
The idea of Good Omens is “Just William the Antichrist.” William was a character in the books of Richmal Crompton, a typical small English boy who was always getting into trouble but who possessed a kind of angelic innocence despite everything, and everything always turned out to be all right. For instance, when he pulled the lever in the train marked “In emergency stop train, penalty for improper use five pounds” (because he thought it if he pulled it just a little bit it would make the train slow down) it turned out that just at that moment a thug was menacing a woman in the next carriage and William was a hero. In Good Omens, Gaiman and Pratchett use a similar little boy, Adam Young, to do a comic take on Armageddon.
It’s an interestingly odd book, hilariously funny, very clever and not much like anything else. Heaven and Hell are trying to bring about Armageddon. Their agents on Earth, an angel called Aziraphale (who runs a second-hand bookshop) and a demon called Crowley (who drives a 1926 Bentley) who have had an Arrangement for quite a few centuries now by which they work together, realise that they quite like Earth and don’t want it to be destroyed. And this is the theme of the whole book, that it is humanity who are the best and the worst, Heaven and Hell don’t stack up.
“Listen.” said Crowley desperately. “How many musicians do you think your side have got, eh? First grade I mean.”
Aziraphale looked taken aback. “Well, I should think—”
“Two,” said Crowley. “Elgar and Liszt. That’s all. We’ve got the rest. Beethoven, Brahms, all the Bachs, Mozart, the lot. Can you imagine eternity with Elgar?”
Aziraphale shut his eyes. “All too easily,” he groaned.
“That’s it then,” said Crowley, with a gleam of triumph. He knew Aziraphale’s weak spot all right. “No more compact discs. No more Albert Hall. No more Proms. No more Glyndbourne. Just celestial harmonies all day long.”
“Ineffable,” Aziraphale murmured.
“Like eggs without salt, you said. Which reminds me. No salt. No eggs. No gravlax with dill sauce. No fascinating little restaurants where they know you. No Daily Telegraph crossword. No small antique shops. No interesting old editions. No—” Crowley scraped the bottom of the barrel of Aziraphale’s interests. “No Regency silver snuffboxes!”
Earth is stated to be better than the unseen Heaven, which is specifically said at one climactic moment to be indistinguishable from Hell. Very odd. It’s a relentlessly humanist message, as if Pratchett and Gaiman couldn’t quite summon up enough belief in the Christian mythos even to make fun of it. That I think is the flaw in the book. You can’t quite take it seriously, and not because it’s supposed to be funny (It is funny! It takes that seriously enough!) but because there’s a lack of conviction when it comes to the reality of the stakes.
There’s no problem with magic, or with the angelic and demonic nature of Aziraphale and Crowley. There’s no problem with the way all tapes in Crowley’s car turn into “Best of Queen” or the way they’ve been friends for centuries because they’re the only ones who stay around. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are done wonderfully, and very memorably—Famine sitting around designing nouvelle cuisine and diet food and getting rich people to starve themselves, Pollution contaminating everything he sees, War the war correspondent always first on the scene, and Death, Pratchett’s Death who speaks in block capitals, busy working. (There’s a wonderful moment when he’s playing Trivial Pursuit and the date of Elvis’s death comes up and Death says “I NEVER TOUCHED HIM!”) There’s a woman called Anathema Device who’s the descendent of a witch called Agnes Nutter who left her a Nice and Accurate Book of Prophecy, which is always and specifically right, but written in a very obscure way. There’s a pair of inept Witchfinders, being funded by both Heaven and Hell. There’s Adam and his gang of eleven-year-old friends, just hanging out and being themselves. And there’s the world, the wonderful complex intricate world which is, in something like the opposite of Puddleglum’s wager, better than what’s been ineffably promised.
When I’m not reading Good Omens, I always remember the funny bits and the clever bits and the wonderful interactions between Crowley and Aziraphale. When I’m actually reading it, I’m always disconcerted by the way in which there’s a disconnect in the levels at which things are supposed to be real within the universe of the book.
VIEW ALL BY · Monday March 23, 2009 06:04pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Monday March 23, 2009 07:11pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Monday March 23, 2009 08:11pm EDT
Although I am a Christian, I didn't find the book offensive at all. I probably should have, but I may not be the right flavor of Christian to take offense at a bit of ridicule.
