A Station Eight Fan Web Site

Gargoyles

The Phoenix Gate

Comment Room Archive

Comments for the week ending August 5, 2002

Index : Hide Images

Aaron> "Well, that was open to interpretation. You can believe everybody died, or you can believe, like I do, that Shingi's refusal to give up his individuality short-circuited instrumentality, and saved the human race."
That's an interesting interpretation, and I'd definitely prefer that one, except... I can't remember much of anything that would really indicate that that was the case. (I'd have to watch it again, though...) As I see it, the final scene was a problem either way. If the Project succeeded, they really shouldn't have been so damn happy about it (although I suppose that, by definition, they'd have trouble not be happy about it), but if the Project failed... what the hell were they all doing there? I can think of a few possible explanations, but they're all pretty flimsy. That's one of the reasons why Eva isn't my favorite (although I do like it). Ambiguity is a good thing in moderation, but I think maybe Eva went a bit too far. I like unanswered questions, but not _that_ many unanswered questions. And the question that bothers me the most: What the hell happened to Pen-Pen? ;)

matt> "who says stars are inanimate objects? in fact, who says stars are not living beings? and who says they don't think about philosophy??? you assume to much..."
I'm not assuming anything. Maybe they are sentient... but until you can prove that, they make a really half-assed example for use in this debate. Furthermore, if they _are_ sentient, how do you know that they _don't_ choose to explode? If I assumed too much, then you assumed too much first. :P

"this is not to say that i beleive stars are alive, but they could be! i think its obvious to all of us that gargoyles are not entirely driven by nature, but to a certain degree they are, just as every living thing is... "
That's exactly what I've been saying.

John Cronin> "I think she saw the writing on the wall and decided to act upon it."
But she acted on it stupidly. If things were that bad for them, they could have just moved out of the castle. Even if they had succeeded in getting the castle all to themselves, how long would it have been before the king sent an army to reclaim the castle during the day? They would never have gotten away with it, regardless of whether or not Demona's actions were justified, and I don't feel they were. They would have been justified in breaking off their agreement with the humans by leaving the castle; actually _betraying_ the humans is another matter entirely. Two wrongs don't make a right... they just make everyone equally screwed up.

Airwalker> "There really wasn't any place for the Clan to go - his idea was just one of frustration rather than of practical use."
The Loch Ness clan apparently survived just fine. Besides, the caves that the clan lived in before the castle was build were still there. They could have found somewhere else to live if they'd tried. Failing that, they could have at least _looked_ for somewhere else.

Mooncat> "I'm not saying Demona is blameless, but I think she is not wrong in thinking that Goliath put the humans interests above that of his own gargoyle species."
No, he put his ideals first. Sue him.

"I never EVER said I didn't like Goliath."
No, but you often used one hell of a tone, so it _is_ understandable that someone could make that mistake. Pretty much everyone involved in this discussion has been sounding rather cranky, including you, which can easily (and often does) lead people to believe that you feel much more strongly about a particular issue than you actually do. It seems to me that most of this debate was based on misunderstanding. Yes, there were differences of opinion, but the exact differences were misunderstood, and everything just went downhill from there.

"[By the way, I'd appreciate it if you'd be a little more polite in your tone when you are addressing me and others.]

I'm sure you would. Unfortunately it isn't going to happen today. Many apologies."
At least have the decency not to say that you're sorry when you clearly aren't. It's insulting and rude.

"I evaluate shades of gray, and see the connections of cause and effect shaping the events, not a one note song that Demona is the be all and end all of all evil."
It looks to me as if you're as guilty of this as anyone else. No one _ever_ said that Goliath is perfect. No one _ever_ said that Demona was pure evil. Few people, if anyone, even called her evil. Most of us believe that she is very screwed up, and we feel sorry for her, since many (but definitely not all) of the factors that lead to her being were out of her control. A lot of it was bad luck, or fate, or whatever. Yes, you made some good points... and so did the people who disagreed with you. That's life. I will agree that some people here weren't always making the best effort to understand your point of view, but it looked to me like you did the same thing. So please stop acting like the sole ration person here. (Yes, I realize that well into the debate, you decided that there were two whole people here that you consider rational, but that doesn't make my point any less valid.) Everyone acts stupid when they're cranky, including you.

"Demona's "actions" are created and produced by a writer who is creating a dramatic piece of fiction. There is, you see, a difference here so profound, it shouldn't need mentioning."
It's funny how one minute you're arguing as if she's a real person, and the next minute going to great pains to points out that she's not. First you're arguing about her motives, and then you're saying she's not real, so never had a choice. If everything about her is just a writer's whim, what have you been arguing about all week? (And I'm sorry if it seems like I'm singling you out. I do disagree with the way some of the other people have been behaving, too, but you're doing such a thorough job chewing other people out that I don't want to add to that. ;)

"He was being a bad leader by ignoring the danger to his clan. But I don't blame him for it, because he was Written That Way."
So... if he _had_ been a real person, and came by those same traits the usual way, then that would be different how?

"I maintain that the 'hiding' was nerves (working on instinct, not actual thought), and thus not a pre-meditated betrayal."
Who says betrayal has to be premeditated? It was not a literal betrayal, but she should have had the strength of character to meet the same fate as the rest of her clan, whatever that fate might be.

"First, I think guys who stay with a sinking ship if there is a perfectly good lifeboat available are incredibly stupid."
But if your actions, regardless of your intentions, caused the ship to sink, should you save yourself while letting everyone else on the ship die? (I don't think this is an entirely fair analogy, though, since staying on the ship is basically suicide, while, as you pointed out so many times yourself, Demona had no way of being certain that staying would mean her death.)

"I do not think Demona is a coward. In a fight situation, I bet she is there with a blade in her hand and a smile on her lips, ready and willing to shed blood... her own as well as her foes."
There is more than one kind of cowardice. Besides, in a battle, she has enough faith in her own abilities to be pretty damn certain that she'll survive.

"We did not see any sign she was too embarrassed to reveal to them something was wrong. So why that mid sentence warning never got completed?"
*L* Maybe she was afraid of jinxing the whole situation. Who hasn't, on occassion, gotten the paranoid feeling that if they open their big mouth, what they are afraid might happen will actually happen? (Was that sentence at all coherent? It's taken me hours to read the whole CR, so I make no guarantees. ;)

Blaise> *hugs* Damn, I'm sorry about your parents. I can't imagine what a shock that must have been.

(Re: Goliath vs. Brooklyn) "If you're slamming one, you're slamming the other, too. "
Good answer. :)

Fan> "That doesn?t sound like someone whose first and foremost reason to go through with the betrayal is the clan?s safety. They were most likely secondary to her own personal desire for vengeance against the humans."
I think everyone here is missing the most vital motivation of all: fear. Demona saw what would eventually happen to her clan, and it scared the hell out of her. Yes, she wanted to protect her clan. Yes, she wanted revenge for the way they'd been treated. But in the end, I think the biggest motivator was the exact same thing that caused the humans to treat them badly in the first place. (Yes, you could argue that fear and the desire to protect her clan are the same thing, but I really think that fear belongs in a class by itself. Fear is a force of nature (much like stupidity, and with the same end results).)

Jimmy> "I propose that the slavery and civil war debate be postponed until monday. "
Oh, dear Puck...


*passes out on the floor from exhaustion*

Bud-Clare - [budclare@yahoo.com]
Sunday, August 4, 2002 09:35:48 PM
IP: 129.21.11.71

JIMMY - None yet. Maybe by the end of the month; we'll just have to see.
Todd Jensen - [merlyn1@mindspring.com]
St. Louis, MO
Sunday, August 4, 2002 06:50:03 PM
IP: 63.208.44.247

Matt- I'm afraid I'll have to drop out of this one, too. For the same reasons you are. I'll just agree to disagree.
Airwalker- Good points!
Phil- Good points!

Fan
Sunday, August 4, 2002 05:06:21 PM
IP: 63.224.55.195

Phil -- [I disagree. This scene was not in "Awakenings." It was added to the story in "City of Stone I." Therefore it was not an integral part of the original story and was added later to fulfil a specific purpose. What was that purpose? It was not to move the story along, since the story already worked without that scene. I believe that the scene was written to demonstrate Demona's character.]

You misunderstand me. The scene does not have to be integral to Awakenings, but to the story it was a part of, which was City of Stone. City of Stone was all about unfolding the history of Demona and Macbeth. The story constraint of Demona not being able to warn Othello and Desdemona, despite being mid-setence in doing so, was because 1) already established Othello and Desdemona do not survive the massacre, and 2) could not survive the massacre without muddying the story flow established.

In Awakenings, we get the bare bones. In City of Stone we get some of the flesh. The fact that this flesh is not integrel to the premiere story, does not diminish it's use and need for the later expansion story. Story constraint is still in play.

Yes, City of Stone was to expand the characters of Demona and Macbeth. However, the interpretation of their actions within the story is subjective.

Mooncat
>^,,^<

Mooncat
Sunday, August 4, 2002 03:56:59 PM
IP: 68.102.1.42

Demona's character>
I had decided not to get into this discussion, since I originally viewed it as a matter of opinion and interpretation. But I've been thinking about Mooncat's comments on story constraints and have changed my mind.

The "warning scene" has been discussed, where Demona almost tells Othello and Desdemona of her fears. Mooncat said, "...I think it would have been In Character for her to finish warning Des and Thello." But "she wouldn't be allowed to because the story has to unfold along specified parameters."

I disagree. This scene was not in "Awakenings." It was added to the story in "City of Stone I." Therefore it was not an integral part of the original story and was added later to fulfil a specific purpose. What was that purpose? It was not to move the story along, since the story already worked without that scene. I believe that the scene was written to demonstrate Demona's character.

If it would have been "in character" for her to warn them, but the writers didn't want her to, why did they even give her the opportunity? Why create an ambiguous scene that wasn't necessary to the story flow?

Instead, I believe that it was "in character" for her to "chicken-out." She didn't consciously intend for her clan to be destroyed, but she unconsciously knew that things were going wrong and were headed in that direction. Warning Othello and Desdemona would require Demona to consciously admit to making a bad decision and that would have been "out of character" for her.

Phil - [p1anderson@go.com]
Grand Rapids, MI
Sunday, August 4, 2002 03:08:57 PM
IP: 67.217.25.14

Even if Hakon knew about the rookery, i don't think that he would spend time attacking it. His goal in smashing the Gargoyles was to eliminate the risk of being followed, not eliminate the Gargoyle race. And the base of that cliff would have been just about impossible for a human to access from the top. It sloped inward and it curved, so climbing is out of the question, (and there is no visibility to whats down there). The only way to reach it would be with a long stretch of rope, which would just waste time they could have spent escaping.

Todd> SO any plans on implimenting this Ask Greg idea?

Jimmy
Sunday, August 4, 2002 12:57:07 PM
IP: 172.161.97.204

MOONCAT - You wrote: [I suggest that it is more likely the Captain's plan than Demona's plan, as he is the one who is counted on to do all the actual physical betraying]

Its possible. The answer is really dependent on who might have approached who first. Its also possible that while the approach was made by one party or the other, the plan itself was created together. I base my thinking on Demona's speak in AWAKENINGS 5; she basically says that they divided labor and that while the Captains job was to get the Vikings to sack the Castle, her job was to get the Gargoyles out of the Castle. And ultimately it was what was her job in the plan that failed; I'm not sure if the Captain would have based an original plan to get the Gargoyles out of the Castle on just Goliath. That part of the plan stikes me as being a Demona thing - imagining that she could convince her love to do things her way rather than cold soldier logic that the Captain might have.

You wrote: [The Captain seems more of the instigator, even to the point when Goliath reacts unexpectedly, Demona seems ready to quit the plan but the Captain presses on, "no it will still work" ...]

As you said in an earlier post, once the plan is set in motion there is no turning back. The Captain has the most to lose to be honest - at this point the weapons have probably been ruined and the Vikings are going to attack; if Hakon gets captured that time, he might turn on the Captain. He doesn't have a real choice but to keep the plan going forward at that point. Otherwise its his neck. He was after all just demoted. What else might happen to him if things didn't work out?

You wrote: [Unknown. Probably this is a less easy location for a human to get to, but not impossible. A stout rope and a strong pair of arms and legs. Why not?]

Theoretically. But from AWAKENINGS 1 it seems like the Vikings spent most of the day fighting and then looting the Castle. Hakon only started smashing Gargoyles near sunset which suggests that he was occupied for the rest of the day. I don't think that in a quick desire to conquer and loot that they would really be paying attention to anything going on all the way down at the base of the cliff. Around the Castle, yes. But not THAT far away.

And I think that you are minimizing the amount of distance from the Castle to the Cliff base. Its a long way down; easier for Gargoyles to travel to and from but for a Human it would be a considerable effort that would waste time. Especially in the 10th century and for a 10th century Human.

You wrote: [Absolutely! If this were a realistic setting, in broad daylight, yes. To be sure no one is escaping, to be sure there is no good booty or boats or what have you on the other side of the castle. Just to be sure nothing nasty is on the other side that could cause problems. Yes.]

Again I think that you are underestimating the amount of distance from the Castle to the Cliff Base; not only that but I think that your also underestimating how difficult and how long it would take for a Human to get to the Cliff Base especially in that century.

Wyvern Castle has one main area of entrance and exit for Humans; keeping people from escaping is easier than you might think. You just have to blockade the one entrance. That's why Gargoyle aid is so necessary to keep that Castle at all. Otherwise it can easily be put under seige and there is no way to get supplies to and from it in those circumstances. Without air support or deep preperation Wyvern is in a situation where it can be taken down given enough time.

Keep in mind also what the Vikings are calculating - No Gargoyles to deal with, the archers are taken out and the front gate is being opened up. Even if they calculate on betrayal they still have the ability to storm the Castle. All that stopped them last time was the Clan. Without them as an obsticle (and considering all the catapult equipment was probably still there) they wouldn't have as difficult time as they had the night or two before.

You wrote: [I disagree. If any place is complete safety, I would think it would be the rookery, which probably has a deliberately difficult for humans to access, going by the fact the vikings didn't go in and crunch pod the Trio.]

Logically if a Castle is going to be sacked then the safest place to be is not near the Castle :-) The Rookery is relatively safe in that it is out of sight enough that the Vikings overlooked it but staying there was no absolute guarantee of safety. That it wasn't struck was pure luck; otherwise safety would be away from the Castle. After all if it would be safe in the Rookery then why worry about getting the Clan out of Castle? Just find a way to get them to the Rookery. (Yes I know thats more difficult than just getting them out of the Castle. But I'm sure you can see what my point is. Staying in the Castle was a huge risk and was all dependent on the Captain keeping them safe. The further from the Castle the more likely the chance of survival that day.)

You wrote: [No place right near the castle would be completely safe.]

Completely safe? No. It is the Dark Ages and they are Gargoyles after all. But except for the Trio and Bronx all the survivors of Wyvern were outside the Castle. The Trio lived by luck; the Vikings didn't go near the Rookery. But that didn't have to be that way. Only Goliath, Hudson, and Demona were relatively safe by being away from a Castle being attacked by Vikings.

You wrote: [The Vikings know gargoyles exist, no reason they wouldn't have eyes out for strays.]

They know that any Gargoyle not there is out in the woods chasing nothing. That was part of the plan. That Gargoyles happened to be at the Castle was an unexpected change that Hakon decided to deal with so that he and his troops could easily escape.

You wrote: [I think you read too much into the "deliberate" part here. I don't think she has a lot of time to deliberate here. And her going down the side of the castle seems very much a last moment thing.]

I disagree. It does take some time to get to the Cliff Base even if we might disagree on how much. Plus we have to add in the time she spent getting away from her Clanmates and looking back at them. Plus the little time between her landing and turning to stone. I think that at the very least we have a five minute period. At least. She could have headed to the Rookery in the same amount of time. But there wasn't a guarentee that the Rookery wouldn't get hit. It would be foolish to head there. But down the cliff where no Human can get to (or at the very least get to before sunset) is a safer bet. Its a logical, intelligent choice. And thus more deliberate. If she had chosen some forgotten corner or at the base at the back of the Castle rather than the base of the Cliff then it would have been more in instinct or lack of time. But where she ended up seems more thought out.

You wrote: [I think the state of mind of a person, how much conscious thought they put into an action, intent and emotion do affect the valuation of a betrayal. Much like they would determine the value of a charge of murder or manslaughter. There are degrees. I see her move to perch away as being of a low degree of betrayal, to a point I don't consider it a real betrayal. You ascribe a higher value of betrayal to her actions.]

I'm not going to dismiss her intentions. She meant well. Thats what makes it a tragedy. But for me intentions only take you so far. Eventually action has to count for something. And ultimately while knowledge of intentions might give or take sympathy, again to me action is going to have to matter. She had a plan with the Captain, approved it, helped him try to put it into action, failed, approved a flawed backup and left. Even though she meant well what she did has to count; it becomes some sort of betrayal even if we argue about the exact degrees of how much a betrayal it is.

You wrote: [I think we will just have to agree to disagree on how much of a betrayal her action to perch outside the castle constitutes.]

Agree to disagree? No problem. I'm just debating cause its interesting/fun to do. I'm not really trying to convince anyone. If this weren't fun/interesting then I would have stopped posting about it.

Airwalker - [airwalker9999@yahoo.com]
Brooklyn, NY
Sunday, August 4, 2002 11:39:36 AM
IP: 12.88.86.81

i'm afraid i must retire from this debate. i do not have the time to respond to everything i want to respond to. i feel my questions or comments are twisted or ignored and i think certain individuals are being anything but "civil". i hope those on my side of the debate will continue to bring rational points and a sense of morality to the Comment Room, and i hope those on the opposing side of the debate accept that i am sorry for any insulting i may have done and tell you that i don't think you or your views are evil.
thank you,
matt

matt
Sunday, August 4, 2002 03:30:35 AM
IP: 216.178.8.58

Airwalker -- [Actually we don't actually know who came up with the plan or who approached who first. (Demona's dialogue in AWAKENING 5 when she reveals that she was involved in plotting with the Captain suggests that she might have been the one to approach the Captain; but we don't really know for sure.) All we know is that she accepted the alteration to the plan that the Captain suggested after Goliath ruined the Original Plan by not taking the Clan along. At most we can say that the suggestion of the alteration was rushed.]

I suggest that it is more likely the Captain's plan than Demona's plan, as he is the one who is counted on to do all the actual physical betraying -- cutting the bowstrings, lowering the gate, etc. And we see him making the overture to Hakon. I don't think this kind of betrayal would have occurred to Demona, to seek out the Vikings and invite them to sack the castle. I can more see the Captain approaching the Gargoyle second who he knows is pissed off at Katherine, than Demona approaching the Captain, who is human serving Katherine. As far as Hakon knows, the only person he is allied with is the Captain. From Hakon's speech, it seems he has no inkling whatsoever there was a gargoyle who knew the plan.

The Captain seems more of the instigator, even to the point when Goliath reacts unexpectedly, Demona seems ready to quit the plan but the Captain presses on, "no it will still work" ...

At least, it seems more logical to me that the Captain would be the plan maker. We should Ask Greg, because this is an interesting and telling question.

[(Actually can we say that acceptance of the alteration was rushed? She didn't immediately say yes. She thought about it for a bit. Not a lot of time but considering
that there aren't any other alternatives other than to either let the original plan run its course or alter it. And if they don't alter it then all that plotting was for nothing
and would have achieved nothing.). ]

Yes, I concur.

Keeping in mind this is also an unusual set of circumstances. There aren't a hoard of Vikings just beyond the castle walls all the time. It's basically a "now or never" kind of situation.

[More or less. As a gargoyle glides. But the question is can a Human get down there?]

Unknown. Probably this is a less easy location for a human to get to, but not impossible. A stout rope and a strong pair of arms and legs. Why not?

[Or even have an easy time spotting a Gargoyle down there?]

Okay, maybe it's just me, but even in stone Demona kind of stands out. *^_~*

[Or even bother looking at all there while busy sacking a Castle?]

Absolutely! If this were a realistic setting, in broad daylight, yes. To be sure no one is escaping, to be sure there is no good booty or boats or what have you on the other side of the castle. Just to be sure nothing nasty is on the other side that could cause problems. Yes.

[Meaning that its a place of complete safety for her. ]

I disagree. If any place is complete safety, I would think it would be the rookery, which probably has a deliberately difficult for humans to access, going by the fact the vikings didn't go in and crunch pod the Trio.

No place right near the castle would be completely safe. Out of all your proposed reasons why it's a safe place, the difficulty of seeing her against a rocky landscape seems the most likely, but even that isn't totally sound. The Vikings know gargoyles exist, no reason they wouldn't have eyes out for strays.

