is occurring. But I've certainly been on the receiving end of unwanted attentions that I brushed off as banter, and a bystander to situations that were watered down by everyone involved in their significance.

Sidenote: This is also particularly prevalent within the gay community within these industries, possibly even worse than the hetero side of things, especially when it comes to authority figures. It's almost seen like it "doesn't count" because the people involved are gay, and the industries have historically been almost "built by the gays" so like, the culture just... doesn't take it seriously - as if it's part of the fabric. It sounds horrific written out, and it is, but that's how it is.

In those industries, sexual banter and the concept of consent, what counts as "unwanted attention" has always been a problem. Actions that would see you hauled before HR in other industries, are still laughed off as "part of the culture". If you complained, you were making a fuss, a "prude", someone who couldn't take a joke.

In my time, I've worked with some notable people; a couple in particular who stick out in memory, and, from the beginning, I learned quickly to keep my mouth shut about what went on when I was alone with them - to brush it off as banter. Primarily this was because I was new to the industry and didn't want to jeapordise the job I'd worked tooth and nail to achieve, by "making a fuss".

For the record, I was never "fully" sexually assaulted. But I often found myself in situations that were unexpected, uncomfortable, and quietly humiliating/objectifying. For the most part, these occurred when I was alone with these people, though there were occurrences that happened in public too.

Unexpected/unwanted nudity was common, as were explicit language, touching, sexual pranks etc. (Worth pointing out that dealing professionally with nudity was often part of my job, but that's entirely different to someone taking advantage of that to expose themselves to you alone.)

But, somehow, you just learn to smile along with it, avert your eyes, make a joke of it, and hope it stops soon so you can just do your job.

Had I complained, it probably would have been taken seriously, because it has to be. But it would fundamentally have affected how I was viewed by my colleagues, and life probably would have been made more difficult for me.

The people in question acted in such a way because it was permitted, condoned, blind eyes turned.

Ironically, one of the "worst" perpetrators of such actions, was actually someone I got on well with otherwise, when he wasn't behaving in such a manner.

Despite the unwanted banter, he wasn't fundamentally an awful person, and he actually was there for me on some genuinely terrible personal occasions, when no one else was bothered. Does that excuse his other actions? No. Does it make him flawed and human? Yes... I think so anyway. He also apologised unreservedly for one particularly uncomfortable instance, and that meant a LOT, especially since no one forced him to apologise- only he and I knew what had happened, so I view his remorse with gratitude.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this as regards Gaiman. Perhaps my knowledge of the industry, how it works, and how it affects those within it, clouds my judgement. For the record, I absolutely believe women when they say they were assaulted, but controversially perhaps, I also can believe Gaiman when he says he believes the occasions were consensual.

There were so many times I could have spoken out about what I'd heard, what had happened to me, and I just didn't. I never thought it was important enough, and having it drilled into you that this is just "how this industry is"... you quickly learn to keep your head down and accept it.

Did Gaiman think he got a free pass because of the industries he operated within? Potentially. Is that an excuse? No. But it is a potential explanation, amongst others. Point is that it wouldn't surprise me whatsoever if that was at least part of it.

I think I say that because I know some really good people in the industry, who have made really bad decisions and actions along the way, because of the culture. Some would say I'm seeing the situation through rose tinted glasses. Perhaps I am. I honestly don't know at this point.

To conclude, there really is a lot that is good and amazing about the entertainment industries, but there is still a lot that is rotten to the highest levels, influencing everyone below in insidious ways, and whenever I hear about situations like Gaiman's, I'm forcibly reminded of everything I've seen, and been on the receiving end of in the past.

Do I regret not speaking up? Kind of. Sometimes it does make me feel like a coward, and I wish I could go back and change that. But I am also much older, wiser and take far less shit than I did back then.

Technically I could still speak out, name names, and who knows, maybe others would then come forward. That one does sometimes keep me awake from a moral standpoint. But equally, that industry really isn't so clean cut as "he's a nasty predator, and he isn't", that's the worst thing about the whole thing, I think. Trying to judge what really is worth reporting, based on the values outside of the industry, well... you could shut down Broadway and Hollywood tomorrow.

Hi I was still new to Neil Gaiman's works when the allegations came out. I was in the middle of reading The Sandman and American Gods and will probably finish those, but I was hoping to read more, however, I can't given the allegations. I know I should separate art from the artist and yada and I can just get the books from the library since the money already went to Neil anyway, but the disgust is still there and it will be a while until that won't be the only thing I can think when reading his books. In the meantime what are some authors I can read that have similar a styles/ write about similar themes?

Hello all, like many others, I’ve been feeling disappointed and disgusted about the Neil situation. Due to the recent news about Good Omens S3 being a 90 minute movie rather than a 6 episode series, a lot of these feelings have been bubbling to the surface in the past few hours. I hope that here is a reasonable place to unpack some of them.

