@neil-gaiman mentioned somewhere, and I hope I remember it correctly, that Aziraphale is the character who changes the most during the course of the series (it feels less so in the book, to me at least), which brings me to the idea that there's endless irony, practically fractal in its nature, in the fact that the angel who is supposed to be solidly good, unwavering, eternally, ineffably right and practically perfect in every way, is in fact much more flexible, ready to change, ready to admit to being mistaken and therein lies the rub, because the good thing is indeed about changing, about developing, about being capable of admitting to one's faults. Yet it also implies that the demon is someone who is after all solidly good, unwavering in his questioning, in his faith, in his love. Crowley is truly good, and of course mischievous and lives up to Goethe's definition of a demon which is "a part of that force that yearns for evil and creates the good instead". It's such an ouroboros of ideas, that I just can't. One is meant to be good and grows to be good. The other is meant to be evil and can never really bring himself up to it. His presumed evilness is in that he's unsure. He's uncertain. He's quantum. All of which makes him true to the universe and to himself. He's an outcast among the outcasts, and I think that's why I identify with him so much. He's like Giordano Bruno and Aziraphale is like Galileo, and they both contribute to the world, to the science, to the balance.