[She makes a deliberate move to go down there; she even takes a second to look back. ]

I think you read too much into the "deliberate" part here. I don't think she has a lot of time to deliberate here. And her going down the side of the castle seems very much a last moment thing.

[Even with a shrinking time frame she still takes the little time she has left to leave the Castle. ]

And while not particularly praise worthy, I still don't think this equates to betrayal.

[During a battle and then a sack of the Castle, you really believe that some Viking is going to stop looting and killing to look off the cliff at the view? And that they
would look all the way down and be able to distinguish a stone Gargoyle from the rest of the rocks? ]

Yup. See above.

[Honestly Demona deliberately chose a safe place to sleep. It was an intelligent move on her part. But she chose to leave the Clan to whatever fate awaited it, good
or bad, while she made sure she was safe. That to me was betrayal more than anything else no matter what her intentions and rationalizations were. ]

I think the state of mind of a person, how much conscious thought they put into an action, intent and emotion do affect the valuation of a betrayal. Much like they would determine the value of a charge of murder or manslaughter. There are degrees. I see her move to perch away as being of a low degree of betrayal, to a point I don't consider it a real betrayal. You ascribe a higher value of betrayal to her actions.

These valuations are very subjective, and it's like two jury members arguing over fine points of their personal perception of an event. I think we will just have to agree to disagree on how much of a betrayal her action to perch outside the castle constitutes.

[Another option that could be added was to just have her tell the Captain not to alter the original plan thus effectively cancelling it. (Hakon was supposed to attack in
the middle of the day to near nightfall the next day and be gone by the early evening in the original plan.]

I don't remember anyone saying it was going to be a middle of the day attack. I understood it that the attack would come at night, right after the gargoyles left the castle.

Dialogue:

Demona: This ruins everything! The plan was to have all the gargoyles away during the attack so we could return to claim an empty castle.

Captain: The plan can still work. I'll signal Hakon, tell him to attack during the day. The humans will still be taken.

The implication here "tell him to attack during the day" implies the original attack would have been at night time. Because this is all one night time, Goliath takes off with Hudson this *same* night, this is also the time if the rest of the clan had gone too, that the Vikings would attack, because the gargoyles would find they had been led away and return the following night as Goliath and Hudson did.

Again, we are seeing a story set in a very tiny time frame.

Day/night one Original Viking attack and repulsion .

Day two, Captain plots with Hakon, Night -- Captain and Demona tell Goliath to go after the Vikings , Goliath goes alone, plan falls apart, plan changed, Demona having doubts all during this same night.

Day three -- the Massacre. Night falls and Goliath finds his murdered clan, and with the Trio and Hudson go after the Vikings, who are now conveniently close for having made their attack later than planned, and now are not as far from the castle as the original plan called for. Action collapse here culminating in the Gargs turned to stone. Goliath returns his stone clan to the Castle and the Magus turns Goliath to stone too.

Total time frame -- Three Nights, including that of the original opening battle. All the "betrayal" part was done in the space of one day and night.

[So given that Goliath didn't play the part they wanted him to play that would have led to a repeat of the battle we saw in the very opening of AWAKENINGS 1 except without Goliath and Hudson present.) ]

Not necessarily. Even if Demona had said no to the altered plan, the Captain could still have gone to Hakon and changed the attack to the daytime. It would be most likely, because the whole point is for the Vikings to attack when the Gargs cannot defend. Remember, the Captain does not NEED Demona's agreement. Only her silence for a little space of time.

[And your right in that her betrayal is needed for the purposes of the story. But if you just put out that reason then every debate on the show is going to end with that
same answer.]

Which doesn't make it any less an important point, and has direct, unavoidable impact on how much a character can act out before the unseen walls of the story box them in.

[ We have to ascribe a little reality to it in the context of debate to have a debate. The character Demona did everything because that was how she was written, yes. But internally in the Gargoyles universe, why did the individual Demona do that? ]

But we are discussing the interpretations we have to her actions, which culminate in what we believe motivates the characters actions. Keeping in mind the other context, outside the box, does not diminish the rest of the analysis. It's part of a whole, not a separate unrelated aspect.

[In fact this debate has really become a question of "Did she mean to do that?". I'm saying that despite her good intention, it is her failed actions that cast judgment on her as comitting betrayal while you are arguing that since she didn't intentionally mean to she didn't really commit betrayal. It only worked out and was perceived that way by everyone else ultimately because the writer said so. ]

Here I disagree. We are address more than "did she mean to" but also the value of intention and how it equates to betrayal. A subjective analysis. The effect of the writer and the limits set on the fiction are not wether the act was or was not betrayal, but wether she could or could not have reacted in other ways, in character, but is prevented by the outside context of the story.

Such as, speaking a warning to Othello and Des that only gets halfway through the sentence. Many would have liked to have seen the sentence completed, and the resulting story possibility... but that would no happen because of outside constraints. Would it have been *in character* inside the story for Demona to have completed her sentence? Going strictly from what we see of her on screen, yes, I think so.

So we go from beyond, "did she meant to" to "did she have any choice but to" in context within the story and without the story, and the related relavence.

[(By the way I just wanted to add just in case that I'm not trying to sound upset or angry or insulting in the post. I just wanted to make that clear just in case especially because of the lack of tone this conversation format has. I'm actually having an interesting time debating this. You have made some very good points; some that I can agree with and some that I don't agree with.) ]

Do not worry in the least. You do not come across to me as upset, angry, or insulting. I find your discussion and examinations and personal interpretations very interesting and enjoyable. Your delivery of such has always been wonderfully free of any intimation of rancor or other unpleasantness. I find I agree with the conclusions you come to more often than not, and even on the points we do not agree upon we have been able to discuss with great civility. And if I may, I'd like to say, with complete sincerity, that I am all joy to debate with you on this matter.

[Ultimately I think that she betrayed her Clan with the best of intentions for them. She did this because the writers wrote for her to do it :-) :-) but internally because
she meant well. She had a ton of good reasons and good rationalizations. But the road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions. ]

*^_^* Except for the valuation of betrayal, I concur with the majority of your statement.

[[[You wrote: [The fact no humans died is the biggest amount of S and P hooey in the story line.] Actually it was never said in the episode that no Humans died in the Viking sack. We just never saw it happen and happened to see that they took prisoners which distracts from the immediate thought that the Vikings killed a lot of people. But I'm sure there was lots of killing and looting and other stuff Vikings like to do. ]]]

True. Offscreen kind of killing and stuff. I was replying mainly to someone's previous assertion that the Captain's betrayal led to no human deaths, and thus his actions betraying the Castle humans was less than not protecting the Gargoyles. I meant to assert that in reality, such a betrayal as the Captain instigated would have involved a great deal of death and other unsavory happenings to the Castle humans, and his betrayal to them was not mitigated by a lack of harm.

woof... That was a long post. Gotta go take a break for now.

With Thought
Mooncat
>^,,^<

Mooncat
Saturday, August 3, 2002 11:36:04 PM
IP: 68.102.1.42

MOONCAT - You wrote: [I think you are forgetting, Demona didn't come up with this plan. If anything, she's been rushed into it at the last moment by the Captain of the Guard]

Actually we don't actually know who came up with the plan or who approached who first. (Demona's dialogue in AWAKENING 5 when she reveals that she was involved in plotting with the Captain suggests that she might have been the one to approach the Captain; but we don't really know for sure.) All we know is that she accepted the alteration to the plan that the Captain suggested after Goliath ruined the Original Plan by not taking the Clan along. At most we can say that the suggestion of the alteration was rushed.

(Actually can we say that acceptance of the alteration was rushed? She didn't immediately say yes. She thought about it for a bit. Not a lot of time but considering that there aren't any other alternatives other than to either let the original plan run its course or alter it. And if they don't alter it then all that plotting was for nothing and would have achieved nothing.).

You wrote: [Then there is the perch. I don't think time and distance are as considerable as you make out. She popped down the side of the cliff the castle was on. That would have taken what, a second or two?]

More or less. As a gargoyle glides. But the question is can a Human get down there? Or even have an easy time spotting a Gargoyle down there? Or even bother looking at all there while busy sacking a Castle? Meaning that its a place of complete safety for her. She makes a deliberate move to go down there; she even takes a second to look back.

You wrote: [On the face of things, she does not KNOW things are going to go wrong. I propose that her mind is going "This is going to be good for the clan. This HAS to be good for the clan because there isn't anything that can change what's going to happen."]

That might have been what she was thinking. I don't think that she thought that she was sending the Clan to its death. And I don't think that she thought to herself that she was abandoning them; she probably found some way to rationalize it to herself. But that doesn't change her actions. Even with a shrinking time frame she still takes the little time she has left to leave the Castle.

You wrote: [Regular perch, non regular perch? I submit the practicality of her nature and survival instinct led her to perch in RELATIVE safety -- there is no guarantee no one would look over the side of the cliff and see her sitting there -- and not a concious, thought out decision to sacrifice her clan.]

During a battle and then a sack of the Castle, you really believe that some Viking is going to stop looting and killing to look off the cliff at the view? And that they would look all the way down and be able to distinguish a stone Gargoyle from the rest of the rocks?

Honestly Demona deliberately chose a safe place to sleep. It was an intelligent move on her part. But she chose to leave the Clan to whatever fate awaited it, good or bad, while she made sure she was safe. That to me was betrayal more than anything else no matter what her intentions and rationalizations were.

You wrote: [She should have known better? Seen one step farther that the plan had a possible fatal flaw? Given her usual examples of intelligence, yes. Would it have been In Character to have reasoned out that possibly fatal next step in the chess game? YES. If the writer had allowed it.]

Another option that could be added was to just have her tell the Captain not to alter the original plan thus effectively cancelling it. (Hakon was supposed to attack in the middle of the day to near nightfall the next day and be gone by the early evening in the original plan. So given that Goliath didn't play the part they wanted him to play that would have led to a repeat of the battle we saw in the very opening of AWAKENINGS 1 except without Goliath and Hudson present.)

And your right in that her betrayal is needed for the purposes of the story. But if you just put out that reason then every debate on the show is going to end with that same answer. We have to ascribe a little reality to it in the context of debate to have a debate. The character Demona did everything because that was how she was written, yes. But internally in the Gargoyles universe, why did the individual Demona do that?

In fact this debate has really become a question of "Did she mean to do that?". I'm saying that despite her good intention, it is her failed actions that cast judgment on her as comitting betrayal while you are arguing that since she didn't intentionally mean to she didn't really commit betrayal. It only worked out and was perceived that way by everyone else ultimately because the writer said so.

(By the way I just wanted to add just in case that I'm not trying to sound upset or angry or insulting in the post. I just wanted to make that clear just in case especially because of the lack of tone this conversation format has. I'm actually having an interesting time debating this. You have made some very good points; some that I can agree with and some that I don't agree with.)

Ultimately I think that she betrayed her Clan with the best of intentions for them. She did this because the writers wrote for her to do it :-) :-) but internally because she meant well. She had a ton of good reasons and good rationalizations. But the road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions.

You wrote: [The fact no humans died is the biggest amount of S and P hooey in the story line.]

Actually it was never said in the episode that no Humans died in the Viking sack. We just never saw it happen and happened to see that they took prisoners which distracts from the immediate thought that the Vikings killed a lot of people. But I'm sure there was lots of killing and looting and other stuff Vikings like to do.

Airwalker - [airwalker9999@yahoo.com]
Brooklyn, NY
Saturday, August 3, 2002 09:48:01 PM
IP: 12.88.88.166

JIMMY - Good idea about "Ask Greg".
Todd Jensen - [merlyn1@mindspring.com]
St. Louis, MO
Saturday, August 3, 2002 09:24:47 PM
IP: 65.57.59.155

I just took a gander at the Ask greg "questions being asked" section and had an idea. Why can't one of the Ask Greg staff answer some of the more insipid questions. Like; "Is Angela really Demona's daughter?"
Ask Greg staff says: YES! Did you even watch the show!

(or something like that.)

That way we can cut down on the stuff Greg has to answer and move more quickly to the questions that actually matter.
Jimmy
Saturday, August 3, 2002 08:12:47 PM
IP: 172.147.143.155

I just saw "Signs" I highly recommend it. Shyamalan has a very Alfred Hitchcock style. Excellent movie. A lot of people as they were walking out were complaining about it, but i don't really care since most people are either total idiots or lack good taste alltogether. Again, I highly recommend it.

Fan> I use "he" as a universal pronoun when I'm referring to something that is gender neutral or if I don't know what gender they are. I don't really care for oversensitive feminists. As a matter of fact i would think that using "he" as a universal pronoun would actually elevate women, seeing as how "he" can be used for any old thing, but "she" must be reserved. How special.
And as far as my disagreement between the Demona and Osama actions, read Mooncat's little shmiel on Osama and Hitler, I pretty much agree with most of the stuff. Osama and Hitler calculated their actions. They killed for political/power motives. Demona was killing in blind rage. I think the callous disregard for life, (among their own species no less) make O and H much further down the "evil" scale than Demona. Demona at least had a justifiable anger (that doesn't excuse how she dealt with it) but O and H were just killing for power.

Hmm, for some reason, my 'shift" key is being a little crappy.

Jimmy
Saturday, August 3, 2002 08:02:14 PM
IP: 172.147.143.155

Todd <<Actually, I would argue that Demona's intent to turn the humans whom her clan had sworn to protect over to the Vikings counts as a betrayal>>

Maybe. I think it was merely justice coming into play.

<< just as surely as her abandoning them to the Vikings. Remember, the gargoyles had sworn an oath to protect the humans.>>

Uh, where did this happen? I didn't see any oath swearing. I did not once in all the entire series see Demona give Katherine any kind of oath to protect the humans. The gargoyles are there to protect the castle. Castle looked okay to me. Little singed, couple broken doors... Nothing an industrious gargoyle couldn't repair.

[ Demona was breaking that oath, and I would certainly consider such an act a betrayal.]

The humans were not keeping faith with the Gargoyles. Demona's actions against the humans were to my mind, quite justified. They did not appreciate the protection of the Gargoyles. In fact, the humans reviled the Gargoyles who risked life and limb, blood and bone in service to the castle and it's inhabitants. It was actually, in my consideration, poetic justice for Demona to withdraw her protection of those humans.

[Come to think of it, I recall once somebody's creativity demon (I think that it was Batya's) where the ColdDuo confront Demona over her having failed to warn them, and tell her that it's not just a matter of whether she's sorry for abandoning the rest of the gargoyles to their fate. The big question is "Are you sorry for plotting to betray the humans to the Vikings?" ]

Well I hope Demona answered in character. I don't think she should be sorry for that bit at all. It's not plotting she should be sorry about. She should be sorry the plan didn't actually work.

[Of course, as I pointed out once, the Captain's redemption in "Shadows of the Past" is carried out without any mention of the betrayal that he'd planned for the humans - only his failure to stop Hakon from smashing the gargoyles. But that's understandable, given two factors:

2. The humans were taken prisoner by the Vikings, something that was reversible. The gargoyles were slaughtered by the Vikings, something that wasn't. The permanent loss of life was much more serious than the temporary loss of freedom. ]

The fact no humans died is the biggest amount of S and P hooey in the story line. In real life, the Vikings would have slain the guardsmen, raped the women, and then slain any person who wouldn't make good prisoners, which would include infants and children under the age for traveling, any old people who weren't worth ransom or holding specialized skills. Then there are the rituals of torture and death so that your enemies may gain some honor or glory by showing their resistence to the pain and agony before they are sent on to the after life. But that last could be cut for time, since the Vikings were in a rush.

Mooncat
>^,,^<

Mooncat
Saturday, August 3, 2002 07:27:21 PM
IP: 68.102.1.42

A Fan << <Mooncat><The HAPPY version of gargs in the modern world has already been REJECTED by Disney.> You should also remember that in the "rejected" version, there was no Goliath. Thanks to his being created, we have the show that we all know and love. To quote Greg Weisman, "Goliath is the prism through which the [Gargoyles] universe was recreated.">>

I remember there was no Goliath in the original HAPPY version of gargs. Goliath sold the DARK MOODY version of gargs to Disney. So what point were you trying to make? Goliath is the dark, brooding, gothic hero of the show. You don't get dark and brooding from a HAPPY scenario.

So if you want to look at it one way, GOLIATH is the cause of all pain and sorrow in the gargoyles universe, because the great tragedy was crafted solely to give GOLIATH his broody and tragic premise.

If Disney wanted happy and sunshine Gargoyles, they'd have kept the first series proposal.

I doubt a big cheerful purple Gargoyle in a happy happy universe would have sold. Barney has some vicious lawyers protecting his trademarks and copyrights.

Mooncat
>^,,^<

Mooncat
Saturday, August 3, 2002 07:03:48 PM
IP: 68.102.1.42

Actually, I would argue that Demona's intent to turn the humans whom her clan had sworn to protect over to the Vikings counts as a betrayal just as surely as her abandoning them to the Vikings. Remember, the gargoyles had sworn an oath to protect the humans. Demona was breaking that oath, and I would certainly consider such an act a betrayal.

Come to think of it, I recall once somebody's creativity demon (I think that it was Batya's) where the ColdDuo confront Demona over her having failed to warn them, and tell her that it's not just a matter of whether she's sorry for abandoning the rest of the gargoyles to their fate. The big question is "Are you sorry for plotting to betray the humans to the Vikings?"

Of course, as I pointed out once, the Captain's redemption in "Shadows of the Past" is carried out without any mention of the betrayal that he'd planned for the humans - only his failure to stop Hakon from smashing the gargoyles. But that's understandable, given two factors:

1. They probably didn't have enough time to address both issues in an episode that has to fit into a 30-minute time-slot.

2. The humans were taken prisoner by the Vikings, something that was reversible. The gargoyles were slaughtered by the Vikings, something that wasn't. The permanent loss of life was much more serious than the temporary loss of freedom.

Todd Jensen - [merlyn1@mindspring.com]
St. Louis, MO
Saturday, August 3, 2002 06:52:07 PM
IP: 67.28.92.253

****A fountain of water shoots up from the floor of the Comment Room. It almost immediately freezes into ice. Specifically, an ice sculpture of Blaise. At least, it seems so until the sculpture begins to move and talk.**** Just trying to keep cool in the rather high-temperature climate of the Room right now.
I apologize if what I say sounds a bit preachy, but.... Frankly, there do seem to be two definitive sides (minus the more mellow folks, like Airwalker), and I've seen *both* sides jumping to conclusions, insulting the person instead of debating the ideas, etc.. I'm trying not to point any fingers at specifics, nor am I qualified to chastise or advise...I just want to say that I hope no permanant damage is being done.
Anyway, on with my thoughts.

JIM R.> A bit belated, I know, but HAPPY BIRTHDAY anyway!

MOONCAT> "I bring this up because I think it would have been In Character for her to finish warning Des and Thello."
Actually, someone once asked Greg why she didn't warn Des and Othello, and Greg said that it was because "emotionally, she was a coward." That is not to say that she was a coward in other respects--she was a very brave warrior. But a person can be brave in some respects and cowardly in others (take me--I can speak in front of people no problem, but the idea of finding an apartment scares me stiff).
I mention this because it, and many other observations about Demona's character made by Greg in answers, rambles and memos, indicate that the story was written to suit the characters, not the other way around. In the minds of Greg and the rest of the staff on GARGOYLES, Demona acted completely in character.
[shrugs] You guys just disagree, that's all.

GOLIATH'S CAPABILITIES AS LEADER> Well, I won't go so far as to say he sucked as a leader in the tenth century (otherwise, the clan probably would have already crumbled in the 10 years between his ascension and the Massacre). However, I will admit that the situation at Wyvern in 994 was probably the most difficult time for him.
And there is a certain hubris to Goliath going after the Vikings with only Hudson (though he wasn't too far off the mark--he, Hudson, the Trio and Bronx managed to send the whole army packing, though their element of surprise probably helped).
Regardless of how much or how little responsibility for what happened at Wyvern Goliath bears, it is certain that he feels some guilt about it. Yet another reason why it's such a sore spot for him.

Well, back to searching for an apartment (and like Jim R., I'll have to deal with trying to find an Internet provider before I can get back on here--consequently, I'm kind of glad we don't review MONSTERS for another week). I should pop back in one last time before I move. Until then, farewell. ****Blaise's ice-body melts and seeps through the cracks in the floor.****

Blaise
Saturday, August 3, 2002 06:51:18 PM
IP: 128.125.236.95


matt-- [Mooncat> you seem so sure of what things might've happened if only one or two things was different, but there are infinite possiblities. for all you know, withen the Garg Universe if Demona had warned her Clan, then in 1994 humans and gargoyles could be living together peacefully or maybe humans are extinct and humans alone rule the Earth. ]

There are always infinite possibilities to everything. I listed a few very high probabilities. Higher in probability, I think, than your sunshine version of happy gargs and humans living together in sweet harmony. Out of the infinite possibilities, humans and gargs and fay and the universe itself could just implode and leaving any argument empty, because "poof" ... it's all gone.

infinite possibility umpteen hundred... Demona warns her clan, and an army of anthromorphic ducks and mice suddenly show up to defend them during the daytime while they are helpless stone, then the good blue fairy arrives and grants them flesh form during the day, then it begins to rain lemonade and flowers blossom into gum drop and bon bon blossoms....

yup... just one of the infinite possibilities... I wouldn't bet my lunch money on it though.

