it's me I watched Good Omens S2 and got slightly obsessed
spoilers ahead
[edit: I was clearly distracted and forgot to give some explanation]
I have unfortunately developed a bit of a fixation on Good Omens.
Sorry.
If I knew theology and Calvinism etc better I would have loads MORE to say about it. So I hope everyone is very grateful about this.
Basically I realised I am, despite everything, an Aziraphale.
Anxious to do the right thing, avoidant, don't always get social cues, wears the same clothes for years... (though not for centuries) Always looking for lifts from people. I love food. I create a routine, if I don't have one, and seek comfort. And yes, sometimes to my detriment, but
***
Spoilers for S2E5-6
***
Some complain that Aziraphale's Regency-type ball was a form of manipulation: a miracle of unexpected, unwarranted intimacy. As if giving the Whickber St traders party clothes wasn't enough, he miracles their emotions and even their movements. Intrusive. Not very angelic.
As if one of the themes of Good Omens, and Gaiman's and Pratchett's works in general, isn't autonomy. Throughout Good Omens, Aziraphale particularly struggles with the moral quandary of autonomy vs best interest – sometimes a triangle of autonomy/best interest/God's will. (Now this is starting to sound like work.) Is it really so out of character for any of the divine/ethereal beings to sacrifice human autonomy to achieve their own aims? Crowley and Aziraphale may love humanity enough that they might think twice before doing it, but they still do that often enough.
Was the ball beyond the pale? Well, it was a situation with dubious consent. Aziraphale probably got carried away. If the entire series was distilled to a point, though, rarely is an action purely one thing or another. It was a darker shade of grey than the angel usually inhabits, and a particularly exuberant demonstration of their tendency towards escapism/illusion. (Oh, Mr Fell and his amazing tricks...)