The things Neil is alleged to have done are horrific. I won’t detail the allegations , I will just say that I believe them to be true. And so, when these allegations were made public I think a lot of people felt conflicted. As always in the case of a scandal, some stated they always knew; that they had seen the signs others had missed. In some cases like Gaiman’s there are signs before the story breaks (creepy behaviour, misogyny etc), but as far as I can tell there were very few signs with Gaiman. In retrospect, there is a clear pattern of subtle narcissistic actions, but other than that almost nothing. In fact, many people, including myself, had regarded him as ‘safe’. And that’s what makes this whole thing so terrifying.

Gaiman seemed safe, friendly, non threatening. He labelled himself a feminist and an ally, and some of his work, such as Good Omens, contained representation of well written LGBT characters which is so valuable and rare. He was friendly, like a jolly para-social uncle who had discovered tumblr. No one thought he would be capable of those things. No one saw it coming.

Additionally, one of the mains things that makes these allegations feel shocking is just how iconic a lot of Gaiman’s work is. Although Coroline is probably his most famous work, Good Omens, Sandman, and American gods are all well known. This is because he is a good writer. His stories are so beautiful and the world he creates are so rich. So many devoted communities have formed around his works and they have inspired so many people. I remember watching coroline for the first time when I was seven years old. I had nightmares for days afterwards, but the story stuck with me because it felt like he had somehow written me into the story as coroline. It’s stuck with me since then, popping up here and there throughout my life. Then, earlier this year, I decided to watch (and later read) Good Omens, unaware that it was by the same author. I can’t stress enough the impact this story had on me. And that is what’s so beautiful about Gaiman’s work - the vibrancy of the world, the delicate complexities of the stories. It was him who came up with the gorgeous media we love. How can someone who creates such beautiful works of art be capable of such horrific acts?

I don’t know. This whole situation is disturbing to me, and I don’t know how to feel going forward. Wishing all of you the best dealing with this. It’s really difficult, but we are here for each other.

Where are his co-worker/other professional defenders? It's a wall of silence. I'd love to hear from any of them.

I know so many people have already commented on this, but I just needed to write my thoughts out. When I heard the allegations against Neil, I was crushed. I've been such a huge fan of his for years, and I've had a few of his books still on my tbr list. He seemed like such a genuine guy and wrote so beautifully. To see this side of him felt like a betrayal.

When I thought about it, I was reminded of a quote I'd heard. I can't remember where I saw it or who it was in reference to, but it had to do with learning more biographical information on am author to know what they're like. The person had said that, if you truly want to know an author, then read their works. Biography can only tell you so much, but their writing reveals what's inside them. Their own thoughts and feeling are there for us on the page, giving deeper insight than we could probably ever find elsewhere.

I think many people have now gone so far in their disappointment with Gaiman that they've become fixated on only his worst acts, as if everything that came before was from somebody else. Those books ARE Neil Gaiman, at least a large part of him. No matter how angry I am at him for his hypocrisy and abusive actions, I still remember that he has all of those beautiful stories within him.

That's what makes this situation so difficult. We know he has some amazing qualities and beauty within him, so it's tough to reconcile that with the recent information that's come to light. If we deny those positive qualities, I think we'd be deluding ourselves as much as people who deny his flaws. Gaiman comes off as a complicated man who disappoints me and who I'd no longer like to see again (at least until he admits guilt and tries to undergo serious efforts at self-improvement and restitution for the women he traumatized) but I can't see myself ever giving up my love of his works. He is both his best and worst aspects. Neither represents the full picture.

I understand that for some people, the hurt is too much to remain a fan, and that makes sense. For me, I'll keep reading his books, listening to his audiobooks, and watching the shows based on his works, and nobody should feel guilty for loving his writing. Anyway, that's just how I look at it. What do you think?

I just got a copy (my third) of Peter S. Beagle's A Fine And Private Place, because it has a short intro by Neil Gaiman.

If you've not read A Fine and Private Place yet, please do so. Mr. Gaiman writes about finding this book which still young (YA and teen), and finding other books by Beagle, and letting them lead him to other authors, and ideas that would percolate up in his own work, specifically the raven that may be Matt's older cousin, and the graveyard where there is a society of ghosts. Something he doesn't say, which makes me wonder, is that Mr. Rebeck, who lives in the graveyard, sometimes thinks he is maybe alive and maybe dead, which means he's maybe not dead and not alive, and that makes me think of Shadow Moon and how he didn't actually start feeling alive until he chose to die.

Anyone else see other Beagle stories that stand back in the shadows behind Gaiman's?

oh, if you want this edition with this intro, look for it from SagaPress.com. I got my from Science FIction Book Club.

I want to get the sandman comics in the least amount of physical books possible. Also not wanting to spend too much. I’ve heard the 4 paperbacks that released with the Netflix show (and Netflix on cover) is good but also heard it rearranged the chapters. Let me know what you guys think. Thanks

So, we all know what happened. I used to love my sandman tattoo, it was my first piece and done after a divorce. It has a motivational meaning / situation depicted, it even has Matthew!

NG even commented it on Twitter with a personal message to me when I showed it to him by replying to a tweet. I had the prints posted all over my socials back then.