[thats the problem with Demona. as others have pointed out, she doesn't think long term, only short term, ]

This seems a failing of most gargoyles, including Goliath who at the time didn't appear to be thinking even short term, much less long.

[unfortunatly immediatly good results don't mean anything if a couple years down the road everythig goes to shit.]

Now who is "so sure of what things might've happened if only..." ?

And you are arguing against your own point. If Demona HAD warned her clan, what good is it if "a couple years down the road everything goes to shit."

[thats why Goliath was such a good leader. he was well aware of Gargoyle vulnerablities and the tensions between humans and gargs and he knew that the only way they could survive was through peace not war, even if he wasn't appreciated, at least he wouldn't be dead. ]

Actually, we are not shown that Goliath "knew" this at all. In fact, we are given no evidence he is thinking about the survival of his clan through a plan of "peace" at all. What we are shown are concerns brought to him, which he dismisses without any kind of addressing whatsoever. He basically gave Demona and the Captain, a 'don't worry, be happy' speech. And even if, we go by your *conjecture* that he "knew" peace was "the only way" -- he could still have been WRONG.

Goliath could have been all "la la la... turn the other cheek... I'm a human door mat, walk all over me Katherine I like it.... la la la..." and still had his big lavender tail handed to him on a platter. Katherine, princess of the realm and law of the land despised him. Her chief advisor thinks Gargoyles are "unnatural creatures" and the one human in any position of rank get's demoted just for trying to give the Gargoyles a little recognition for Saving the Castle from the Vikings.

Highest probable outcome, if Goliath continued his "they are just humans, ignore their bad behavior, it has nothing to do with us." attitude, is that his entire clan would be destroyed by the very humans he is letting walk all over his clan like a cheap rug.

[i admit that things looked bleak at Wyvern, but a few bad apples is no reason to throw all security out the window and make war.]

A few bad apples who happen to be the highest human powers of the realm, and in the position to destroy your entire people. Hmm... as a practical and logical person, I'd say there was good and plenty reason to 'make war' -- which in fact was not Demona's plan. The plan was not "gargoyles make war on humans" the plan was, "let another group of humans make war on the first group of humans and rid us of their dangerous and abusive presence" -- No gargoyle would have had to go into direct battle against the castle humans, another group of humans would do the dirty task of ridding the castle of the wingless vermin. =)

[ for all you know, after a few years Katherine and Magus might've come around some other way, maybe the Clan saves them somehow or something and they become huge garg fans.]

And maybe everything would be lollipops and candy canes... Katherine decides it was totally silly to hate Gargs, invites Goliath to her royal bed chamber and makes mad passionate love to him, has a huge whopping number of eggs with him. Demona, heart broken that the Big Lavender guy has a human chick fetish, welcomes the advances of the equally spurned Magus, and they go off and have magical baby human gargs. The rest of the clan, utterly scandalized by all this interspecies mating, take off with the Grimorum and go to Avalon to live happily ever after, or at least until Oberon shows up and turns them into sugar spun statues instead of stone, and the next day time rain that falls melts them into a sweet gooey puddle...

Yeah... it could happen.

[we don't know, but Demona knew a little more about the future than most of us cuz of her vision of the Massacre. point is no excuse anyone can make or think of makes Demona innocent. ]

Uh, who of us claimed Demona was innocent? Our point is that Demona had reasonable motive for her actions. Innocence is sweet and all, but not a trait a sane, well educated, and practical person wans in a leader. Demona knowing that in some future time, her clan will be destroyed by HUMANS, has good and reasonable motive for wanting to get rid of those humans.

[perhaps she didn't realize her actions would destroy her Clan, but she DID betray them.]

She betrayed the Humans. Who richly deserved it.

Demona was attempting to save her clan. If Hakon had not smashed the clan, then Demona would be the clan's savior. That Demona did not realize the greater danger of the Vikings over the one presented by the Castle humans, was a failure on her part. Failure, not betrayal.

[she outright disobeyed the Leader, ]

Who was ignoring his clan's danger.

[plotted behind everyones backs,]

Actually, plotting In Front of everyone is kind of silly. And I think the Captain of the Guard sort of counts as "someone" last time I looked.

[abandones her protectorate,]

last moment nerves. hey, she's flesh and blood too.

[and in the end she doesn't even take responsibilty for her mistakes and blames them on others]

Well, her one mistake was short sightedness. Everything else is pretty much the human's fault. The Captain sabatoged the castle defenses and let in the Vikings. The Vikings smashed the clan. Demona believed the Captain would protect her clan, and he didn't. Is she at fault? Yes. Is she the primary cause of her clan's destruction? No.

Demona blames humans for destroying her clan. Uh... Humans DID destroy her clan.

Demona is partly to blame for the circumstances that lead to the clan's destruction. She's in denial about this, and that is why she is in a state of madness and vengence a thousand years later. Eventually, when she forgives herself for her part in the clan's massacre, she can find true happiness.

No one is saying Demona **didn't** contribute to the tragedy. She is one of the major players in the story. However it was a human that swung each and every hammer and mace blow that cracked her kin and rent their stone flesh to dust and rubble.

Humans who abused the gargoyles despite their good service, humans who promised their protection and failed that promise, humans who smashed not one, but two clans...

Is she ignoring her own contribution to the deaths? yes. Is she wrong in blaming the humans for killing her people? no.

Is she wrong for blaming ALL humans? Yes. But her state of mind is understandable. That's why fan fic authors love to "save" her so much. Or at the very least create a human friend for her so that she can learn to forgive humanity for being loathsome species that nearly made Gargoyles extinct and may yet make them extinct.

[just like so many people in this room seem to do. ]

Well, I for one think Demona is totally responsible for her own actions, even if she is in denial right now. I don't think her reasoning for committing those actions was wrong though. She was thinking the right way. It's unfortunate she wasn't thinking far enough ahead to see the flaw of the plan. If she could have seen the flaw in time, and compensated for that flaw, it would have been a happy ending for her.

[its fortunate for Demona that so many people excuse her behavior]

How so? Demona doesn't get a so much as a candy bar from all us loving and adoring her. What exactly does Demona gain from us out here understanding her behavior? Does she get a puppy or something?

[that kind of thinking is what keeps the world at odds with itself. ]

Yes, liking a cartoon character surely is the evil that causes all the world's wrongs. *~_~* sigh...

[i don't think anyone here is evil, i don't even think Osama or Hitler are evil, ]

I do!!! I'd be happy to make an Osama or Hitler fritter pie. *starts boiling the oil* If someone would kindly catch, skin, and dip them in the batter, I'll go get the salad fixings and the wine.

[but Demona, bin Laden and Hitler all have a couple things in common: they don't show mercy,]

Well, I wouldn't know, not having met them and all. Kind of strange to assign absolute traits like 'they don't show mercy' to people you don't have first hand knowledge of. For all we know, O and H are merciful as all get out... to their own people.

Demona however has been shown time and time again to have mercy and compassion. She saves Macbeth's tuckus. She even showed the young prince Canmore mercy. If she'd killed the prince there and then, he'd not have been there to attack Macbeth later and ultimately destroy her second clan. So in this case her mercy was only repaid with sorrow.

[they don't consider their actions,]

Uh, I'd say it's a safe bet that O and H ***did*** consider their actions. I don't think those planes hit the Twin Towers and gee, **accidently** caused pain, grief, death and terror.

There is lack of consideration in the crimes committed, deliberately to harm those who were harmed by O and H. They considered their action, committed their action, and succeeded in their actions. The Twin Towers were destroyed. The Jewish people and other minorities were murdered in concentration camps.

But guess what? Demona did not go directly against the castle humans. She didn't send a hijack planes and smash them into the castle. She didn't round up the castle inhabitants and freeze them and starve them and gas them to death.

What did Demona do at Castle Wyvern? To the Humans? She withdrew her protection of them.

There is a subtle difference here. The harm O and H inflicted was deliberated and aimed directly at their victims.

Demona did not intend to inflict harm on Her Own People.

[and they don't accept responsibilty for their mistakes. ]

Actually, O and H not only accepted responsibility for their actions, they promoted them!!! They didn't call them mistakes either, but shouted their (to them) victories across the entire world. They wanted everyone to know who they were and what they did.

If someone asked, "Osama, who blew up the Twin Towers and killed countless Americans?" Osama would probably go "me, me, me!!!! I killed them!!! I blew them up and made their families grieve and their entire nation swell with rage and sorrow!"

Not accept responsibility? The man put out video tapes to make sure everyone knew it was him. Hitler made endless propaganda movies and posters and every kind of media program open to him at the time to promote his actions.

[they are not evil, but they are wrong. ]

I think Osama and Hitler are evil. But that's just my opinion.

I don't think Demona is evil though. I think her hating **all** humans is wrong. She should just hate **specific humans**, and let the rest of them shower her with love and affection. =)

[as for Demona's good intenions, well, more people have died and wars have started because of someones good intentions...]

Yeah, war is wrong. We should be give up freedom and be slaves rather than go to war. Nothing is worth war, because if we all are happy happy and let whoever wants take our homes, property, loved ones, etc and never fight for what we believe in, then there would be no war and the world we be paradise.

*Mooncat looks at the American Flag on her wall, and sighs with relief that SOME people are willing to do what's necessary to ensure her country's freedom and well being*

Meant with good intentions...
Mooncat
>^,,^<

Mooncat
Saturday, August 3, 2002 06:47:20 PM
IP: 68.102.1.42

Jimmy><Then Fan compared Demona's blind hatred to Osama's (though I don't really agree with his example I'll leave it alone)> You are correct. It wasn't an attack on Demona fans. It was an attack on Demona's morality, or lack thereof. I'm curious, what is it about my example you have some contention with? By the way, how do you know whether or not I'm a "he?"
Mooncat><The HAPPY version of gargs in the modern world has already been REJECTED by Disney.> You should also remember that in the "rejected" version, there was no Goliath. Thanks to his being created, we have the show that we all know and love. To quote Greg Weisman, "Goliath is the prism through which the [Gargoyles] universe was recreated."
Matt> Good on you, Matt. I couldn't have said it better myself. <point is no excuse anyone can make or think of makes Demona innocent.> Exactly. Mooncat and others seem desperate in their attempts to soften how awful her actions were. That is futile, because no matter what good intentions she had, it all comes down to the fact that she saved herself and left all the clan on their own. Nothing will ever excuse that.

Fan
Saturday, August 3, 2002 06:38:03 PM
IP: 63.225.176.83

Mooncat> you seem so sure of what things might've happened if only one or two things was different, but there are infinite possiblities. for all you know, withen the Garg Universe if Demona had warned her Clan, then in 1994 humans and gargoyles could be living together peacefully or maybe humans are extinct and humans alone rule the Earth. thats the problem with Demona. as others have pointed out, she doesn't think long term, only short term, unfortunatly immediatly good results don't mean anything if a couple years down the road everythig goes to shit. thats why Goliath was such a good leader. he was well aware of Gargoyle vulnerablities and the tensions between humans and gargs and he knew that the only way they could survive was through peace not war, even if he wasn't appreciated, at least he wouldn't be dead. i admit that things looked bleak at Wyvern, but a few bad apples is no reason to throw all security out the window and make war. for all you know, after a few years Katherine and Magus might've come around some other way, maybe the Clan saves them somehow or something and they become huge garg fans. we don't know, but Demona knew a little more about the future than most of us cuz of her vision of the Massacre.
point is no excuse anyone can make or think of makes Demona innocent. perhaps she didn't realize her actions would destroy her Clan, but she DID betray them. she outright disobeyed the Leader, plotted behind everyones backs, abandones her protectorate, and in the end she doesn't even take responsibilty for her mistakes and blames them on others, just like so many people in this room seem to do. its fortunate for Demona that so many people excuse her behavior, that kind of thinking is what keeps the world at odds with itself. i don't think anyone here is evil, i don't even think Osama or Hitler are evil, but Demona, bin Laden and Hitler all have a couple things in common: they don't show mercy, they don't consider their actions, and they don't accept responsibilty for their mistakes. they are not evil, but they are wrong. as for Demona's good intenions, well, more people have died and wars have started because of someones good intentions...
later kids...

matt
Saturday, August 3, 2002 03:45:29 PM
IP: 207.230.48.32

Airwalker - " But that she left her own group after coming up with a plot that puts them in direct risk "

I think you are forgetting, Demona didn't come up with this plan. If anything, she's been rushed into it at the last moment by the Captain of the Guard, who again is the only human of rank that is a Gargoyle friend, and the leading military figure among the humans. The natural doubts she has, her good judgement, as you mentioned are clouded not just by her justified prejudice against the humans, her fear for her clan's ultimate safety, but also by a collaspsing time frame where she has to make an immediate decision without any thoughtful consideration.

She made the choice -- and as you mentioned it being the right or the wrong choice depended solely on wether Hakon took action against her clan despite the assurances of the Captain, who she had strong reason to trust.

The time frame collapses rapidly. She has a bad feeling that maybe the plan isn't the best, and goes to talk to Othello and Desdemona,

Demona: "Listen, quickly. There's something-- "

And sees the Vikings are in place, it's a breath from dawn. There is nothing that can be changed now, she HAS to stay with the plan.

"(Sigh) Never mind. It's nothing."

Now, on the face of it she could have finished telling Des and 'thello -- and that would have given us two extra flesh gargs after the massacre. But, and here I am mentioning yet again the story contraints, that would screw up the story flow. I bring this up because I think it would have been In Character for her to finish warning Des and Thello. We did not see any sign she was too embarrassed to reveal to them something was wrong. So why that mid sentence warning never got completed? Story limits set in. Des and Othello rattling around after the massacre would have muddied things storywise, so Demona didn't get to finish her warning to at least them. Within the story context, I see lack of time as the major reason that warning wasn't finished, outside, it's obvious she isn't allowed to make any warning, because that would squirrel up the story flow.

Then there is the perch. I don't think time and distance are as considerable as you make out. She popped down the side of the cliff the castle was on. That would have taken what, a second or two? Again I point to the collapsing time frame. I think here she is reacting more on pure emotional turmoil (and who wouldn't, even if the outcome were good instead of tragic)and not rationalized thought. On the face of things, she does not KNOW things are going to go wrong. I propose that her mind is going "This is going to be good for the clan. This HAS to be good for the clan because there isn't anything that can change what's going to happen."

But her non-rational, non-vocolized part of her brain is giving her this flood of anxiety.

Regular perch, non regular perch? I submit the practicality of her nature and survival instinct led her to perch in RELATIVE safety -- there is no guarantee no one would look over the side of the cliff and see her sitting there -- and not a concious, thought out decision to sacrifice her clan.

I submit, given evidence of her willingness to sacrifice success of dearly held goals to help others (re: Macbeth, Angela) even AFTER the massacre, is reason to believe that if she had KNOWN her clan would die, without doubt, then she would at the very least finished her warning to Des and Othello. But rationally, as far as she knows by the information she has, everything should work out fine.

She should have known better? Seen one step farther that the plan had a possible fatal flaw? Given her usual examples of intelligence, yes. Would it have been In Character to have reasoned out that possibly fatal next step in the chess game? YES. If the writer had allowed it. We come again to the limit of story needs. A character is able to work out to their inherent given characterization within story limit, but only within the bounds of the story structure.

example. Demona makes that final, critical assessment that take the actions one step farther, and goes "OH SHIT, THIS IS A STUPID PLAN"

Tells the Captain "Are you f*cking nuts? I am going to tell Goliath to stay here and look out for viking reprisals!"

end result -- 1) well, Captain probably goes ahead with the plan, and EVERY GARGOYLE DIES. End of Garg story, except maybe the trio and the eggs. Kind of sucks.

end result -- 2) the Captain, realizes he's in a bind, fearful that Demona's tattling will finish him, KILLS her, and whole new story line developes, probably not suitable for Disney TV.

end result --3) Demona tattles to Goliath. The Captain is prevented from helping the Vikings. Clan is safe. Maybe. But the story is over, unless other events escalate into the tragedy that propels Goliath and a FEW gargs into the 20th century.

Big guy and sidekicks in the mean city is the story premise, all things lead to this point or there is no show. The HAPPY version of gargs in the modern world has already been REJECTED by Disney.

Poor Demona. Such a richly developed character, so rife with possibility, so utterly screwed because no matter if it would be **in character** to warn her friends/clan (and I think it would be) or not... she wouldn't be allowed to because the story has to unfold along specified parameters.

She could have stayed with the clan and gotten smashed. It might even have been in character for her to stay as much as to go. But then what? No more Angel of the Night, and "Demona" would never exist. Coldstone and friends wouldn't exist either, because it's the now non-existent Demona who magically helps bring them to the 20th century.

Goliath and Hudson and Trio might thru other circumstance be awakened in the 20th or later year century... Maybe. No Demona to join with Xanatos in the events to break the spell on the Gargs. So who knows? One thing that's certain, is without Demona (and thus Macbeth and that story line is screwed at the start) even if Goliath and the 4 other male gargs and one beast woke up in 20th century manhatten. The story would be hugely different and I would dare say the poorer for it.

Perhaps Goliath, without seeing an 'evil' Demona in the 20th century, wouldn't have her bad example by which to keep his moral compass so straight and narrow. His one true love would be murdered, and he'd have that loss and guilt on his heart. He might even take a much darker view of humanity without seeing how the extreme of such thought could be bad. His possible romance with Elisa? She looks pretty good compared to a live and kicking ex-love who is trying to smoke his garg buns with a bazooka. Would he give into an out of species love with the sweet and sorrowful memory of a dead love forever in his mind? Or would he feel he would be betraying his Angel's memory?

"We are one, now and forever" is harder to overcome when your ex isn't there to kick your butt, but stone cold dead because of humans.

mmm...

What if Demona had 'kept her vows of love'... young and loving as she was, ready to fight the hard and bitter version of her future self... it would be in character to have taken another life path, one that did not lead to the Wyvern massacre as portrayed in the cannon series. But then there would be a totally different story. Possibly one that would lead to 1)extermination of all Wyven Gargs, 2)ultra happy ending. Either way... as a fiction neither of those outcomes would make a good TV series, so no Gargs, and no us discussing the gargs and their motives and interpeting their actions etc...

okay, gotta take a nap now
later
Mooncat
>^,,^<
sleepy kitty

Mooncat
Saturday, August 3, 2002 01:06:35 PM
IP: 68.102.1.42

Greg B.> I never thought of the Constantine angle before. Good point. But that still doesn't exonerate Demona and the Captain.

And on a side note about the debate, i gotta say that you people are seriously misconstruing what the other guys are trying to say, especially with the whole Hitler thing. Gabe was simply talking against how people sometimes excuse people's behavior because of their cultural background, referring to the Halocaust, and somehow Aaron took it personally as if he were being called a nazi. Then Fan compared Demona's blind hatred to Osama's (though I don't really agree with his example I'll leave it alone) and mooncat took it as an assault on Demona fans. All I have t say is: simmer down. Read the entire post before jumping to conclusions.

Jimmy
Saturday, August 3, 2002 11:40:59 AM
IP: 172.134.159.108

MOONCAT - You wrote: [So, by your definition, if the Vikings had not smashed Demona's clan, say if Hakon had listened to the Captain, then her actions do not constitute betrayal?]

Technically speaking it would be considered betrayal if of course anyone actually found out about it. (Although you could say that it did achieve the ultimate goal of the plan - a Human free Castle; it just happened that she also got her entire Clan wiped out or cursed - the Puck version of success.)

But realistically thinking about it, success would cancel out the negative aspects - it would become politics by other means more than betrayal. What it is technically wouldn't matter more than what it accomplished. That doesn't mean Goliath would be happy about it if he found out the specifics or that it would become morally right but we have to remember to view it through the time it is set in. In the Dark Ages betrayal isn't about the act and morality of betraying; it is about who in particular you are betraying. (Or in other words some betrayals are different from others :-) )

The nature of the times is lack of trust between the various groups - and who can end up surviving. Demona's plotting with the Captain against the Humans is just a more advanced move than the Magus looking for a spell to use against the Gargoyles. But the problem here is not only that she moved against the Humans but that she left the Clan to the conscequences of a Plan she approved and fled the scene at the last moment. (At least when Yama did the same thing in BUSHIDO - approving a plan with a Human ally that effects the fate of the entire Clan - he didn't leave the scene early; he stayed to the bitter end.) Demona's betrayal of the Humans is wrong but in the 10th century not the end of the world. (It wouldn't make people more likely to trust her if they found out but then again in the event of success what were the odds that anyone would find out?) Its sad to state but it would have just been politics. But that she left her own group after coming up with a plot that puts them in direct risk rather than at least finding a hiding place somewhere else in the Castle can be seen in the times as being worse.

