https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=kGntACue5RE
So Grummeister for $10 Australian, what is the symbolism of good omens? It seems to be something to do with no heaven and hell being a good thing, but I can’t figure out. Oh, what you mean, good omens, like the series, the TV series? I think what Gaiman tried to do in good omens was to resolve opposites. That’s what he was hoping to do. So you see, because you see it play out at different levels. If you understand the angels, if you understand the characters, it’s not necessarily angels or demons. But if you understand the characters and the way they present themselves, which is the angel as like a goody two shoes that is like a fop, you know, it’s kind of like is not embodied. You know, it’s just is kind of a, yeah, it’s a fop. I don’t know what else to say. That’s what he’s like. And then this like kind of bad embodied, you know, let’s say more rebellious type. And so it seems like what he’s trying to do is to show how to kind of how those two can work on each other in order to come closer to the middle. And so he seems to play that all through the series. And he also seems to do it with the idea of like the witch hunter and the witch who actually kind of fall in love. And you can see it at different levels how this this kind of plays out. But but ultimately, you know, I think that. Just like so many things, some of it, some of this stuff is that obviously because it is dealing with heaven and hell and angels and and and demons, it is just like all of Gaiman’s work. Let me tell you what the problem of Gaiman’s work is, is that he acts as if he believes in principalities, but he doesn’t. He thinks principalities are arbitrary. He doesn’t actually think that the Lord of Dream is the Lord of Dreams. He thinks the Lord of Dreams is just some guy who happens to be the Lord of Dreams. And he could change, like he could be something else. He could be free from his own principality. It’s like you can see it in the image of Lucifer, like his image of Lucifer, Gaiman’s image of Lucifer is the most is the most absurd idea. Right. It’s like Lucifer decides that he’s done with this and he’s going to cut his wings off and he’s going to be free from his own cosmic role. And it’s like that’s what Gaiman’s work, all of his work is about. It’s he’s a he’s a he’s a he’s a he’s a postmodern guy. He’s a he’s a modern guy. He doesn’t he’s a materialist. Actually, he’s a he’s a revolutionary. He’s all that stuff. He doesn’t believe that these principalities are real. And so and so his work is fascinating because he seems to have a he has some insights like sometimes I think that he has some good insights. But in the end, those fall apart because he he wants to treat principalities as idiosyncrasies, as idiosyncratic beings that somehow happen to be that. And it doesn’t work. It sometimes makes for for interesting stories, but it doesn’t. It ends up falling apart. And so so yeah, sorry. I didn’t expect myself to go on a rant against Neil Gaiman. He’s he’s still like he’s so stories, still like you can see, like I I have read American Gods and I have watched Good Omens and I’ve read the Sandman series. So it’s not like I’m obviously I have like a weird attraction to what he’s doing because I feel like he could come close to something. But he oh, he never really does. He just comes up to it. And then here comes the materialist, like here comes the here comes the arbitrary nihilist in the story. So, yeah. All right.