VIEW ALL BY · Monday March 23, 2009 08:15pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Monday March 23, 2009 08:36pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Monday March 23, 2009 09:46pm EDT
Of course, back at the dawn of the Long Boom, we all thought such silliness was over and done with.
Tuesday March 24, 2009 12:09am EDT
That's to bad. Unfortunately it is one of the weaker books for both of them. Prattchet is probably one of the finest satirists in any language and at his best one of the deepest. His most recent Discworld "Making Money" was scarily prescient about the current fiscal collapse. Colon and Nobby Nobbs are one of the finest comic duos ever, and it takes a truly incredible writer to make a man reciting a childrens' book at the top of his lungs ( WHERES MY COW? IS THAT MY COW? NO THAT IS A HORSE?..) a [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CrowningMomentOfAwesome]Crowning Moment Of Awesome not a farce.
Tuesday March 24, 2009 07:11am EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday March 24, 2009 08:23am EDT
Eric: It was published in 1990, and so must have been written right at the end of the Cold War with peace breaking out all around it. I don't think it is a metaphor though, even though the sword of War is explicitly the US nuclear arsenal. It doesn't have that tone, for me. It's all part of the "people are wonderful, and terrible, people are enough" theme.
Sandikal: I've never heard anyone say they're offended by it if they've actually read it. I wonder if a desire to avoid offending people was why they didn't describe the forces of Heaven much, apart from poor Aziraphale. But the thought of the real Armageddon being Heaven and Hell in alliance against Earth is very much not what you'd expect. It reminds me in a way of Martin's The Armageddon Rag where good and evil have the same face.
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday March 24, 2009 08:43am EDT
Drak
PS, their theology stunk. [Wink]
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday March 24, 2009 09:14am EDT
I never thought of Puddleglum's wager as about going to heaven. I thought it was about how we live *now*. That in fact the reality or unreality of heaven was not the point, because even if there was no Narnia it was better to live as a Narnian.
I suspect I am projecting like crazy here.
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday March 24, 2009 10:22am EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday March 24, 2009 10:45am EDT
I'm not saying that you ought to re-read it, mind, just a data point.
Jo, that's really interesting about the levels of reality. Maybe that's why I think it goes on for one peril too long.
Tuesday March 24, 2009 11:35am EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday March 24, 2009 11:43am EDT
But it's interesting to wonder about the kinds of books that don't leave a huge impression upon first reading, but are much better the second time through. I tend not to re-read things I didn't absolutely love the first time through.
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday March 24, 2009 11:45am EDT
Tuesday March 24, 2009 12:44pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday March 24, 2009 02:36pm EDT
At the time, I recently started reading Pratchett (not just Discworld but the YA & SF stuff too) and Gaiman (Sandman and other comics) independently. So a collaboration between the two was a happy find.
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday March 24, 2009 04:08pm EDT
Similarly, Brazil was made 20 years too early.
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday March 24, 2009 05:08pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday March 24, 2009 06:15pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday March 24, 2009 07:50pm EDT
I think having read 'Mist over Pendle' helped.
There's always seemed to me something very familiar about the book's treatment of heaven, hell and humanity. I'm not entirely sure of the pedigree, but I have a suspicion too much Rudyard Kipling may have something to do with it.
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday March 24, 2009 09:36pm EDT
It's ("Good Omens") a very English story.
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday March 29, 2009 09:30am EDT
Good Omens occupies an interesting spot in my mind. I adore all the funny bits, and can't read it. The horror underpinnings are too obvious, and I can't read horror. I'm not certain I can explain exactly what I mean, but IIRC, Elizabeth (formerly of Dreamhaven, now of Uncle Hugo's) knew what I meant. In a really basic way, it's a horror story base with a comedy overlay.
Elizabeth tells me that I'd probably find all Gaiman to have the same problem - it's been true for the couple I've picked up. I certainly don't have it with Pratchett!
VIEW ALL BY · Monday April 06, 2009 05:29pm EDT
Interestingly, it was the first book by either Gaiman or Pratchett that I read. I jumped into all the Pratchett ones straight afterwards, though strangely it took me til 2003 to find Gaiman again, through the brilliant Smoke and Mirrors. Not really into Graphic Novels or comics, and still not though love Sandman.
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday April 07, 2009 04:23pm EDT
As for this being Pratchett's first contemporary book: I thought he had started either the Bromeliad or Johnny Maxwell series by then.