You wrote: [This is where we disagree in what constitutes betrayal. For me, betrayal is deliberate, the outcome of the actions not determining the state of betrayal/not betrayal. I acknowledge her failure, but not that failure equals betrayal.]

We are thinking of betrayal differently then. The way I see it intent matters but ultimately you can't really be judged on intent, only on action and consequences. She meant well and failed at it. That's not the end of the world. But for all that well meaning her actions still carry through - she came up with a flawed plan that had no specific backup to take into consideration what might happen if Goliath didn't come through on what she expected him to do, then she agreed to an dangerous altered plan at the last minute and after all that she hides herself as far away as possible to avoid any danger to herself despite her leadership responsibility to the Clan. Even if she couldn't do anything she still left on what was her watch. However much we try to make it seem less than what it was, she LEFT at a considerable speed and to a considerable distance when she was in command of her people. Its a failure for sure and its very hard not to see that as a betrayal even if she didn't mean for it to be. What she meant, and that she meant well only means anything if she succeeds. And she didn't. Its cruel and unfair to put it that way but I don't remember anyone mentioning that the Dark Ages was anything but bitter, cruel, and unfair.



GREG BISHANSKY - You wrote: [Funny, re-reading the end of my last paragraph, I'm now certain that a massacre of the Wyvern Clan was inevitable]

Probably was. Odds are good that Katherine wouldn't have changed without events as they happened. And the Magus did have that spell ready for use even before anything happened at the Castle. All it would have taken was a bad mood on Katherine's part and the entire Clan would have been cursed.

And even without that you do bring up a good point about Constantine. Bottom line is that Gargoyle existance in the open in Western Europe in the Middle Ages was becoming impossible and was coming to an end. If it had happened later then none would have survived. (And given that the Crusades were about to start a few years down the odds of survival for the Clan continue to decrease. Like I said a while back, Goliath was born in the wrong time - Human/Gargoyle coexistance wasn't going to happen then. Demona's flawed plan aside, she still had the right ruthless attitude; her problem then was bad judgement and now is that the world has passed her by.)

And your probably right that without the Massacure to put at least a few Gargoyles to sleep and keep the Castle abandoned then none of the Wyvern Clan might have survived. After all even if the plan had succeeded wouldn't Hakon have just ransomed Katherine anyway? And wouldn't that mean that she might decide to return with a more negative view (since they would have failed to save her) and an army? Or perhaps return with Constantine as a husband to reclaim the place of her birth?

Airwalker - [airwalker9999@yahoo.com]
Brooklyn, NY
Saturday, August 3, 2002 10:04:42 AM
IP: 12.88.86.68

Airwalker -- So, by your definition, if the Vikings had not smashed Demona's clan, say if Hakon had listened to the Captain, then her actions do not constitute betrayal? This is where we disagree in what constitutes betrayal. For me, betrayal is deliberate, the outcome of the actions not determining the state of betrayal/not betrayal. I acknowledge her failure, but not that failure equals betrayal.

Buttons -- I like the idea. Maybe we can whip something up by Gathering 2003.

*Mooncat toddles off back to the Friday night gaming session.*
Mooncat
>^,,^<


Mooncat
Friday, August 2, 2002 11:31:21 PM
IP: 68.102.11.91

MOONCAT - I think that the core of the argument comes down to intention versus perception. Demona's intention was not betrayal of her Clan. She didn't intend for them to die or be hurt. She honestly wanted to help and save them. And did she intend to betray them by going to hide away from the Castle while the Vikings attacked? I don't really think that she figured she was betraying them (although it could have occured to her in that last tearful moment before she turned to stone).

But all her good intentions don't make a difference. Her acts of conspiring with the Captain and then leaving the Clan while she sought personal safety for herself seal the perception that she did betray her Clan. What she thought at the time doesn't make a difference. However cruel it might seem considering all her good intentions, that is the price for failure. Instead of being the savior of her Clan, she is their betrayer.

Betrayal can't be measured in how good the intentions of the person were unless that betrayal was successful. Her actions are clear - she conspired with the Captain over a plan that became clearly flawed and placed her Clan in his hands. At the same time she fled, saving herself from any harm whatsoever. And the Clan ends up destroyed. If there had been a measure of success and most of the Clan survived and the Humans were driven out then it would have been just a successful gamble. But life and history are not kind to those who fail. And Demona's idea failed. Her actions failed. Her joint plan with the Captain failed. And her responses failed to do anything to balance out the major failure. That she meant well doesn't mean much to her murdered Clan or to the few survivors who found out about her specific behavior.

You wrote: [First, is the actual act of leaving/hiding a betrayal to her clan?]

She was willing to trust the fate of her Clan to her one Human ally but wasn't willing to trust her own life to that same ally. She had a feeling something was going to go wrong and left. Its true that they would all be stone and so she wouldn't have really been able to do anything to aid her Clan even if she had remained. But the fact that she left alone her Clan still tilts the balance towards betrayal even if she didn't see it that way. She was leader and had instituted the plan that was putting them all at risk. She could have at least stayed and accepted the risks of a plan she came up with rather than leave her Clan to face them for her. (And her going off alone, while its true that she realized that she had little time left to flee, she still could have saved Coldstone and Coldfire; she could have just said "Follow me quick!" and they would have done so. Perhaps a few others could have been saved too. They wouldn't need an explination. They would just have to follow. But she didn't. She left alone. On top of that she could have gone to the Rookery - she could have said she was going to visit the Trio; but instead she put as much distance between herself and the Castle as possible.)

You wrote: [I disagree. How would her staying with the clan and being smashed too, be a benefit to her clan?]

If she knows that they are going to be smashed then she is consciously betraying them by fleeing and saving her own life. If she didn't know that they were going to die then why did she need to put such a considerable distance between herself and the Castle? She could have gone to the Rookery.

You wrote: [As far as she knew, in story context, the plan was going to work.]

We don't know that. She might assume that it is on one level in her mad rush to get away from the Castle but that crying into sleep thing suggests something else.

You wrote: [Which is not a bad thing, as I like her character and think the story is better for having her in it =)]

I like the character too. She's one of the most, if not the most interesting character in the series.

Airwalker - [airwalker9999@yahoo.com]
Brooklyn , NY
Friday, August 2, 2002 11:14:43 PM
IP: 12.88.116.231

I didn't plan to get involved in this debate, but hey, why not?

Count me in as another "Evil Demona Fan". And yes, I most definetly want a button. I love my Dark Goddess... I really do. And yes, I'm definetly a holder of the label... Demona Worshipper.

MATT> <<i would be scared if anyone in here favors Demona's morality over Goliath's, that would be crazy.>>

Be afraid, be very, very afraid because I sure do. Though as far as morality goes, I share my morals... or lack of morals with Xanatos.

But anyway, as far as Demona's responsibility for the massacre goes... she is at fault, yes. But I place the fault much more on Hakon, the Captain of the Guard, Princess Katharine, the Magus (I'm not sure he even really hated the gargoyles, but was sucking up to Katharine), and yes... Goliath. Mooncat covered Goliath quite well, and I know Mara Cordova also wrote a great post on this subject over on another forum.

Demona made a mistake yes. But considering the circumstances, I doubt anyone here would have acted differently. Thanks to the events of "Vows", she knew the Massacre was coming. She knew it, and can you imagine how that knowledge tortured her for nineteen years? She acted to prevent it. But even my Dark Goddess isn't perfect, when push came to shove, I don't think she knew at all what was going to happen. Come dawn, paranoia took over, and she expected the worst, and yet still hoped for the best. Come sunset, she forgot about that paranoia... and we all know the rest.

Except for Hakon, I place most of the blame upon Katharine for creating an environment where Demona and the Captain's betrayal took place. Count me in as another who has little doubt that one day she'd decide that's she'd put up with those "demons" long enough, and would do away with them. Hell, considering that Constantine's usurption of the throne would soon take place, when he arrived at Castle Wyvern, she'd probably have let him shatter the gargoyles... I believe the late King Cullen was Constantine's father, and given that I think Greg mentioned that the gargoyles would be helping Prince Malcolm and his older brother Kenneth deal with him, Constantine would want revenge.

Funny, re-reading the end of my last paragraph, I'm now certain that a massacre of the Wyvern Clan was inevitable. I'm sure it would have been worse with Constantine swinging the mace, it's more likely even the eggs woud have been found and shattered. In a bitterly ironic way, Demona and the Captain's plan may have in actuality saved the clan from complete destruction.

I wasn't justifying Demona's, or anyone else's actions btw. Just thought that'd be a little food for thought.

Greg Bishansky
Friday, August 2, 2002 11:06:01 PM
IP: 216.179.5.116

I want a button... :P
John Cronin - [jcronin@bellsouth.net]
Friday, August 2, 2002 07:34:38 PM
IP: 65.80.16.160

Re "Long Way Till Morning": I saw the Demona-Lady Macbeth similarity more in general terms: the wife urging the husband on to replace the old leader. Not a specific "every point in one corresponds to a point in the other" parallel.

Actually, in "The Thrill of the Hunt" there were only five Pack members; Coyote wasn't introduced until Season Two. (And since he only got in at the same time that Fox dropped out, the Pack always had no more than five members).

Todd Jensen - [merlyn1@mindspring.com]
St. Louis, MO
Friday, August 2, 2002 06:37:23 PM
IP: 63.208.40.88

Jimmy> Oh. That's right. Thanks for reminding me about the "invisible man" thing. I'd forgotten where I got it.

I'd just like to say one more thing in this debate: Hindsight is 60/20 and it's reeeeeeeeeal easy to be a monday morning quarterback.


Aaron - [JCarnage@Yahoo.com]
Friday, August 2, 2002 06:26:12 PM
IP: 209.33.140.99

A Fan -- So Osama is the new Hitler?

Osama equals evil. Demona and Osama are the same.

Demona equals evil. Demona's mindset is evil.

Demona fans have the same mindset as Demona.

Demona fans have an evil mindset.

Demona fans are evil.

*mooncat yawns*

yup, that's me. A Demona fan who thinks here original thought structure that lead to her actions in 994 was sound and rational. I think she had the correct mindset for her time and setting. Guess I'm evil.

*looks at Aaron* Think we should get buttons made?

Mooncat
>^,,^<

Mooncat
Friday, August 2, 2002 06:08:17 PM
IP: 68.102.1.42

Todd><Regarding Demona in "Long Way Till Morning": I always saw a certain similarity between her in the flashbacks and Lady Macbeth in Shakespeare's play, urging Macbeth on to murder Duncan and usurp his throne. Which is rather interesting, when you consider what Demona's future would be.> Yes, it is very intriguing.
Airwalker> I agree with every point you made.
Jim R.> Happy Birthday to you. How old are you, if you don't mind my asking?
Matt><so why was she so pushy on making him Leader if (in her mind) that may only hasten the fall of the Clan???> I really don't know. That's just how she is, I guess. <damn that visit by Demona to herself in 975 sure screwed her up, eh?> Indeed, it did.
Aaron>< You mean, practical self-interest over self-sacrifice for the undeserving and ungrateful? > No, I mean unfairly blaming, punishing, or killing everything that remotely is related to whom or what you think ruined your life. Osama bin Laden and his ilk hate the United States. They believe that anything and everything American should be killed and destroyed. The fundamentalists don't take into account that the average American didn't have total control of the policy the government has in the Middle East, nor that every American didn't agree with it. They don't care, just like Demona didn't care about the fact that the humans she smashed in "City of Stone" didn't have anything to do with what happened in her past. The terrorists crashed planes full of innocent civilians into a building of full of innocent civilians. She smashed random, innocent humans that had the misfortune of being out on the street when the spell took affect. Demona and the terrorists didn't care whether the innocent lives they've taken didn't have anything to do anything wrong. They killed people because they belonged to a certain country or species. Blind hatred is not a virtue.
Greg> I hope you have a great time.
Jimmy> I agree with your points on Demona and fiction.

Fan
Friday, August 2, 2002 05:36:49 PM
IP: 63.224.58.16

Aaron -- Great points.

Greg -- Have fun at the con! I'm much envious *^_^*

Jim -- Happy Birthday.

***************************


Fan -- <I find it very ironic that Mooncat accuses you of deliberately refusing to pay attention when she has done so herself.>

I have been paying attention. *I* do not ask a question, then when the person answers it SEVERAL TIMES falsely claim "you didn't answer the question." -- That is a concrete example not only about DELIBERATELY ignoring pre-stated arguments, but then whining that the person who made those arguments, which specifically WAS the answer to the question asked, had not answered the question. Be truthful, I answered the damned questions. I can't help it if the answers weren't the ones you wanted to hear.

<You clearly state that you know Gargoyles is fiction, but she seems to have conveniently skipped over it.>

Let's see, he states he knows it's fiction. Then states that Demona's actions being crafted by the writer is the same thing as him becoming a real life murderer and being able to blame it on being "written" to do it. Excuse me, Demona **is** a "written" character. Fact. Saying that *anyone* of us Real Life people, here talking in the message board, doing anything and it being the ***same*** as being that Real Life person being "written" to do so -- not only NOT a fact, but having that idea is why I think some people have reality issues.

I am not "skipping" it. I addressed it.

<Anyway, what to you think of Demona's behavior in respects to Hudson in the flashbacks of "Long Way To Morning?" I just watched the episode and started pondering about the foremost reason why she kept trying to goad, or manipulate, Goliath to make Hudson step down.>

Manipulate HOW? She came right out and said, Hudson was old (true) and she thinks he is no longer a the best leader (her opinion, which Hudson AGREED with) -- so she wasn't being tactful, but she wasn't being manipulating. Bitchy maybe, but absolutely truthful and up front about it.

<I've figured that she had an ulterior motive as to why she wanted him to relinquish his leadership besides the fact that he was old. .

The fact was, Hudson was old, and she didn't think he was a good leader. She thought Goliath would be a better leader, based on what she thought a leader should be -- young, and strong. And she wasn't being the least bit subtle about her opinion either. She said it, and she did so where Hudson could hear it too.

<I think the fact that once Hudson stepped down and Goliath would be promoted from 2nd to leader was another motivation. With Goliath as leader, she would be assuredly appointed to second in command. >

Why would she be assuredly appointed second in command?

Because she was Goliath's mate? Greg already said that being mates has nothing to do with who becomes Second.

Then was it because Demona was the best warrior in the clan after Goliath? That would have been the only reason Goliath would chose her as warrior, unless you think he chooses who his second is on if he gets to f*ck them or not.

<What do you think? Was Demona a little power hungry?. >

I think Demona was ambitious. Not foremost for herself, but for Goliath. Gargoyles are not humans, the position of one's mate does not affect one's own position within the clan. If Demona became clan Second, it was on Her Own Merits. Not Goliath's.

Would Demona be happy to be clan Second? Probably. Is she not allowed pride in her accomplishments?

Was she being wily and manipulative making Goliath become leader when he didn't deserve to be leader, just so she could become Second? Uh, no. Goliath, by her consideration, and Hudson's consideration, was at that time ripe for becoming the leader of the clan.

Is Demona ambitious for herself? I think so. I don't think her telling Goliath he'd be a better leader than Hudson was for her personal benefit though. I think she honestly thought Goliath would be a better leader. She loves the big goof. She thinks he's all that and a bag of chips. And she thinks Hudson is washed up. Do the math. If she benefits personally, I'm sure it's a happy thing for her, but Goliath becoming leader was a given. Goliath was clan Second, Demona wasn't pushing anything that wasn't going to happen regardless. Was she impatient? When has Demona EVER been patient? Was she tactless? Hell yeah. Was she WRONG about Goliath being ready to be leader, and Hudson ready to step down? Big No.

***********************

Patrick: <A well-written character will have motives that can be seen from inside the story. Why did Romeo and Juliet kill themselves? While saying "Because Shakespeare wrote it that way" is correct on technicality, it doesn't provide any more understanding of the subject at hand than saying "slavery caused the Civil War." >

Good point. So in light of addressing why Romeo and Juliet killed themselves, which has obvious outside factors -- Romeo kills himself because he thinkso Juliet is dead, and he's a lovestruck 13 year old with the common sense god gave a pea hen. Juliet kills herself because she sees Romeo has just killed himself over her. She also being a lovestruck 13 year old goes and whacks herself. Tragedy.

Now, in light of Demona's inner motives, the audience has to imagine what they might be, based on her story context. Logical, yes? The argued points here are not what Demona did, but WHY she did them.

Now, on bare face going STRICTLY from story context. Demona was in a situation where herself and her clan were under the increasingly hostile rule of humans. The one human of rank and power who was the FRIEND of the gargoyles came to her with a plan for getting rid of those hostile humans. Her clan leader, instead of addressing the danger of the castle humans, is as far as we can see, simply ignoring the situation despite the counsel of his Second in Command and the HUMAN Captain of the Guard.

So is Demona's working with the Captain of the guard because it will benefit her clan or herself?

Let's see, what's the outcome if the plan had succeeded ---

The humans are gone, and the Gargoyles get the castle/land for themselves. Does this benefit the clan? Demona seems to think so.

Now what does Demona get out of this. Rank? No, she is already second. Is she after Goliath's position as clan leader? Not that I can see. She loves him, and seems to have no great desire to be leader herself.

So besides the notable benefit of the clan, to her mind, what does Demona ***personally*** gain from No More Hostile Humans???? Not rank. Not power (no humans means no power over humans) not popularity (no one would know but her and the captain) no goods, no services, in fact, noting more than No More Hostile Humans.

So is her motive --

"I am doing this for the good of the clan, that is what makes the risk I'm taking for myself and the clan worth while."

or is it:

"I am doing this because personally, I just don't like humans and not having them around is worth the kind of risk I'll be taking for myself and my clan."

If it's a given that Demona isn't blindingly stupid, which of the above makes more sense?

Some people say Demona's primary motivation was vengence. But at this time Demona had nothing to avenge. So far they are just really pissing her off. But she does have this "warning" from the future of her clan destroyed because of the humans. If that future warning is a factor of her motivation, I think it goes more to "the good of the clan" than to "humans just piss me off personally"

Now myself, personally, I think her primary motive for her actions was the good of her clan. Yes the humans are irritating, but I think it's the clan safety that would move her to break the chain of command and work independently from Goliath's directives. Simple irritation isn't worth the risk she would be taking, and I don't think Demona is stupid enough to do all she did just because humans piss her off.

Heck if merely being pissed off at humans was her primary motivation for becoming involved with the risky venture of supporting the Captain's plan with the Vikings, she might as well have just started picking them off one by one in the dark corners of the castle.

"Pesky human!" *snap, crack* "One down, only a few hundred to go."

<And that's my two cents plus interest. Normally, I'd dive right in to a good Demona discussion, but this weekend I'm off to Comic Con right after I leave work today.
I'll be back on Monday. >

Oh!!!! ENVY!!!!! Have a good time at the convention =)

**********

Todd <Regarding Demona in "Long Way Till Morning": I always saw a certain similarity between her in the flashbacks and Lady Macbeth in Shakespeare's play, urging Macbeth on to murder Duncan and usurp his throne. >

Only Demona wasn't counseling murder, and Goliath wasn't ursurping anything. She basically said, out in the open, "He's old and not a good leader. You are young and strong, you would be a better leader." and Hudson agreed.

Soooo... how is this like Lady Macbeth telling her husband to murder his king to increase their power?

************
Gabe --

re Propaganda -- Everyone uses propaganda to some degree. I was simply pointing out a ****really blatant and silly example***. The whole "Demona fans are the same as Burger Boy" ploy. You are welcome to point out the styles and forms of propaganda I am using. I prefer to use logic, not false associations of an opposing argument's side to completely unrelated McDonald's lawsuits and the ridiculous people like Burger Boy who make them.

<That bastard! How dare he stay in the dark about the plan.>

Yeah! *^_^*

<< There was no conscious intent to save herself at the expense of her kindred.>>

Then she wouldn't have hidden; instead, she would have perched with her clan. I wouldn't be as stupid to say she wanted them destroyed; she really thought she
had her clan at heart; however, I still maintain her hatred and contempt for humans clouded her judgement, and i became moreso a matter of revenge and less a
selfless plan. >>

I maintain that the 'hiding' was nerves (working on instinct, not actual thought), and thus not a pre-meditated betrayal. This is of course a subjective view point, since we can't pop Demona's head open and concretely determine exactly what she was thinking. I agree her dislike of humans clouded her judgement, but disagree that it's revenge, because she doesn't have anything to revenge yet. I don't say the whole of the plan is selfless, only her primary motivation, which I maintain is the clan's best welfare, was a good one and understandable.

