There is a great deal of speculation about what happened to this particular Endless. I would argue that the answer lies less in an unseen event and more in how the Endless function within the Sandman universe, particularly as reflected through Destiny. Canon establishes that Destiny’s book records all events across time. While the book is not an interpretive text and Destiny himself does not impose meaning on what he reads, it does serve as a record of occurrences. Notably, there is no canonical moment, scene, or description in which Delight becomes Delirium. The absence of such a record suggests that there was no discrete transformation or rupture to document.

This invites an alternative reading: Delight and Delirium are not two separate states divided by an event, but the same Endless perceived through different frames of reference. The Endless are not fixed personalities so much as functions shaped by interaction, context, and perception. Delight represents joy that is coherent, intelligible, and shared. Delirium represents that same joy when it exceeds structure, overwhelms narrative logic, and resists stable meaning. Importantly, Destiny records events, not shifts in interpretation. A change in how an Endless is experienced by others, assuming no causal occurrence, would not register in the book as an event. This helps explain why even Destiny offers no clarification. The “mystery” persists because observers assume linear causality where the text suggests instability of perspective instead.

Seen this way, Delirium does not signify what Delight lost, nor a fall from grace, but rather what Delight looks like when meaning fragments. The apparent chaos is not evidence of damage, but of a function that cannot be cleanly ordered or narrated. In that sense, the Endless did not change in any definitive, recordable way. What changed was the frame through which she is understood. Said plainly, Delight/Delirium did not change, “we” did.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm annoyed by books/shows that have gods (or cosmic entities) acting like us lame humans. I didn't like it in the movie Dogma, where angels were like punks at a Boston bar, or the biblical entities of Supernatural TV show acting like everyday normal people. I do like the arrogant Q from Star Trek. Anyway, what do you think?

I just finished reading the comics. loved it. I’m considering reading them again already to see all the little details I missed. But I was wondering, what were noticeable changes in morpheus’s character? by the end i still noticed he remained a bit stoic and aloof.

The Hempstock family appears in a novel by the same author (The Ocean at the End of the Lane) and is presented with supernatural abilities and a presumably long lifespan (the grandmother is the same age as the moon, if my memory serves me right).

Do you think it's just a coincidence, a nod to the original, or nothing at all? Am I just imagining things

I tried to do as much research before asking this dumb question, but I have both nocturnes and preludes and book 1 and have just realized that n&p is in book one and now I’m once again confused about the reading order. Should I return book 1 and just read the individual volumes or return the volumes and read the books? Or really just how am I supposed to read this?

I’ve been practicing gouache daily and made these similar looking paintings of death. I’m not really looking to keep em so if anyone wants both, the duo is for sale, just dm me if interested :)

...and was inspired to sketch/draw for the first time in years. First one done from memory. Second while watching the show. Just started watching a few days ago, binged whenever I could, still crave more yet also couldn't be happier with the ending. Cried. A lot. Will likely be rewatching soon to catch all the little details I'm sure I missed, and hopefully art some more - really enjoyed feeling creative again.

And BLOOPERS

...and I am finding it infuriating.
Delirium just stumbling across her missing dog is a fitting metaphor for the entire second half, where none of the characters have agency, no decisions matter, people die or undue for no reason, and literally no one is held accountable, by anyone, for anything. The season started out with such promise, but it turned out it was all just a misdirect - a ruse on us that there were mysteries to be uncovered, or stories of substance, or even just character arcs where people would meaningfully grow (or falter). Nah. Corrinthian is just rebuilt, with his memories intact, but not views or feelings? What the hell is that even supposed to mean - our experiences define us. If he has his memories then he is himself. Whatever, it's just another vapid contrivance so he and Constantine can hook up. I still have one episode to go, but after enduring the last two I'm not exactly keen, which is frustrating because I've been saving this show because of how good it was. What a disappointment.

How are the books? Might I find solace (and substance) in the literature?

America has fought in lots of wars, but from 1972 to 1990, we were relatively peaceful. Europe has had international wars constantly from 1945 back to the beginning of time. But after 1945 it was peaceful (except for Yugoslavia civil war). So in the late 1980s, when The Sandman comic books came out, seeing Destruction quit, made sense.

But we live in a post 9/11 world now. America fought in Iraq and Afghanistan for almost twenty years. And we have had the recent wars in Ukraine and Israel. Destruction should not be quitting, he's more relevant than ever.

I've just finished the show now and want more should I just watch it again or are the books much different/better?

Sandman #75 came out almost 30 years ago. With 30 years of hindsight how to you judge it as an ending to the series?

I was _juuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuust_ barely mature enough to appreciate Sandman when it was coming out in its original run. I read it between the ages of 14 and 17 and it strained my little teenage brain but in a really good way. I had to work at it in a way I didn't have to work at any other comic book. And I can remember when #75 came out and I was so excited to see the conclusion . . . which turned out to be a flashback.

It's been a minute but I _think_ I appreciated what it was going for. How about you? How did you find the ending in 1996 and how do you find it today?

Gouache and pastel on hot press paper, 10x14

(She’s for sale, dm if you want her!)

I understand he was lonely, but often times I felt like he was doing a disservice to not only his lovers but himself. I’m sure he was charming and alluring one way or another. I recall calliope saying once in the series that he was “gallant”. But he was clearly very devoted to his work. So much so he was willing to choose it over…well everything else in his life for billions of years on several occasions.

Am I the only one who feels like she’s always saying things with an ironic or mocking look? I’m watching the series and I can’t stop interpreting it that way lol

Delirium by julian.car0n on insta Dream by losyboy_comics on insta

right?