It used to be so hard to explain sandman here in Brazil, I was so glad that now I can reply "it's sandman, it's on netflix", no more underground comic book from the 90s and explaining all the basic concepts lol

Now it just feel dirty, idk. At least I'm glad I didn't did Death on the opposite side...

In Neil Gaiman's The graveyard book there's a part where the living and dead dance together. Gaiman wrote lyrics in couplets that are scattered throughout the chapter (ch. 5).

I'm a terrible singer, but did my best to illustrate what I'm trying to find:

My terrible rendition: dance macabray

IS THERE A VERSION WHERE SOMEONE (WITH A DESCENT VOICE) SINGS THE WHOLE SONG?

EDITS:

1. It is spelled 'dance Macabray' in the book. Obviously I found versions of the classic, including the Bella fleck version used in the audiobook.
2. I hear ya on the allegations against him.
3. I'm looking for that specific, non-existent version because my niece and nephews love the kiddy-book-version, and want it for Halloween.

I always wanted to watch it, now I have prime video its really diffcult to figure it out if I should watch it or not since the allegations about neil gaiman

I just want to know if it benefits neil gaiman in a financial way so I can be at peace.

Neil Gaiman must have been with hundreds if not thousands of women. He seems to have hit on any woman in his orbit, and while six women is still far too many, I'm just very surprised that there aren't a lot more. Where do you think they are?

Edit: I am certain there are many other women that have had similar experiences, I'm not questioning that. I just want to know why people think they're not coming out. Personally, my guess is that he's paying money to them like he did the others, maybe they feel beholden to NDAs, or, like some have said, they just don't want to deal with the public exposure of it.

Disclaimer: yes I am aware of The Scandal, BUT I still wanted to show this off :3

My Godfather/Uncle introduced me to the Sandman series when he lifted me the first volume (and the following 4 for various chrismas'), we bond so much over things like this - he's also the one who bought me my first (and only) copy of The Hobbit of when I was 12, and burned me my first Ghibli movie (spirited away! Also for xmas..)

So for this last Christmas I decided to make him an embroidery of the sandman! (My cousin on the same side of the family taught me how to embroider over zoom during the first year of covid) and I'm still super proud of it and wanted to share!

I def wish I could've gotten into a little more detail, but this was my first like big project and am so happy with how it turned out!

I took scans of certain images throughout the books I have and compiled them together on my computer. Then I printed it onto that like.. temporary pattern paper and ironed it onto the fabric!

Just wondering what folks thought of this Sandman/Shakespeare collection?? It just came to my attention, and i found it interesting. Any Sandman fan has all this material already in all likekyhood, but I find it an interesting (possible) tie-in to the second season of the Netflix TV series (although that's not explicitly mentioned here) Release date is in a few days, October 9th to be exact.

SANDMAN: THE COMPLETE SHAKESPEARE COLLECTION
DC Comics
0824DC244
(W) Neil Gaiman (A) Various (CA) Charles Vess
Art by Charles Vess, Bryan Talbot, John Ridgway, Michael Zulli, and Steve Parkhouse Perhaps no other literary figure has been more closely associated with The Sandman than playwright William Shakespeare. A Midsummer Night's Dream from The Sandman #19 established that Auberon, Titania, and other faerie characters from Will's plays existed within the Sandman Universe, and issue #75 revealed the full extent of the bargain made between Morpheus and Shakespeare that allowed his work to inspire humanity for generations to come. To commemorate the Bard's 460th anniversary, DC Comics proudly presents all of the Sandman Shakespeare issues assembled in one volume, recolored by Eisner, Harvey, and Inkpot award-winning colorist Steve Oliff (Akira, Absolute Swamp Thing by Alan Moore). These key appearances include Shakespeare's initial cameo in The Sandman #13, the aforementioned World Fantasy Award-winning The Sandman #19, and the final Sandman story, The Tempest, featuring select painted interiors by Charles Vess. This all-in-one collection is a must-have for fans of literature and fantasy and those who believe in the power of dreams.
In Shops: 10/9/2024
SRP: $9.99

I am not a huge physical book reader, but I love audiobooks. The Ocean at the End of the Lane is my absolute favorite book in the entire world. I love it with all my heart and I have listened to it over and over again. With everything that has come out recently I am struggling. Obviously, it is difficult to read the book without thinking about what Gaiman has done, but hearing the book read in his voice is even more difficult. And I’m struggling with how I’m feeling and trying to figure out how to still enjoy the book without thinking about the nasty man who wrote it, and sadly, reads it as well. I don’t really know if I’m asking for advice or just looking to vent to people who will understand…

Well there is a thread of this on other NG-related subs so might as well start one here just to see what you all think.

(Who knows, someone might have tea about anything related to the production...)

What do you think? Do you think Good Omens Season 3 is on? How soon do you think an announcement will be made?

Btw I have no particular preference either way as I'm not really the show's target audience. I watched the first season and read the book, that's it. I'm not sold on canon Crowley x Azi shipping so I never watched S2.