*************

Airwalker -- <Was she consciously acknowledging to herself that she was in fact betraying the Clan by not staying with them? I don't really think so. (It's possible though; we don't exactly know why she started crying before she turned to stone. >>

I agree with that.

<But was her actually leaving a betrayal? Yes. >

I debate this.

First, is the actual act of leaving/hiding a betrayal to her clan?

I think not, because betrayal would indicate that her NOT leaving would somehow benefited her clan, or that the actual act of leaving was the cause of their harm.

In this case, go or stay, Demona's presence would not have affected the outcome of the Vikings destroying the clan.

I think that the point here is really, how much faith did Demona have in her actions? Not total, or she would not have hidden. But having less than total faith in ones actions is not in itself an act of betrayal. That she went ahead with a plan without total faith, is to my thinking, bad judgement, not an act to deliberately harm her people. Thus, it goes back to intent and deliberation. Demona did not hide with the intent to harm her clan, nor did the act of hiding deliberately cause her clan harm.

<Everything else aside, she was the acting Leader of the Clan in Goliath's absence. She had a responsibility to them that she abandoned to save her own life. >

I disagree. How would her staying with the clan and being smashed too, be a benefit to her clan? How would her presence in any way, shape, or form averted the harm from the Vikings. What could she have done instead? As far as she knew, in story context, the plan was going to work. If she did not have total faith in it's success, she had enough to have gone through with it in the first place. At most, I think the hiding was an indication that she was not a hundred percent sure. But that in and of itself does not constitute active betrayal. Nothing that has not yet happened is 100 percent certain.

<very possible to argue that she just didn't have enough time to warn and save her Clan. >

This is my thought.

<But there was enough time for her to decide if she should save herself or not>

Which is not a bad thing, as I like her character and think the story is better for having her in it =)

<(And to be honest if she had any confidence in her plan she would have taken the risk.>

I think you mistake having less than perfect confidence with having no confidence. I agree Demona did not have perfect confidence in her plan, thus her last moment change of perch --- but I think she did have **enough** confidence in her plan, that she went through with it in the first place.

<< But she had a feeling that something might go terribly wrong.>>

Exactly, a feeling, not any evidence that it would fail. And I think many people have experience with second guessing their feelings, or going ahead with a plan or action that "should" work, even if something seems a bit off to us at the time.

<She still has the 975 vision on her mind.) And with that time she chose to leave the Castle and go to the seashore rather than stay with the Clan in the Castle. Even if she didn't recognise it as such, it was still a betrayal. >

Personally, I don't see not dying as a betrayal. I think betrayal, real betrayal, is a deliberate and conscious action. I don't think Demona deliberately or consciously decided to NOT save her clan. Mainly because she did not *know* that they would be harmed.

<But abandoning Leadership, being afraid to see through a plan that she knows on some level is going to fail,>

But that's just the point. She doesn't "know" that the plan will fail. She might have a funky feeling, but that is all it is, a feeling, not a knowledge.

<but the fact remains that Demona did commit a betrayal - of her Clan,>

But, not to my opinion, deliberately. By intent, she was not trying to harm her clan, but to benefit it. If the Vikings had NOT smashed her clan, within story context, everything would have been, as far as Demona knew, gravy. She did not *know* the Vikings would smash her clan. She was concerned, but not on specifics.

We see Demona going to talk to Othello and Desdemona -- showing she did not have a degree of fear or embarrassment that would prevent her from discussing the situation with them, but then we see her stopping... Not out of fear or embarrassment, but because she sees the Vikings getting into position, and is now aware that time has run out.

For good or ill, things are now out of her ability to change.

If at that moment, Demona has this thought... "maybe this isn't such a good idea" that does not constitute betrayal. Lack of good judgement, maybe, but not, IMHO, betrayal.

<even of her promise to Goliath not to think about that future she saw in 975.>

How exactly is she going to be able to prevent herself from thinking about that future? And she did not promise not to think, she promised to "fulfill the vows of love you make" -- and in her mind at that time, she was, from what I could see, not breaking a vow of love, but in her own way trying to fulfill them.

<f she had stayed and survived it would have been a minor betrayal of the Humans. Not the end of the World. But she left her Clan, her family. When it came
down to it she put her life ahead of the rest of her Clan. She as leader was supposed to stay with the Clan like a Captain stays with his ship. But she jumped
overboard. >

First, I think guys who stay with a sinking ship if there is a perfectly good lifeboat available are incredibly stupid. My opinion is that it takes more courage to live, than to die.

Second, I disagree with the parallel of Demona perching away from the clan as being the same as abandoning a sinking ship. As far as she knew, that "ship" was not sinking. She did NOT know the Vikings were going to smash her kin. I reiterate, last moment doubts, when you can't do anything to change events set into motion, does not constitute betrayal.

<(I don't blame her for the feeling of fear that might have prompted her to leave the Castle that night. She had a feeling and didn't want to take a chance. So she
saved herself and hoped for the best for the rest of her clan. But if she couldn't save the rest of her Clan then she had a responsibility to at least stay with them. >

I think if she did think things would go south, her responsibility would have been to survive and see to picking up the pieces when the dust clears.

<Leadership means having to be screaming "Follow Me!" in battle, not "You First!". And Leadership means overcoming that natural fear even if its not in your personal interest to do so. And Demona betrayed that leadership ideal and all she was leading by leaving.) >

And sometimes leading is knowing when to sacrifice for the greater good, or risk sacrifice... not of yourself alone, but of those who follow you.

In any case the situation Demona was in was NOT a pitched battle. If it were, we can reasonably assume she'd be right in the thick of things kicking but and taking names. She is "the finest warrior" of the clan outside of Goliath, this does not indicate she is a coward. All things considered, I think Demona would have *preferred* an outright battle of her clan versus humans.

The situation was one of intrigue, not actual battle. I love Demona, but I am the first to admit she sucks at intrigue. I fully agree her choices were not the best. However, I can see from story context why she made those choices. I do not think Demona is a coward. In a fight situation, I bet she is there with a blade in her hand and a smile on her lips, ready and willing to shed blood... her own as well as her foes.

Was she the best leader for the clan at that time? No, I don't think so. She does have limited vision, and does not think things through all the variations of possibility. She would not be a good chess player. But was she willfully sacrificing her clan for her own personal benefit? I do not think so. I think the best interest of the clan was her goal. She failed in that goal, but NOT from lack of desire or acting on the desire to protect her clan.

<But the truth is that a debate over the characters, the story, and the universe it is set in isn't going to be sustainable if we don't in the course of conversation suspend some disbelief and ascribe some realism to it. While acknowledging that it is fiction is alright, if we don't move on and get away from that point then all the conversation is going to end up with is "It happened because that's how the writers wanted and were able to write it." Which is true. But it sort of sucks the life out of a good debate. >

I'm well and happy with discussing the characters in context of the story, and in hypothetical "if this were real, then ..." -- But I also think we need to keep in mind the context of the story in relation to the limits of it's format. It's a Disney cartoon. It was fictional and that does bear on what a character could and could not do. If we lose sight of that truth, we risk becoming like that sad Star Wars fan you mentioned. If the debate is so threatened that it destroyed by a moment of outside objectivity, then it is not a very worth while debate, is it?

**********
matt - <i'll be frank, i know that things happened cuz the writers wrote it that way, but when we are debating and i ask you a question i want you to answer why within the Universe that it happened.>>

But I wanted to be Frank. Guess I'll have to be Shirley instead... Cuz I surely answered your questions in context of the given story. Repeatedly. With detailed references to story scenes and actual dialogue quotes and the whole shebang. The mention on the fact this is all fictional was just a chaser, because it was beginning to sound like some people were losing sight of that fact. And yeah, the fact that these are fictional characters does have bearing on their actions and proposed motivations. An unpopular or unhappy truth is still... truth.

With thought
Mooncat
>^,,^<
"Logic is the process of drawing a conclusion from one or more premises."

"Argument: Is a statement or proposition with supporting evidence. Critical thinking involves identifying, evaluating, and constructing arguments."

"Reasoning: You have the ability to infer a conclusion from one or multiple premises. To do so requires examining logical relationships among statements or data."

"Point of View: POV is the way you view the world, which shapes your construction of meaning. In a search for understanding, critical thinkers view phenomena from many different points of view."

---- Critical Thinking
Schumm, J. S. and Post, S. A. Executive Learning.

Mooncat
Friday, August 2, 2002 04:08:02 PM
IP: 68.102.1.42

Fiction> When you're debating about the motivations of characters and the reasoning behind actions, you have to assume that they are real. For example, when you write an esay about "Crime and Punishment" and the question asks "Why did Rashkolnikov kill Katarina?" Answering, "because the writer needed him to do so to propel the story" really doesn't analyze the character or their motives and doesn't get anybody anywhere. Art imitates life, the characters in stories (such as Demona and Goliath) have human-like characteristics. The characters help us understand ourselves and human nature, and provide an enjoyable story along the way. We need to analyze the characters as if they were real psychological entities, because only then can we ever learn anything from them.

Demona not helping save the clan> Deep inside, I think Demona did know that the clan would die when she saw the vikings. But we all know that she is the master of self-deception and convinced herself that the Captain would pull through. She believed they would die, but decided, due to her fear of exposing her betrayl, that she should trust the captain.

Aaron> You mention "Just because they worship a different invisible man than you do." Carlin mentioned that when he was rewriting the ten commandments (I listened to it a couple of days before I read your comment) and he gets to "Thou shalt not kill" ("Well we all know how well people listen to that one. That should be changed to: Thou shalt not kill, unless the other guy is a different color, doesn't agree with you, or worshipps a different invisible man than you do.")

Slavery> I propose that the slavery and civil war debate be postponed until monday.

Jimmy
Friday, August 2, 2002 04:02:43 PM
IP: 172.153.201.165

I'm leaving tomorrow for the San Diego Comic-Con. Doing a panel on Roughnecks/Starship Troopers at 11 am on Sunday. Stop by and say hi, if you're there.

Then on Monday and Tuesday I'm taking the family to Legoland and Sea World. Won't be back in the office until Thursday, so no DCV for me next week. Sorry.
Greg
Friday, August 2, 2002 03:57:55 PM
IP: 67.219.66.157

Jimmy> (Or can I call you Mmy?) ;) <<George Carlin fan I'm assuming?>> Yes, but what tipped you off?

<<And Demona did hate humans quite a bit. Why do you think she was the Archmage's apprentice.>> Because she wanted power to protect her clan. And I think you have it a bit backwards. Isn't it more likely that the Archmage's shabby treatment of her soured her on humans?

<< I don't think Goliath's "Scare those cowards away" was that arrogant. The castle was only nearly overrun because the Garg's hadn't woken up yet.>> Which means the attackers more then likely outnumbered the human defenders of Wyvern. We're not talking about thirteen guys in one boat here. ;) This was a seriously large Viking force. I doubt they just found those catapults and siege towers lying on the road to Wyvern. They had enough men to build them and/or haul them overland to Wyvern. Probably in excess of two hundred hardened, battle-savvy veterans.

<<I mean, Goliath later beats the pack with only Lexington's help. i honestly think he could have beaten a viking party with just him and Hudson.>> I disagree. The Pack were *six* people. (Albeit, six highly trained, well-equipped people) But they had were at a disadvantage in that they'd never seen a gargoyle before and had no idea of their capabilities. The Vikings are obviously familiar with the species, having fought them the previous night, (and probably before, given the comments by Hakon's lieutenants before the battle) and, while healthily wary of their abilities, know them to be merely flesh and blood.

<<Don't underestimate guerrilla tactics, especially with something as well comoflauged, powerful, and mobile as a Gargoyle.>> Guerrilla tactics worked against the Pack, because they only outnumbered their quarry three to one, and they were on the attack. They pursued overzealously, into unfamiliar territory, and so got separated and picked off one by one. But the Vikings wouldn't be chasing the gargoyles through the forest. They would be on the defensive, and, as the Art of War tell us, it's always easier to defend then attack. G & H might pick off some scouts and stragglers, but eventually, someone would twig what was going on and the game would be up. Again, I say the Vikings huddle up in a defensive circle, and either make the gargoyles come to them, for a pitched battle they would win by virtue of superior numbers, or WAIT FOR SUNRISE, which they know will save them. Two gargoyles could perhaps demoralize parts of Hakon's force, and maybe even spook their horses into bolting, but, barring unusually favorable circumstances (killing Hakon, setting the whole forest on fire, etc.) they simply could not prevail against a force that size.

<<And I do believe Greg said it was Demona who convinced the captain.>> Perhaps I'm mistaken. Could you point me to the relevant info?

Fan> << <i would be scared if anyone in here favors Demona's morality over Goliath's, that would be crazy.> Be afraid, because I think some of the people in here do actually favor Demona's morality.>> (Smiles and waves) You mean, practical self-interest over self-sacrifice for the undeserving and ungrateful? Yo! Me! Right here! <<It's the same morality that drives situations like the Middle East conflict.>> Hmm, from being compared to Nazis to being compared to Islamic fundamentalists. At least we're moving around. <<With Goliath as leader, she would be assuredly appointed to second in command. What do you think? Was Demona a little power hungry?>> And was she not qualified for the position? Demona functioned as a successful clan leader in the years after the fall of Wyvern, right up to the point where things fell apart with MacBeth. How come she never gets any credit for that? And for another thing, Greg already stated that Demona would have been a temporary second only. When the warriors from the Trio's generation came of age, she would have stepped down and been replaced by one of them, probably Brooklyn.

Jim R.> I'd say the Civil War had to happen to establish which was stronger, states rights, or the federal government. Slavery was simply a catalyst. (BTW, PBS is supposed to rerun the Ken Burns mini-series this fall. I can't wait!)

Aaron - [JCarnage@Yahoo.com]
Friday, August 2, 2002 02:37:14 PM
IP: 209.33.140.99

Jim R. > thanks for bringing up slavery and the Civil War, as if we are not debating enough things this week! Brooklyn vs. Goliath, Demona vs. Goliath, fault of the Massacre, Hitler's relevence in debate, directional writing vs natural unfolding of events, etc etc etc etc
oh, and HAPPY BIRTHDAY JIM!!!!!!!!

Mooncat> you know besides all the petty insulting of me you tried to do in your last posts, i kinda agree with you on several things. i'm glad you were able to calm your Demona bias for a second and admit that she was more responsible for the Massacre than Goliath. i also agree that Hakon is mostly to blame, but Demona is more to blame than Katherine, i think...
i also agree that the Wyvern Massacre was a big complicated series of events, actions and (unfortunatly) bad decisions on the part of many characters. i once excused goliath from ALL blame, but you've convinced me that he may not have done enough to soothe tensions. however, like i said before, he is the least responsible for the whole thing, and i doubt he could've done much, like other said he wasn't born for his time and he became leader at a tough time afterall!
and Mooncat, just in case you didn't listen to the others (or decided not to listen) once again, we all know Gargoyles is fiction. but we are debating events within the series and saying "it happened cuz the writers made it happen" isn't relevant to our conversation and dulls the debate. i'll be frank, i know that things happened cuz the writers wrote it that way, but when we are debating and i ask you a question i want you to answer why within the Universe that it happened.

Long Way til Morning> another thought i just had. others have mentioned that Demona was pushing for Goliath to be Leader. i find that weird cuz when Demona visits the Massacre she clearly sees that Goliath is frozen in stone in the Leaders roost, so she had to know that the events of the Massacre would take place when Goliath becomes Leader. so why was she so pushy on making him Leader if (in her mind) that may only hasten the fall of the Clan??? well obviously, its cuz the writers wrote it that way. kidding...
damn that visit by Demona to herself in 975 sure screwed her up, eh?

matt
Friday, August 2, 2002 01:57:43 PM
IP: 207.230.48.109

Patrick> <<it doesn't provide any more understanding of the subject at hand than saying "slavery caused the Civil War.">>

For the most part I think slavery DID cause the Civil War. Depends on how you interpret it and where you're from mostly. In a nutshell, the South wanted to remain using slave labor. Northern abolitionists didn't like the idea. The Confederacy is formed to break away from the North. The Civil War begins to keep the Southern states from seceding the Union. Eventually, Lincoln, an abolitionist somewhat himself, turns the War into a battle to free the slaves.

Even though the cause of the South leaving the Union was not totally all due in fact to slavery, the South did feel oppressed by the North in many ways not just them wanting to outlaw slavery, however, in my opinion as someone who lives about 20 miles from Gettysburg and who typesets some Civil War books for a local publishing company, I'd say slavery was numero uno. But that's just what a Yankee like myself thinks. :)

Jim R. quietly walks away from the explosions and turmoil that plague the "warzone" CR, whistling: "Happy Birthday to Me, Happy Birthday to Me..."

Jim R. - [jim@dialwforwarp.com]
Friday, August 2, 2002 12:10:30 PM
IP: 65.173.84.15

Wow, the Comment Room has really come to life! I remember when it was this active way back in 98 and 99 but got used to the calmer pace as it started to slow down. I'm glad to see things have picked up. I hope that we can sustain it at this volume for a while.



MOONCAT - You wrote: [I pretty much agree with Airwalker's assessment, up to the point on wether Demona was making a conscious betrayal by perching elsewhere that fateful night.]

Was she consciously acknowledging to herself that she was in fact betraying the Clan by not staying with them? I don't really think so. (It's possible though; we don't exactly know why she started crying before she turned to stone. It could have been the realization that her Clan was about to die and the future she saw was coming true. But it also could have been because she realized that she has essentially left her Clan to whatever fate awaited it while she sought out safety; essentially that she betrayed them. But its still a questionable point.) But was her actually leaving a betrayal? Yes.

Everything else aside, she was the acting Leader of the Clan in Goliath's absence. She had a responsibility to them that she abandoned to save her own life. Its very possible to argue that she just didn't have enough time to warn and save her Clan. But there was enough time for her to decide if she should save herself or not. (And to be honest if she had any confidence in her plan she would have taken the risk. But she had a feeling that something might go terribly wrong. She still has the 975 vision on her mind.) And with that time she chose to leave the Castle and go to the seashore rather than stay with the Clan in the Castle. Even if she didn't recognise it as such, it was still a betrayal.

She can see obvious flaws in her plan with the Captain. But she either didn't trust him completely or she didn't trust the Plan completely or both. And with that information she chose to abandon the Clan and save her own life. That was the major betrayal - betraying the Humans to help the Clan or even betraying the Captain to save her own neck in a hypothetical situation wouldn't have been a big deal; it would have been just another way of dealing in the rough and tumble life of the Dark Ages. But abandoning Leadership, being afraid to see through a plan that she knows on some level is going to fail, and doing those two things to save herself personally - that was betrayal. We can question if there was enough time or not to warn and save the Clan. We can question the intention of all the characters involved in the plan and we can in many ways give blame to many for helping to contribute to the events that lead to the formation of the plan but the fact remains that Demona did commit a betrayal - of her Clan, of her leadership responsibility, even of her promise to Goliath not to think about that future she saw in 975. If she had stayed and survived it would have been a minor betrayal of the Humans. Not the end of the World. But she left her Clan, her family. When it came down to it she put her life ahead of the rest of her Clan. She as leader was supposed to stay with the Clan like a Captain stays with his ship. But she jumped overboard.

(I don't blame her for the feeling of fear that might have prompted her to leave the Castle that night. She had a feeling and didn't want to take a chance. So she saved herself and hoped for the best for the rest of her clan. But if she couldn't save the rest of her Clan then she had a responsibility to at least stay with them. And she didn't. She left. And that's why she has to be considered to be betraying everyone in her Clan. No matter what the perception of the character might be, no matter what rationalizations there might be, she left her Clan to their fate and sought safety for herself. And that was betrayal even if it is a natural feeling to do so.

Leadership means having to be screaming "Follow Me!" in battle, not "You First!". And Leadership means overcoming that natural fear even if its not in your personal interest to do so. And Demona betrayed that leadership ideal and all she was leading by leaving.)



LADY BALTIMORE - Welcome!



FICTION AND PREDESTINATION - Since this has some up somewhat in the present debate, I figure that I'll throw my two cents in on it. Patrick has a very good point. We all know and accept that GARGOYLES is all fiction. There's no question or objection on that point from anyone at all. (Its not like an argument I got into once with some extremely obsessed STAR WARS fan - the guy was almost on the verge of screaming "It IS real!". Real sad. Happened to be the last comic convention I went to as I recall.) But the truth is that a debate over the characters, the story, and the universe it is set in isn't going to be sustainable if we don't in the course of conversation suspend some disbelief and ascribe some realism to it. While acknowledging that it is fiction is alright, if we don't move on and get away from that point then all the conversation is going to end up with is "It happened because that's how the writers wanted and were able to write it." Which is true. But it sort of sucks the life out of a good debate.

Airwalker - [airwalker9999@yahoo.com]
Brooklyn, NY
Friday, August 2, 2002 11:44:54 AM
IP: 12.88.87.195

authors and characters>

Has anyone in here ever heard of the "Death of the Author?" (nudges anyone with a degree in English that might have had literary theory ;]) Basically, the theory is that the reader makes the text, not the author. I used to whole-heartedly reject this since I could never grasp that an author's purpose and themes could be completley missed. However, after reading everything in this room about who's to blame for what, I think this is exactly what is going on in here (as long as Greg stays out of it, we can have a death of the author happening :P).

Mooncat, and everyone agreeing with her, are crafting the story to where demona is largely innocent. Everyone aggreeing with Matt and Fan (in which I am in) craft the show to where Goliath is largely (and I say completely) innocent. The side I am on doesn't see it the other way; the side mooncat's on doesn't either.

<<I find it fascinating the kinds of 'propaganda' techniques that get used here.>>

Ohhh and you never did that.

<<I don't see Demona as actively betraying her clan, as making a bad judgement call in going along with the Captain's plan after Goliath squirrels up the original idea.>>

That bastard! How dare he stay in the dark about the plan.

<< There was no conscious intent to save herself at the expense of her kindred.>>

Then she wouldn't have hidden; instead, she would have perched with her clan. I wouldn't be as stupid to say she wanted them destroyed; she really thought she had her clan at heart; however, I still maintain her hatred and contempt for humans clouded her judgement, and i became moreso a matter of revenge and less a selfless plan.

Well, I'll be internet-less for the weekend since I moved into my new apartment yesterday (I am at work on their computer). So, I'll see ya'll then.

play nice.
Gabriel "gaygoyle"
Friday, August 2, 2002 10:21:43 AM
IP: 129.120.35.51

Ooops, wrong link. _Now_ it's a schedule folder. ;)
Desdemona - [allykatty1@hotmail.com]
Friday, August 2, 2002 09:49:31 AM
IP: 198.81.129.194

Aaand lastly, a Gargoyles schedule folder. Click my name! ;) Til later,
Desdemona - [allykatty1@hotmail.com]
Friday, August 2, 2002 09:48:14 AM
IP: 198.81.129.194

I also still have the Panini sticker book and poster. Take a click-see. ;)
Desdemona - [allykatty1@hotmail.com]
Friday, August 2, 2002 09:47:05 AM
IP: 198.81.129.194

Hey'all! Well, the poor college student is back one more time! <:) I have one more Gargs item that I forgot to list on eBay the first time around! That is: the official t-shirt of The Gathering 1998 (one-of-a-kind and rare! ;) ). I don't have a picture, but it is black with a crouching Garg silhouette on the upper left corner, with the words The Gathering 1998. On the back on the shirt are four facial silhouettes lined one above the other: Goliath, Brooklyn, Broadway, and Lexington. Size is XL. Practically brand new condition; has just been sitting in a drawer for a couple years! Clickie below. :)
Desdemona - [allykatty1@hotmail.com]
Friday, August 2, 2002 09:46:07 AM
IP: 198.81.129.194

Regarding Demona in "Long Way Till Morning": I always saw a certain similarity between her in the flashbacks and Lady Macbeth in Shakespeare's play, urging Macbeth on to murder Duncan and usurp his throne. Which is rather interesting, when you consider what Demona's future would be.
Todd Jensen - [merlyn1@mindspring.com]
St. Louis, MO
Friday, August 2, 2002 08:06:38 AM
IP: 63.208.46.167

:: peeks in and sees the debate raging ::

The most interesting thing, IMO, about subjects such as history and literature (and for purposes of this statement, I'm including TV, movies, plays, and all other forms of storytelling under "literature") as compared to subjects like chemistry and physics is that in the former, absolute cause and effect are often hard to determine. What caused World War II? Answering "Hitler" may get you a point or two of partial credit on the midterm, but it doesn't by any means make for a full account and understanding of the event. What caused the massacre at Castle Wyvern? Similary, answering "Demona" only brushes the surface of a complex chain of events. Mooncat is right, in literature it is ultimately the author who set all events in motion. But I also think when one is attempting to analyze the motivations of fictional characters, it is necessary to suspend disbelief just a bit and step beyond the idea of predestination for sake of story. A well-written character will have motives that can be seen from inside the story. Why did Romeo and Juliet kill themselves? While saying "Because Shakespeare wrote it that way" is correct on technicality, it doesn't provide any more understanding of the subject at hand than saying "slavery caused the Civil War."

And that's my two cents plus interest. Normally, I'd dive right in to a good Demona discussion, but this weekend I'm off to Comic Con right after I leave work today. I'll be back on Monday.

:: scampers off ::

Patrick Toman
Friday, August 2, 2002 07:36:28 AM
IP: 67.38.243.109

Matt> It's alright Matt, I got the point of your post. I find it very ironic that Mooncat accuses you of deliberately refusing to pay attention when she has done so herself. You clearly state that you know Gargoyles is fiction, but she seems to have conveniently skipped over it. Anyway, what to you think of Demona's behavior in respects to Hudson in the flashbacks of "Long Way To Morning?" I just watched the episode and started pondering about the foremost reason why she kept trying to goad, or manipulate, Goliath to make Hudson step down. I've figured that she had an ulterior motive as to why she wanted him to relinquish his leadership, besides the fact that he was old. I think the fact that once Hudson stepped down and Goliath would be promoted from 2nd to leader was another motivation. With Goliath as leader, she would be assuredly appointed to second in command. What do you think? Was Demona a little power hungry?
Fan
Friday, August 2, 2002 07:05:02 AM
IP: 63.224.56.62

Matt <<are you trying to win allies to your side of the debate or just annoy people on our side of the debate? >>

Well annoying you is merely gravy. But I have better things to do than to make it an actual goal. Since you seem annoyed at what I say no matter how I say it, there is really no need to try, is there?

< i'm afraid you didn't answer my questions: i asked why Demona didn't warn the Clan or atleast Othello and Des. >

Yeah, I did. You just don't like my answer. That's your problem, not mine.

<i asked why she cried and you merely said she was emotional and a tear slipped out! c'mon Mooncat, do you wanna elaborate on that? why was she emotional? >

I do believe I've gone over Demona's emotional state several times already. If you deliberately refuse to pay attention, I'm not going to repeat myself over and over. If you really want my 'elaboration' scroll the heck down the page and READ what's been said already.

<and your "shes that way cuz of dramatic neccessity and writers whim" excuse is getting old >

But no less true.

<and still doesn't matter to the debate.>

It is a relevant point. So sorry it doesn't please you, but like I've said before, that's your problem, not mine.

<we are discussing events that happened in the Gargoyles Universe, we are not discussing why the writers wrote it this way.>

And you've decided to outlaw mention of why writers write Gargoyles the way they do because...??? Sorry, didn't see the memo that mentioned discussion of relevant Gargoyles facts pertaining to a debate are inadmissible because they annoy you. I am sure that must win lots of debates, saying the someone you disagree with has no valid points because they annoy you. *rolls eyes*

<and i think most of us here have a firm realization of what is reality. and what isn't. Gargoyles is fiction, but in the Gargoyles Universe, in those stories, this is what really happened. >

Does anyone else find the above statement kinda scary?

<and (at the risk of starting a religious debate) its like me saying "well, i only murdered this person cuz i was written that way." >

So, you are a fictional character too? Gee, I didn't realize that. *Mooncat looks again at the statement about "firm realization of what is reality" and shakes her head*

<we are trying to figure out why and how a character reacted a certain way, not why the writers wrote a character a certain way. >

And you think the one has no bearing on the other? Ooookay...

<i have one more question (along with the other ones) for you, Mooncat, do you think Goliath is more responsible for the Massacre than Demona is? >

Actually, I think Greg is the most responsible for the Massacre, as it is his brain child *^_~*. Followed by Hakon, who did the smashing in the story, the Captain of the Guard who set up the deal with the Viking, Katherine for being a bad ruler and setting up the situation that lead to the Captain's betrayal, then Demona for letting the Guard talk her into sticking with the plan after things went squirrely, and finally, Goliath for refusing to listen to Demona and others warnings about the danger of the Castle humans and giving Demona cause to work outside the chain of command.

I don't think Goliath is MORE responsible than Demona, but I do think Goliath has some culpability. He was being a bad leader by ignoring the danger to his clan. But I don't blame him for it, because he was Written That Way. It's one of his established character flaws, which we see repeated in later episodes, like when Elisa tells him outright "you aren't safe here" referring to the clan living at the castle after sending Xanatos to jail. And Goliath's reaction is "You worry too much".

I don't blame Goliath for his naivety, even though in Real Life such a trait would be very bad to have in a leader. This is how Goliath was written. I don't blame Demona for her rashness, and not thinking things all the way through, because this too was how she was written. And both were written thusly so that there would be an interesting story with a flow of interesting, if tragic, events.

End notes... Gargoyles never "really happened". It was a fiction, and interpretation of the characters and their motives is subjective to the person doing the interpretation. So if in your world view everything that went wrong is all Demona's fault, then fine, that's your opinion and your welcome to it. In my consideration, Demona was acting in a reasonable manner given the circumstances she was placed, and that the tragedy of Wyvern was the culmination of many character's actions and reactions. One view point doesn't mean the other view is wrong or false, only that they are different. The beauty of interpreting fictional creations, like any piece of art, is that there can be different views, even contrary ones, and they can all be correct in their own way.

Mooncat
>^,,^<

Mooncat
Friday, August 2, 2002 05:37:58 AM
IP: 68.102.1.42

Mooncat> "Always great to 'meet' someone who gives a well thought out view point, well written and intelligently delivered. I also like how you address the points of the debate, instead of going after the person making the debate, very refreshing." *rolls eyes* ironic that by saying that, you are guilty of not doing it yourself... are you trying to win allies to your side of the debate or just annoy people on our side of the debate?
i'm afraid you didn't answer my questions: i asked why Demona didn't warn the Clan or atleast Othello and Des. its obvious she had time before dawn to do this and at the very least the time to warn Othello and Des. i'm not asking why she didn't stop the plan, i know that was pretty much unstopable, but why didn't se warn the Clan?
i asked why she cried and you merely said she was emotional and a tear slipped out! c'mon Mooncat, do you wanna elaborate on that? why was she emotional?
as for why she didn't talk to Goliath after the Massacre, well, i suppose you may be right about her shock right then and i'll let that one go, but don't you think that it was guilt as well as shock?
and your "shes that way cuz of dramatic neccessity and writers whim" excuse is getting old and still doesn't matter to the debate. we are discussing events that happened in the Gargoyles Universe, we are not discussing why the writers wrote it this way. and i think most of us here have a firm realization of what is reality and what isn't. Gargoyles is fiction, but in the Gargoyles Universe, in those stories, this is what really happened. and (at the risk of starting a religious debate) its like me saying "well, i only murdered this person cuz i was written that way." thats not an excuse, its a moot point. we are trying to figure out why and how a character reacted a certain way, not why the writers wrote a character a certain way.
i have one more question (along with the other ones) for you, Mooncat, do you think Goliath is more responsible for the Massacre than Demona is?

matt
Friday, August 2, 2002 04:12:44 AM
IP: 207.230.48.36

Thanks for the welcome. ^^ I always try to give a good debate, and it's good to know I've done that. :) I'd worried that I'd rambled.

Yeah . . . you make a good point, too, and I agree with that. The S&P aspect is pretty interesting and vital, too. ^^ Both are, really . . . you need each part to build the whole. :)

So I guess we've come to an agreement. Or compromise, whichever, hard to tell. Heh . . . cool.

I look forward to talking and debating with you, too. :)
Lady Baltimore
MD, USA
Friday, August 2, 2002 12:18:37 AM
IP: 67.242.145.166

Lady Baltimore -- first off, Hi and welcome to the board *^_^*

Always great to 'meet' someone who gives a well thought out view point, well written and intelligently delivered. I also like how you address the points of the debate, instead of going after the person making the debate, very refreshing.

I think you have something on the reality of a fictional character, but I tend to see the constraints of outside (real) world on a commercial fiction as having a very profound impact. While I love Demona's concept, there are certain things/choices she and other characters in the cannot make due to the constraint of the format the Gargoyles story is delivered in. Plus, when a character makes certain kinds of choices, due to the fact this is a Disney children's cartoon, there are stock results that have to happen, or S and P goes nuts. Demona 'betrayed' the humans of Castle Wyvern, result, Tragedy. Not necessarily because her actions could not have had a successful or beneficial outcome if it were a 'real life' scenario, but because as a Disney production, certain 'moral' themes have to be enforced. Gargoyles is a modern equivalent to a morality play. Logic and reality may be considered, but in the end the rules of children cartoons win over 'realistic' possibilities. So, Demona, for whatever reason, good intention or petty, join with the Captain in the 'betrayal' of Wyvern, and it will without question end badly for them, not because it is the most realistic scenario, but because in children's cartoons, the 'bad' guys are not allowed to win.

Xanatos is a rare and stunning, partial exception. His 'bad' plans are always foiled, but he doesn't suffer the greater brunt of his misdeeds.

But Xanatos is the only character I can think of who enjoys this particular 'bad guy' doesn't get hammered by the flow of events in a cartoon universe. That is in a US children's cartoon.

There is a lot more diversity 'action and consequence' in Japanese cartoons, which is one of the reasons I adore Japanese anime. Gargoyles has more breadth than most US childrens' cartoons, which is why it's one of my favorites. But even though it pushes the 'cartoon rules' bounderies, it is for the most part still constrained by them.

Okay, time for me to go do some stuff. Again, nice to meet you. Look forward to conversing and debating with you.

Mooncat
>^,,^<


Mooncat
Thursday, August 1, 2002 11:25:35 PM
IP: 68.102.1.42

Gh! X.x; I'm new to this. That was me, the Anonymous . . . I'd forgotten to fill in the fields.
Lady Baltimoe
MD, USA
Thursday, August 1, 2002 10:48:40 PM
IP: 67.242.159.92

Mooncat>> I'm not sure what you are saying. Is Demona not a fictional character? Are her actions not determined by a write for best story impact?

Partially, yes. But not completely. Most writers don't consider only the story impact. But also what they feel would be believable for the character to do. What Demona is reported to feel plays a part in what she's made to do. If her actions were only made to support the plot, rather than establishing her as a real character . . . well, I think her character would suffer.

I'm big on thinking of characters as velveteen rabbits. They are to a certain extent "real", in varying degrees depending on who's handling them.

>> The idea that she can "choose" to act differently is not an option in the Gargoyles television series. The thing that sort of baffles me, is this expression by some fans that "Demona is evil because she could have chosen another path..."
Uh, no she can't.

I think this largely suspension of disbelief, the "velveteen rabbit" thing I mentioned before. Where characters are real. Making characters seem real, rather than completely fictitious and incapable of thought or whatever, is the goal of several writers . . .

Within the context of the Gargoyles universe, she did. If she were forced to do anything, that'd be bad writing. If it were more likely that she would do something else, I'm willing to bet that's what she would have done, although that would probably mean that the plot would be vastly different than it would have been now . . .

>>Burger Boy, being a real person can do whatever he wants, Demona as a fictional person, is constrained by the needs of the story and the writers, and Disney, and S and P... Demona has no choice in wether to warn her clan about the Viking attack. Ultimately not because of character weakness or strength or anything else BUT because of one undeniable fact. It. Makes. A. Good. Story.

I disagree, but this is sort of a chicken-and-the-egg thing. Was it the story that stated that Demona's character would be the cause of what she did? Or would what happened determine what Demona's character would be? Because we don't really know which came first, character or story development, we can't really answer that in this context . . . which is one of the reasons, I guess, why I prefer to think of them as "real" within their own universe, where things are much more interesting and relevant to me. But I guess different thought proccesses equal different conclusions, so this is largely subjective.

>>I sometimes wonder about some people's distinction between fiction and reality, in these debates. Demona's interpretation by fans, based on the fictionalized events of Gargoyles, is just that, interpretations of a fiction. No more, no less.

Well, many people have made careers out of interpreting fiction . . .

>>Likening a fan's interpretation of Demona as a tragic character with reasonable motives, to that fan being the same as a real life person who brings up a silly MacDonald's law suit is both profoundly insulting, and a attempt to devalue 'Demona fans' analysis of the character by equating them with an unrelated subject of ridicule.

I'd misused the context of Burger Boy before; I'm sorry. ^^; I was using the two separate people as examples of stupid decisions, not saying that the Demona fans were stupid. I don't think Demona fans are stupid.

>>I find it fascinating the kinds of 'propaganda' techniques that get used here. Like when people say "so and so is like Hitler." Hitler is bad, so that person, or that person's views, must be bad. It's an old propaganda technique, using emotional associations and tranference to devalue an opposing argument instead of debating that argument's given points.

I'm against such things, too. Calling someone like to Hitler, unless backed with much analysis and such, is really just an admission that one has no arguments left, in my opinion . . .

In any case, that's all for now.
Anonymous
Thursday, August 1, 2002 10:47:17 PM
IP: 67.242.159.92

Lady Baltimore -- I'm not sure what you are saying. Is Demona not a fictional character? Are her actions not determined by a write for best story impact?

The idea that she can "choose" to act differently is not an option in the Gargoyles television series. The thing that sort of baffles me, is this expression by some fans that "Demona is evil because she could have chosen another path..."

Uh, no she can't.

Burger Boy, being a real person can do whatever he wants, Demona as a fictional person, is constrained by the needs of the story and the writers, and Disney, and S and P... Demona has no choice in wether to warn her clan about the Viking attack. Ultimately not because of character weakness or strength or anything else BUT because of one undeniable fact. It. Makes. A. Good. Story.

I sometimes wonder about some people's distinction between fiction and reality, in these debates. Demona's interpretation by fans, based on the fictionalized events of Gargoyles, is just that, interpretations of a fiction. No more, no less. Likening a fan's interpretation of Demona as a tragic character with reasonable motives, to that fan being the same as a real life person who brings up a silly MacDonald's law suit is both profoundly insulting, and a attempt to devalue 'Demona fans' analysis of the character by equating them with an unrelated subject of ridicule.
I find it fascinating the kinds of 'propaganda' techniques that get used here. Like when people say "so and so is like Hitler." Hitler is bad, so that person, or that person's views, must be bad. It's an old propaganda technique, using emotional associations and tranference to devalue an opposing argument instead of debating that argument's given points.

With Thought
Mooncat
>^,,^<



Mooncat
>^,,^<

Mooncat
Thursday, August 1, 2002 10:22:57 PM
IP: 68.102.1.42

Mooncat><Nice, equating Demona fans with Burger Boy. That's objective and reasonable.> That was the only example that came to mind. Besides, I wasn't equating Demona fans to "Burger Boy" I was equating them with the people who support him. <But you forget Burger Boy is a real life boy, while Demona is a fictional character.> I know that, I was just using "Burger Boy" as a tangible example. <Demona's "actions" are created and produced by a writer who is creating a dramatic piece of fiction.> Couldn't you use the same argument for Goliath, whom you enjoy blaming? By the way, why do you keep reverting to that argument? Are you trying to digress? As Matt has stated, this isn't a debate about the process of writing the story. This debate about what took place in the story. As you've said, "There is, you see, a difference here so profound, it shouldn't need mentioning." <IMHO the blanket description of 'nonsense' to arguments that are worked out in detail with specifics and explanations simply because they are counter to your own is far more 'rude' than mere bluntness.> You're correct, that was rude to say "they." Though it was not quite as rude as your condescending "tone." Next time I'll directly indicate whom I was talking about. Your arguments were nonsensical though. They were as ridiculous as your "Goliath didn't do enough to reconcile his relationship with Demona" arguments. The same arguments that were so outrageous, that Greg Weisman jumped in on the debate.
Lady Baltimore> You had great points. I agree with everything you said.

Fan
Thursday, August 1, 2002 10:06:46 PM
IP: 63.224.57.225

I remain largely neutral on the main topic, but this is just something I had to comment on . . .

Mooncat> Nice, equating Demona fans with Burger Boy. That's objective and reasonable. But you forget Burger Boy is a real life boy, while Demona is a fictional character. Burger Boy can act stupidly of his own free will. Demona's "actions" are created and produced by a writer who is creating a dramatic piece of fiction. There is, you see, a difference here so profound, it shouldn't need mentioning.

But why is it such a profound difference? Ideally, Demona _isn't_ just a plot device . . . if she is a believeable character, then she perhaps has just as much free will as Burger Boy; I've gotten the impression that the story was written around the characters, not the other way around. If it weren't belieable that Demona would do what she did of her own free will (except when said free will is compromised), she wouldn't have done it. The writers wouldn't have had her do it if it weren't conceivable that she might do it.

The idea of characters is _not_ that you think of them as fictional characters; they're not there simply to advance the plot (ideally) . . . I don't feel there is a difference between Demona making bad choices and anyone else making bad choices, except that hers generally have a tendency of exploding in everyone's face more often. It's a different sort of free will, I guess.

I'm sorry for going on a tangent, but this is not the first time the "fictional character" point has been brought up, and I just had to make my own dispute to it . . .

Lady Baltimore
MD, USA
Thursday, August 1, 2002 09:51:12 PM
IP: 67.242.159.92

Spacebabie> "Yeah right. We know what you were thinking." And what was I thinking? :) Delilah is pretty hot and it so happens Kingdom is a labyrinth clan ep. this week. Just a good coincidence? ;) Anyway, I'm still baffled why Delilah showed up when I'm just so *sure* I chose Tom. :)

Aaron> "Dude, when did M$ ever come up with *anything* that was hacker-proof?" Well, you certainly got me there. You're right in that sense. :) When I said hacker-proof I guess I was thinking more along the lines of not electronically tampering with something and not from a computer. But my example still goes to show even if M$ did make everything else work (if they ever), they would still mess up in some other area, like maybe forgetting to slap on CD-key numbers onto the CD cases of their software. Heh.

Man, the debate is still raging. I'm surprised Aris or Acheron haven't showed yet to put in their two cents. Anyone still remember the week-long religion debate them two had some months ago? I think it was then, that I ever saw the CR with soooooo much to read...very very lengthy paragraphs...

I can't be certain whether all this will top that. Either it already has or it's pretty damn close.

Jim R.
Thursday, August 1, 2002 09:32:12 PM
IP: 65.173.69.252

Matt <<1. why didn't Demona warn her Clan or at least Othello and Des? >>

Did you miss the scene where she WAS about to warn them, then sees the Vikings taking position? It is pretty obvious that she realizes that it's too late to have second thoughts.

<<2. why did Demona cry after she abadoned the castle at dawn? >

Why not? Demona is a strongly passionate creature, and her emotions are all turmoil at this moment. I'm surprised that people equate a singe tear, which I'm sure was added for Dramtic Appeal, with deliberately deciding to let her clan die. Tears come and go for the least of reasons, and Demona seems prone to them. I don't think they equate her deliberately choosing to kill her clan though.

<<3. why did Demona run away again the next night when Goliath showed up and found the castle sacked?>>

Have you heard of shock? The girl wakes up and finds everyone dead, and then Goliath her love and leader arrives. She's too emotionally shook up. "I can't face him right now, I'll come back later."

She was going to face Goliath, just not at the moment. But before she can, someone goes and deliberately turned to stone before the night is even finished.

Demona's timing sucks. Of course, this makes for a good dramatic story. Missed chances, mistakes, good intentions gone horribly wrong, etc.

A Fan <<That is doesn't make any sense. It's not as if McDonald's people invaded the man's house, bound him, and shoved burgers and fries down his throat. This all comes down to personal responsibility. I also see a reflection of this problem in this room with Demona fans.>>

Nice, equating Demona fans with Burger Boy. That's objective and reasonable. But you forget Burger Boy is a real life boy, while Demona is a fictional character. Burger Boy can act stupidly of his own free will. Demona's "actions" are created and produced by a writer who is creating a dramatic piece of fiction. There is, you see, a difference here so profound, it shouldn't need mentioning.

<<They come up with nonsensical arguments that it was Goliath's fault.>>

It's your opinion that they are nonsense, but most people here mentioning Goliath's *contribution* to the tragedy gave several thought out reasons and even gave the specifics from the show that brought this opinion. IMHO the blanket description of 'nonsense' to arguements that are worked out in detail with specifics and explanations simply because they are counter to your own is far more 'rude' than mere bluntness.

<<They say that if "Goliath weren't so proud and arrogant and had listened" that the plan would have worked.>> Logically speaking, if these were realistic events, sure, the orignal plan as it stood had a reasonable chance for success. If it were too outrageous a possibility, the writers probably wouldn't have used it. Possibility for success had to be a given. If the sceneario is so stupid and obviously not going to work, there is no point in including it in the story, because then it's a HUGE WANKING PLOT HOLE. The fact that "the plan" had a reasonable sound to it is what makes the story hang together.

<<That is utterly preposterous.>>

Others think its a viable theory. Go figure.

<<He didn't know there was a plan of betrayal taking place.>>

Did anyone say he did? Goliath's contribution to the tragedy was one of ignorance, and to those who see him as partly responsible, his seeming deliberate blindness to the danger the castle humans posed to his clan.

<<Besides shouldn't Demona have known that there was no way Goliath would have left the castle unprotected?>>

And all those human guards are what? Chopped liver? She didn't count on him leaving everyone behind. And yes, this is to many a sign of arrogance on Goliath's part. It's not an unreasonable arrogance, but it is arrogance all the same.

<<You'd think that she knew how Goliath felt about protecting the castle and assessed the likelihood of him taking all the gargoyles with him.>>

If he had taken most of the gargs, an not unreasonable action, that would have been enough for the plan to work. Demona's flaw is that she thinks Goliath will react the way she would react in this circumstance, and she is mistaken. I don't think she's perfect, by any means. She is not the Machiavellian genius that Xanatos is. Demona has no great experience with subterfuge and deception at this point, and unfortunately, isn't good at it. Yet.

<<What about the eggs? What would have happened to them? She seemed to have not taken them into account.>>

Apparently the eggs were never in danger. Why she would think this? We weren't given a reason by the writers, BUT it was a FACT that the eggs went through the attack with not a scratch. Perhaps the entrance to the rookery is not easily accessible or noticeable. I think this was a plot weakness myself, not giving a good reason the eggs would be unmolested by the Vikings, but since they were untouched (reason still not given) we can take it as part of the story that Demona would some reason to think the eggs would be okay. Or maybe the thought of the eggs being in danger didn't occur to her. Most likely, the Vikings didn't know about the eggs, or what they would mean. Considering that they were after prisoners and plunder, the idea of tromping through dark and perhaps treacherous caves where there's no loot wasn't high on their list.

<<That doesn't sound like someone whose first and foremost reason to go through with the betrayal is the clan's safety.>>

So she isn't as farsighted as some, doesn't mean she was thinking, "oh they can make omellettes out of the kids, I don't care."

Maybe I'm mistaken, but aren't the eggs at this time, pretty much like stone cannonballs at this time? From Greg's description of them, the eggs would look like worthless small boulders. Why would a Viking, in the unlikely chance he stumbles over the eggs, give them a second glance? Bunch of worthless round rocks? Especially when there are riches in the CASTLE and lots of plunder and prisoners to be taking?

<<They were most likely secondary to her own personal desire for vengeance against the humans. >>

Except at this time, Demona doesn't have a something to AVENGE. Yet, Hence, vengence being her primary motive doesn't make since. It's putting the cart in front of the horse.

Demona's motives are a mix of things. I think the primary is, at the time of the fall of Wyvern, her concern for her clan. Demona is also, at this point, not given to thinking things through totally, and in the limited time frame she's given, she didn't have a lot of time to pick apart the CAPTAIN of the GUARDS proposal. On the face of things, it seemed a reasonable plan. That things went all kablooey is why her story is a tragedy.

If things had all gone happy happy, we wouldn't have the show Gargoyles we have today, we'd have the comedy sit come it was originally envisioned, with a female leader named Dakota and a bunch of pastel comedic gargs doing funny happy things. *mooncat considers the thought. mooncat gags*

All in all, I think the Demona character was well made and her actions and the reasoning behind them fascinating. Fascinating because they aren't one dimensional the way some people try to paint them. There is a richness to Demona's character. The good intentions gone wrong, the pain, anger and the conflicting desires of a very 'human' personality.

I like to watch Demona not despite her nature, but because of it.

Mooncat
>^,,^<

Mooncat
Thursday, August 1, 2002 09:12:45 PM
IP: 68.102.1.42

John Cronin><heh... she really had no desire for vengeance against humans at that time. If she did despise them then why would she trust the captain?> I believe she desired vengeance for the humans' ungrateful mistreatment of her clan. I think she was at least willing to trust the captain because he agreed with her views and was defended of the gargoyles against the princess.
Matt> Kudos to you. You made some very good points. <i like Demona and Goliath equally as characters. i find them both wonderfully complex and interesting individuals and i truthfully have no problems with them on that level.> I don't dislike Demona as a character, she's interesting to watch, I dislike her actions. She's done some very horrible things. If people like her, I have no problem with that. I do have a problem when they try to place the blame for her bad actions on another. Can't they like her without trying to make her actions not look as bad as they were by blaming someone else? <of course when it comes to their morality, i find Goliath much more likable and i hope everyone here would share that with me.> I do, that's one of the reasons Goliath is my favorite character, his morality. When he makes a mistake he at least tries to redeem himself, he strives to be the best person he can be. I appreciate that trait a lot. <i would be scared if anyone in here favors Demona's morality over Goliath's, that would be crazy.> Be afraid, because I think some of the people in here do actually favor Demona's morality. It's the same morality that drives situations like the Middle East conflict. <and i think the reason she didn't is cause she was embarrassed and afraid that the Clan would see her betrayal.> Exactly.
Todd><My own two cents' worth on why Demona doesn't tell the rest of the clan about the Vikings' impending attack: fear. She was afraid, I believe, that in order to tell them about the Vikings, she'd have to admit that she and the Captain had intended to betray the humans.> I believe that, too. You communicated that point better than I did. Your other points are great, too.

Fan
Thursday, August 1, 2002 07:53:00 PM
IP: 63.224.55.228

My own two cents' worth on why Demona doesn't tell the rest of the clan about the Vikings' impending attack: fear. She was afraid, I believe, that in order to tell them about the Vikings, she'd have to admit that she and the Captain had intended to betray the humans. (It's, of course, arguable that Demona could have simply made something up in a hurry, to make it look as if the Captain was the sole architect of the scheme and she wasn't involved - that she simply eavesdropped on him or something like that, but I doubt that it occurred to her, especially considering the kind of person that Demona is; she does seem governed by her fears - and to let her fear, anger, jealousy, etc. get the better of her reasoning faculties). She gave into those fears and fled. That's my take on it, at least.

Two thoughts of mine about the betrayal, by the way. The first is that it actually did match the time period in another way besides the one that Airwalker mentions. In medieval legend, heroes generally came to a bad end because of betrayal (thus, Arthur is betrayed by Mordred, Roland and his fellow paladins at Roncesvalles by Ganelon, and so on). Having the Wyvern Massacre (a "slaughter of heroes" to rank alongside Camlann and Roncesvalles) be brought about through treason matched this aspect of medieval hero-cycles perfectly.

Also, the identity of the parties who brought about the betrayal added some depth to the series. I recall how, the first time that I saw "Awakening Part One", I initially believed that the Magus was the traitor (the scene where he's reading through the Grimorum, the way that the traitor is dressed up in robes like the Magus's while speaking with Hakon, etc.), planning to help the Vikings enter the castle in the hope that they'll get rid of the gargoyles. But, looking back on it now, I'm glad that the production team made it the Captain instead of the Magus, because it produced a more complex story. The betrayal which leads to the massacre of the gargoyles isn't carried out by the humans who hate the gargoyles and want to get rid of them; it's carried out by virtually the only pro-gargoyle human left in the castle, who's doing it on their behalf and didn't expect it to backfire. I think that it gave the series extra complexity by showing that being a pro-gargoyle human doesn't necessarily mean being a saint. (Another example, of course, would be the fact that the scheming and duplicitous Xanatos winds up being the gargoyles' protector after "Hunter's Moon" - although the rewrite of his character after "The Journey" by the new team probably made that less clear).

Todd Jensen - [merlyn1@mindspring.com]
St. Louis, MO
Thursday, August 1, 2002 07:34:47 PM
IP: 65.56.169.209

oh, and just for the record (and i'm not justing saying this) i like Demona and Goliath equally as characters. i find them both wonderfully complex and interesting individuals and i truthfully have no problems with them on that level. of course when it comes to their morality, i find Goliath much more likable and i hope everyone here would share that with me. i would be scared if anyone in here favors Demona's morality over Goliath's, that would be crazy.
but like i said, as characters i have no bias towards one or the other, and thats the truth!

matt
Thursday, August 1, 2002 06:24:17 PM
IP: 207.230.53.43

man, this room sure came alive with this debate. just a couple weeks ago we had days where there was single post, now i can't be away for a couple hours without pages to read when i return!

i never said and have never believed that Demona or Goliath is completly good or bad! of course they are not, thats what makes them such fun characters. Goliath isn't perfect and Demona isn't evil (despite what Marina Sirtus says :))
both are shades of gray, like almost everyone. however, they are hardly the same shade of gray. Demona is much darker than Goliath, thats a FACT. Demona has more responsibilty for the Wyvern Massacre than Goliath, thats a FACT. and Demona is more antagonistic than Goliath, thats a FACT. i can't believe we are even debating all this. sure, many people had an effect on things to cause the Massacre, Hakon and the Vikings, Katherine and Magus, Goliath, Demona and Captain and probably others. but of all these Goliath was the least to blame. i'll admit that there was possibly more he could've done to sooth the tension between the gargs and humans, but Demona plotted behind the Clan, made a deal with a sworn enemy (Vikings), put her family (including her unborn children) at extreme risk, and then abandoned them all at the last minute. her plan was morally offensive, but even if we put morals aside it was stupid. heres my question (one i asked Greg and is in the queue now) demona is the Second in Command, and when Goliath leaves he puts her in charge. why didn't Demona gather the Clan and eggs and get them out of the area before Dawn? i'm sure there was time. look how much time there was after Goliatha and Mentor left, but before Dawn, she could've done it, but she didn't. and i think the reason she didn't is cause she was embarrassed and afraid that the Clan would see her betrayal. if she didn't bring Goliath in on it, she certaintly wasn't gonna tell anyone else, and that mistake (among others she made) destroyed her Clan. instead of feeling the embarrassment to her Clan she ran off alone, and knowing she had made a big mistake she CRIED. she was probably scared out of her mind that morning when she left the castle, and i don't blame her.
Mooncat> i have a couple questins for you:
1. why didn't Demona warn her Clan or at least Othello and Des?
2. why did Demona cry after she abadoned the castle at dawn?
3. why did Demona run away again the next night when Goliath showed up and found the castle sacked?

matt
Thursday, August 1, 2002 06:18:31 PM
IP: 207.230.53.43

<<<They were most likely secondary to her own personal desire for vengeance against the humans. >>>

heh... she really had no desire for vengeance against humans at that time. If she did despise them then why would she trust the captain?

John Cronin - [jcronin@bellsouth.net]
Thursday, August 1, 2002 05:38:23 PM
IP: 208.63.254.44

If you really want to point a finger at who is to blame, you can't really do so. In a way just about all of them played a part. Katherine, Magius, Demona, the Captain, Goliath and of course the man who commited the actual act... Hakon. Like most things in life no single person is really to blame but it is a combination of many factors.
John Cronin - [jcronin@bellsouth.net]
Thursday, August 1, 2002 05:34:50 PM
IP: 208.63.254.44

...
John Cronin - [jcronin@bellsouth.net]
Thursday, August 1, 2002 05:31:39 PM
IP: 208.63.254.44

Hmmm... some very good points. It makes me want to dig up my old tapes and watch them again :)

I'd have to agree with Mooncat though... he/she brings up some very interesting points. Oddly it was her trust in the captain of the guard (hehe... a human no less... how ironic) that was her biggest downfall. Ideally she should have relied on her clan and would have discussed it over Goliath first and plan it as a joint effort by the gargoyles... but there in lies the problem. Goliath would have never agreed to such a plan and their fate would have been doomed either way.
John Cronin - [jcronin@bellsouth.net]
Thursday, August 1, 2002 05:28:52 PM
IP: 208.63.254.44

Mooncat><Your own objectivity is rather compromised by your *apparent* hero worship of Goliath, and *apparent* dislike of Demona.> I'm sorry for not being the Demona-apologist that you seem to be, and blame her mistakes on everyone else. That's the problem I had with what you were saying, as well as your condescending tone. Airwalker presented his view in a way that, though I don't agree with everything he said, was even-toned and not condescending. He didn't go off saying preposterous things like Goliath a tyrant, liar, and etc. Using words like that deplete your credibility. For example if someone says "Goliath is being overly passive" you'd say something like "Goliath rolls over like a beaten dog." No objectivity.
Matt><you have admitted that your tone is rude and have said you won't change it. thats not appropriate, and its immature. please try to be nicer.> Thanks for trying to stand up for me Matt. <i'll leave my other countless points to Gabriel, Fan and others who are doing a great job of making clever and thought out posts.> Thank you for the compliment! I think you do a great job, too. Please continue to participate. I'm sure you'll have some points I haven't thought about.
Responsibility> We have a huge problem today in America with people not wanting to take responsibility for their own actions, and people defending it. Take that lawsuit against McDonald's for instance. The guy who's suing blames McDonald's for his being obese, diabetic, and having a heart attack. Thanks to his constant gobbling down of greasy burgers, fries, and shakes he has those problems. Does he want to take responsibility for his actions? No, instead he comes up with some half-cocked excuse about not knowing that McDonalds food was unhealthy and fattening. How could anyone look at the grease left on a burger wrapper or a fry box and not know that the stuff is unhealthy? Some people, who are not lawyers, actually agree that it's McDonald's fault. That is doesn't make any sense. It's not as if McDonald's people invaded the man's house, bound him, and shoved burgers and fries down his throat. This all comes down to personal responsibility. I also see a reflection of this problem in this room with Demona fans. They come up with nonsensical arguments that it was Goliath's fault. They say that if "Goliath weren't so proud and arrogant and had listened" that the plan would have worked. That is utterly preposterous. He didn't know there was a plan of betrayal taking place. Besides shouldn't Demona have known that there was no way Goliath would have left the castle unprotected? You'd think that she knew how Goliath felt about protecting the castle and assessed the likelihood of him taking all the gargoyles with him. What about the eggs? What would have happened to them? She seemed to have not taken them into account. That doesn't sound like someone whose first and foremost reason to go through with the betrayal is the clan's safety. They were most likely secondary to her own personal desire for vengeance against the humans.

Fan
Thursday, August 1, 2002 05:24:24 PM
IP: 63.225.177.211

Aaron> George Carlin fan I'm assuming?

Gabe> I agree nobody's going to change their minds, so i'm gonna stop debating unless I see something that i think Is downright wrong.
So here is my last points:
Wyvern>The human animosity seemed to only want to get rid of the Gargoyles. If the Gargoyles left, I don't thing the Wyverners would follow. (Of course Demona, being as prideful as she is, would never allow them to leave.)

Demona>And Demona did hate humans quite a bit. Why do you think she was the Archmage's apprentice. She was nursing the anti-human feelings for quite a while. And I think Demona didn't save her bretherin because she wasn't sure they were going to be destroyed, (though she thought they would) and she ran to be cautious and didn't tell the others because she was ashamed of her betrayl, she just hoped for the best, but deep down she knew that the clan would die. (That's why she was crying when the sun rose.)
I'm not saying that Demona is the personification of all evil, I actually think that she is the most Human of all the Gargs. That's what scares me about her. (And what makes her such a compelling character.)
Brooklyn> Brooklyn also didn't have to deal with situations as tough as what Goliath went through. Oh gee, he put down an upstart king in a sewer and helped King Arthur get his sword. And he helped beat the Pack (with Big-G's help). Meanwhile, Goliath had to face the Godlike Oberon, protect his clan from Odin (King of Asgard), fight the Archmage, protect the trio from their own self-destructive tendencies (Lex's pack obsession and brook's Demona thing), fight Demona, his ex-lover who now want's to kill him, and worst of all, the guilt of losing his clan that he bears on his shoulders. Could Goliath have done a better jog? Probably, but let's face it, hard men make hard choices, and Goliath has always been rock-hard! Brooklyn is a bit indecisive though, and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have handled some of those situations quite as well. He also woul dhave been more suceptible to what others had to tell him. He's a little too wishy-washy.

Blaise> I don't think they knew about the eggs. i doubht the captain would have told them. Unless he was a TOTAl ass. besides, the eggs weren't a real threat to Hakon, only the mature gargoyyles who could strike back at him.
Relativism> I see things in a spectrum. Evil on one side, good on the other (nobody is an extreme). And depending on a ratio of deliberate help to deliberate harm determines your level of goodness.

Aaron> I don't think Goliath's "Scare those cowards away" was that arrogant. The castle was only nearly overrun because the Garg's hadn't woken up yet. I mean, Goliath later beats the pack with only Lexington's help. i honestly think he could have beaten a viking party with just him and Hudson. Don't underestimate guerrilla tactics, especially with something as well comoflauged, powerful, and mobile as a Gargoyle.
And I do believe Greg said it was Demona who convinced the captain.

And on a side note: DAMN THAT WAS A LOT OF READING SINCE MY LAST POST!!!

Jimmy
Thursday, August 1, 2002 05:13:28 PM
IP: 172.151.106.35

I pretty much agree with Airwalker's assessment, up to the point on wether Demona was making a conscious betrayal by perching elsewhere that fateful night. I think there was a lot of things going on that were screwing with Demona's judgement that night, and that failure to warn her clan of possible (not certain, but possible) danger was more a lack of time than her not being willing to come clean. She was right there about to tell Coldstone/Othello and Desdemona, when she sees the Vikings getting into postition, and realizes it's DAWN. We are talking merest moments, as she glides away. Even if she spilled the beans right then and there, there would not have been time to get all the clan away to safety in those precious few moments. The alternative, risky plan was in play and Demona had to pretty much trust it would work, because there was no real choice left at the time.

Looking at the collapsing time frame, Demona didn't have a lot of time to think over things. The Captain makes his alliance with the Vikings during the day. The Captain would then bring Demona into his plan that fateful night. But Goliath doesn't react the way the plan calls for, and that same night, with moments ticking away, the captain convinces Demona to hold to the plan.

How close together is everything happening? Well if we go by the events shown in City of Stone, part one, pretty darn fast.

RE: Goliath announces he's going after the Vikings with just Hudson (not smart) and leaving the rest of the clan at the castle.

Demona: This ruins everything! The plan was to have all the gargoyles away during the attack so we could return to claim an empty castle.

Captain: The plan can still work. I'll signal Hakon, tell him to attack during the day. The humans will still be taken.

Demona: Fool! Have you forgotten? Gargoyles are stone by day. We'll be helpless.

Captain: Not while I'm about. I swear I'll keep your clan safe.

*********
Demona let's herself be swayed by this declaration. But some doubt/unease bubble up, so she goes to talk to her two closest rookery sister and brother, Desdemona and Othello...

*******
Demona: Listen, quickly. There's something-- [Looks up and sees the Vikings getting into position, it's almost Dawn] -- (Sigh) Never mind. It's nothing.

*********
Nothing more to be done, she perches and dawn makes her stone. Then night comes again and she awakes...
*********
Demona: It worked! At last, my clan is free of human rule. [searches the castle, wondering where her clan is] Where are they? Brothers? Sisters? (Gasp) No. (Gasp) No!!!

********

I don't see Demona as actively betraying her clan, as making a bad judgement call in going along with the Captain's plan after Goliath squirrels up the original idea. She doesn't have time between the beginning threads of doubt and dawn to back out. She has to trust the Captain will keep his promise. Which he doesn't. She's shocked and horrified to find her clan destroyed. I have every reason to believe she had not known that this would be the outcome. There was no conscious intent to save herself at the expense of her kindred. No decision to deliberately allow her clan to be destroyed. She screwed up, and her actions led to her clan's death... but not by intent. The difference is that between manslaughter and murder.

Mooncat
>^,,^<

Mooncat
Thursday, August 1, 2002 02:49:48 PM
IP: 68.102.1.42

GOLIATH/DEMONA AND THE 994 BETRAYAL - (I figured that I'd date the specific betrayal since there have been so many where Demona is concerned :-) )

Both Goliath and Demona were well intentioned in how they dealt with the situation. For all the criticism of how Goliath was too passive, the honest truth is that there wasn't that much that he could do but put up with it. His other options weren't exactly good - leaving would put the Clan at a great risk (and there wasn't really anywhere to go - if isolated Wyvern isn't safe then nowhere is) and betraying the Humans to another set of Humans wouldn't be a guarantee of safety and harmony. His only option at this point is hope that Katherine and the Magus remain in the minority of opinion and that they can slowly be brought around. Its not the best opinion or the safest one but it seems to be the only one available at that point.

(Could Katherine and the Magus be brought around without having gone through the events of AWAKENINGS 2? Would Goliath's method of taking their crap and repaying it with kindness have worked out in the long run? Doubtful. But on the other hand we don't know if alternate events might have taken place to change their minds. There is no way to really say if they would have changed as much as they did.)

That said I do have to wonder if Goliath was ruthless enough to be leader in the Middle Ages? He has good leadership skills but he's stubborn and he doesn't seem to want to expand his method of action or worldview beyond what he has set up for himself. Leadership requires cunning, and adaptablity in addition to ruthlessness. While his options were admittedly limited, he doesn't seem to want to think out of the box - he hasn't taken into account that maybe he might not be able to get Katherine on his side and that she might slowly be eroding support for his Clan in the Castle. After all it can't be a good sign that the Captain is the only one in the entire leadership that is willing to acknowledge the important contribution of the Gargoyles to the defense of the Castle. And that as soon as he does, he is promptly demoted. With limited options you have to be creative and work with other less attractive options. But he doesn't seem to consider that. He really was a person born into the wrong time and place. His leadership skill and personal philosophy fit much better in the modern world. He might have had a much harsher time and become even more bitter than Demona if events hadn't happened the way they did in AWAKENINGS.

(I wonder, if Goliath would have been strong enough mentally to be able to cope with all the crap that Demona went through and not fall to a lower level than she did. The era would have completely betrayed his dreams and ideals. How would he have dealt with it? Would he have become like Demona? Or Worse? Or would he have risen to the occasion?)

Demona was ruthless and adaptable. She had good leadership skills. But her problem was really bad judgement and lack of experience. The idea of using the Vikings to get rid of the Clan wasn't a bad one (all moral issues aside) in theory but in practice it was extremely dangerous. There could have been other plans, other ideas that could have brought about the same result. She also hadn't figured out the idea of being subtle yet. Her response to Katherine, as well as to Tom and His Mother was overblown. She could have easily gotten rid of the Humans with Magic or with Poison and without letting it be traced easily to her. (Today she might make a good leader if it weren't for the genocide for a hobby and the whole thing about being imbalanced to the point of almost insanity. :-) )

As for Demona's ideas on who should rule, I don't thing that we should read a lot into her statement in AWAKENINGS 1 about how the Humans should serve them at that point in her personal chronology. Yes, she does believe that Gargoyles should as the first race be on top of the food chain and yes eventually this does come to be one of the driving forces in her motivation but at that point she seems to be speaking more out of anger and resentment than anything else. After all she's in her ancestral home, serving Humans who haven't even been there a generation and look how she's being looked at and treated. Technically the Humans should be serving them. They are on Gargoyle territory after all - and they didn't buy it, they just entered into an allience with the Clan. Technically the land and Castle belong to the Clan and not to Katherine. So I can see Demona's more specific angry statement in that light. What it evolves into is something else though.

The bottom line is that both characters were supposed to compensate each other for the flaws they both have. Goliath's philosophical outlook and more compromising nature was supposed to be tempered by Demona's realistic approach. But they didn't really seem to be connecting in that regard. Goliath seemed blind to real threat assessments that Demona kept making. She had good points that he should have taken into account but he seemed indifferent to them; admittedly he was thinking about the Vikings but at the same time a leader can't just be oriented on a single goal; he had to be able to multitask and he wasn't. Demona on the other hand moved outside the chain of command, not placing enough trust in Goliath and showing impatience and recklessness in how she came up with solutions to the threats she assessed. If they had truly been working together then things might have been different. But they were really two different people on a variety of levels and this helped lead to AWAKENINGS 1 and 2.

(Just to be clear though, I place all of the blame for the Wyvern Massacure on Demona - not only did she enforce a flawed plan but she placed her clan at complete risk while she personally escaped a danger she suspected; if she didn't trust the Captain then she could have saved her Clan or at least some of it if she had acted.)

Now was the Betrayal a good thing? Obviously in how it turned out it was terrible. The Plan was flawed. And the outcome, even in the most optimistic scenario, doesn't really leave the Clan in a great position. After all they made the allience with Malcolm for a reason; otherwise they wouldn't have bothered. But would a different type of Betrayal, a different plan, have been better? Perhaps.

From a moral perspective of course any Betrayal is wrong but while the Middle Ages was a religious society, it was also one that knew when to place reality above ideal. Goliath embraced the ideal and hoped for a better reality. Demona embraced reality and tried to change it, hoping a better idea would develop. Demona's Betrayal was to her a placement of reality about ideal. Demona's true betrayal wasn't in that she sought to change the status quo and improve the situation of her Clan through other means. That was something that fit into the ruthlessness of the era. That doesn't make it right but it doesn't mean that it was unusual in its time. Her true betrayal was knowing, feeling that everything was going to go wrong and still leaving her Clan to it all while saving herself. She knew from her vision of the future that the Clan might die and she still left them. She even stopped short of warning them and went to save herself. That was her true betrayal. We should keep perspective - one group betraying another wouldn't be unusual in the era when survival and power meant everything. But not only betraying your allied enemy but also betraying your own group was true betrayal.

(This is a sort of twisted morality but it was a twisted time. By our standards, everything she did was wrong and evil. But by the standards of her time, Betrayal was common. It wasn't about what you betrayed but who you betrayed. Doesn't sound kind or right at this point but we have come some way in terms of thinking since the Dark Ages.

Demona's real problem was that she just didn't really have the knack for betrayal - it always blows up in her face. And she never seems to learn from it.)

Airwalker - [airwalker9999@yahoo.com]
Brooklyn, NY
Thursday, August 1, 2002 01:46:31 PM
IP: 12.88.92.232

Aaron> dude, trust me, I know for a fact Goliath has flaws. This is a reason I love Gargoyles and I love the Oddyssey. Odyssseus was flawed and screwed up big time; he was real! Goliath's stubborn, and set in his old ways, and he admits he's wrong. There's a lot more wrong with him such as being arrogant in "Awakenings." And i even commented on his flaws (as did Fan) in my post about the Eye, about how he gave into temptation. However, I am not going to say Demona was innocent in her actions and that she really cared about her people.
Gabriel "gaygoyle"
Thursday, August 1, 2002 01:44:00 PM
IP: 129.120.35.51

Mulling over why Demona and the Captain would think the original plan would work, some thoughts occurred to me. The original plan was that Goliath and the clan would be led away from the castle at night, while the Vikings attack and sack the undefended castle (or only defended by those loser humans *^_^*) -- THUS, if they gargs had gone after the decoys, in the opposite direction of the Vikings. So, TIMEWISE the Vikings would have done their dirty deeds during the night and then had the all the next DAY to get away with their goods and prisoners. Meanwhile the Clan would be effectively be a Night's travel, PLUS a Days stone rest, from the castle. So the Vikings would have had good lead time on the Gargs. If Goliath and clan followed, they'd be opening themselves up to travel that would put them away from their home and in vulnerable stone day form once more **before catching up with the Vikings,** leaving them dangerously open to destruction if the gargoyles leave the castle for too great a distance.

Thusly, if the ORIGINAL plan had worked, the Gargoyles would have had serious incentive NOT to go after the Vikings. The Captain of the Guard might have counted on that strategic circumstance, and being able to convince Goliath that the humans taken prisoner would be ransomed and safe in time, and the Gargoyles going after them would only endanger the human prisoners and the clan needlessly.

I think it's a workable theory. Unfortunately Goliath didn't take the advice of the Human captain of the guard or his second. The clan was left at Castle Wyvern, and everything went squirrely from there. The Vikings were already in on the plan to attack Wyvern, and dawn was fast approaching. The guard captain and Demona were caught in a crunch of cirmcustance and rapidly diminishing time. They made some unwise decisions while under the stress of the compressed time and unexpected circumstances. I think this works storywise, for explaining the going ahead with the plan once the original perameters changed. Being rushed can impair one's better judgement.

Just a few thoughts
Mooncat
>^,,^<


Mooncat
Thursday, August 1, 2002 01:40:01 PM
IP: 68.102.1.42

eh... I should have added "compairing Hitler to the writers views OF DEMONA..."
John Cronin - [jcronin@bellsouth.net]
Thursday, August 1, 2002 01:00:16 PM
IP: 208.63.254.205

I knew someone would bring up Hitler sooner or later... I won't even comment on this because addressing it is an exercise in futility. Everyone plays the Hitler card sooner or later to demonize someone... 'tis a common thread hijacking tactic. Let me just say this... comparing the writer's views to Hitler is like comparing apples and oranges. With that said let me move on...

<<Buddy, I'm a hardcore pacifist; don't even get me started on the evils of War.>>

Well... I was going to say a lot about this but I won't. It would just fan the flames of debate so to speak. I respect your views on this and I will just say one thing... Sometimes to protect your own freedoms and liberties you must take an aggressive stance IMHO. To sit blindly on the sidelines with your hands tied is not always the best option. Pacifism to an extreme is a bad thing.
John Cronin - [jcronin@bellsouth.net]
Thursday, August 1, 2002 12:57:49 PM
IP: 208.63.254.205

Fan> <<What pride and arrogance?>> Oh, where to start. Does the phrase, "I can scare those cowards away without any help." ring a bell? That was pride, arrogance, and wishful thinking on Goliath's part. If the Vikings had enough men to nearly overrun Wyvern in the first attack, they were too many for Goliath to take on with only Hudson for backup. I don't care how scary big G is, the Vikings wouldn't have broken for two ghosts in the night. (The only way to enter Valhalla, the Viking paradise, is, after all, to die in battle) Hakon in particular already proved he wasn't afraid of Goliath. He would have hunkered down, circled the wagons, so to speak, (which would have been totally counterproductive to Goliath's goals) rallied his men, and assembled archers to fire into the darkness until they got lucky. The only way two gargoyles could have succeeded in that situation would have been to swoop down, grab Hakon, kill him, and dump him back into the middle of his men. And then run like Hell. Somehow, I don't think that was Goliath's plan. I'm not sure he *had* a plan.

And, speaking of plans, Demona did not plan the betrayal of Wyvern, the Captain did. Demona went along with it because she was tempted. Yes, the plan was risky. But why do people gamble? Why do people take risks? Because they feel the potential rewards are worth it. And the potential rewards here, to make it like it was in the old days, before the blasted humans came, and yes, to extract a little well-deserved revenge, were enormous. If they all had gone with Goliath, who knows what would have happened after they got back to Wyvern? Maybe they would have gone after the humans. The Captain didn't seem to think they would. He spent a lot of time with them. He seemed in a position to make an educated guess. Goliath, probably, would have still been gung ho to rescue the humans, but how many others would have? Demona would have argued against it. With a little rabble-rousing, she might have staged a successful mutiny, or at least delayed any rescue efforts until they became a moot point.

Jim R.> <<Microsoft to come up with something that's... ....hacker-proof>> Dude, when did M$ ever come up with *anything* that was hacker-proof? ;)

Gabrial> I guess it's true. No argument on the internet can continue for long without one side calling the other Nazis. Fine. Believe what you want. Stay over there and venerate Goliath as a marble model, an uncompromising, infallible icon. I'll be over here, with my dark goddess Demona, a character who is complex, grey, and, dare I say it, richly human.


Aaron - [JCarnage@Yahoo.com]
Thursday, August 1, 2002 12:56:30 PM
IP: 209.33.140.99

:::A large chair upolstered in red velvet is slowly lowered in the cr. It spins around and Spacebabie sips from her Caramel Frappucino:::

Greetings Terrans

Mooncat]---"Sometimes a great leader has to be a real S.O.B. " Are you calling Brooklyn an S.O.B? I agree Goliath is well the most stubborn of all the gargoyles I have seen. I don't really get why Hudson goes with everything Goliath says. He USED to be the leader shouldn't he question Goliath's commands now and then to see if he is 100 percent sure.

Gaygoyle]---"Brooklyn tried to ABUSE his power to get Angela, and all he ever wants to do is attack Demona." He's young and inexperienced give him some time. If Timedancer ever gets made we will see how Brooklyn matures.


Todd]---"I always did see a certain similarity between "Gargoyles" and "X-Men" " You and me both."Demona's cry "They should bow to us!" is indeed significant. She doesn't just want gargoyles to survive. She wants them to rule." At the time I believe that she really just wanted some respect from the human dwellers. The bow down part was stressed cause she was pissed. It was like she was saying. "We do everything for them and we get insults in return? Were more powerful than them they should be kneeling before us and giving big whopping loads of thanks" She didn't want to rule until a thousand years later and I think she only wants to rule is because she feels she knows what's best for the entire species .



Aaron]---"sins of inaction are worse then sins of action. "This is along the the lines of saying better to give it a try and not do it and wonder about what if for the rest of your life?

Fan]---"Of course you didn't, since it's very obvious that you don't like him." That is totally not true. I can say the same for you and say that you don't like Demona.

Jim R]---"wrong pic." Yeah right. We know what you were thinking. "wonder how I selected her when she's at the top of the list and Tom at the bottom" Like I said, we know what you were thinking ;)

:::Two rocekets poped out out of the back of the chair. Spacebabie fastens her seatbelt before the chair lifts off.:::

Spacebabie - [LadyAndromeda@smstars.zzn.com]
Orlando, Florida, U.S.A
Thursday, August 1, 2002 12:03:43 PM
IP: 65.57.80.234

Cronin> <<In the time frame when this occurred (the middle ages) Demona's activities were well within the social norm>>

Which is exactly why warfare was predominant.

<<Life is not black and white and no one is a saint or a demon.>.

Uhhhh, Hitler and Stalin anyone? Yeah, they did what was best for the people, just like Demona did what was best for her Clan. The Gulag was compleltey justified. and Stalin had his people in his heart. Yeah, right.

<<She did not wish all humans to die or serve under her>>

I dunno, she seemed pretty intent on Gargoyles being superior and humans bowing to them. Even if she dind't mean it, the contempt she has for them still calls into quesiton on exactly how much her plan was in consideration for her clan. If she trully cared for them, she would have discussed with the rest of her clan, and not kept it a secret to herself and the captian. Deceit anyone?

<<Anyone reasonably objective person would see that.>>

In your opinion yes; not in mine ;P

<<Just because someone does something that is not seen as morally correct does not mean that they were wrong to do so for the greater good (which in this case was their very survival). >>

*coughcoughGULAGcoughcough*

<<Just look at any military engagement in history and you will see what I mean... >>

Buddy, I'm a hardcore pacifist; don't even get me started on the evils of War.

It's this type of mroale relatavism that sparks Stalin and petty Wars; it's the relativism that spwans bin Ladin, Bush, the dictatorships in Latin America. The people in charge often cry for this relativism, but the people in the death camps, the people kidinapped in the night, and the families bombed at their weddings are the ones who get to see just how it works.

Forgive me for being harsh, I hate this type of philosophical relativism; mainly because it allows for justified murder. I'm not judging your character by any means. ;)

"With the appearance of the human - and this is my entire philosophy - there is something more important than my life, and that is the life of the other. That is unreasonable. Man is an unreasonable animal."

-- Emmanuel Levinas "The Paradox of Morality" Interview, 1986



Gabriel "gaygoyle"
Thursday, August 1, 2002 11:48:32 AM
IP: 129.120.35.51

I agree with Mooncat on all points... one of the problems with looking at this is that most people see things as black and white. Good and evil... no shades of grey. Life is not black and white and no one is a saint or a demon. Many times what is "good" is based on a person's (or culture's) own personal opinion. In the time frame when this occurred (the middle ages) Demona's activities were well within the social norm. In those days it was a survival over all mentality. Was it morally right? Maybe, maybe not... but it worked. Extreme times called for extreme measures. What is boils down to is... was Demona in her mind doing what she felt was best for the clan? It was quite obvious that her intentions were for the survival for the clan in general. She did not wish all humans to die or serve under her. Anyone reasonably objective person would see that. I could post more reasons for that conclusion but I would just be repeating the comments sited in the previous posts. Just because someone does something that is not seen as morally correct does not mean that they were wrong to do so for the greater good (which in this case was their very survival). Just look at any military engagement in history and you will see what I mean...

Oh and no... I am not a Demona's worshiper... I am just a realist :P
John Cronin - [jcronin@bellsouth.net]
Thursday, August 1, 2002 10:39:55 AM
IP: 208.63.252.154

I think it 'd be best for us to sorta leave this argument in limbo so no one will be on bad terms.

<< Demona didn't invite the Vikings to party. >>

In all truth, if she was compltelty ignorant of the fact that the Vikings would attack, she wouldn't have hidden. She knew there would be the potential for death and deceit.

If her plan had worked, and Goliath not go and rescue the humans, Katherine would have been rescued by her uncle, probably; and there is still the posibility of Katherine coming back ot the castle being hot-headed and angry over the Gargoyls not protecting so well.

Demona thinks in the "now" of things, she doesn't think far down the line. She only cars about the immediate outcome, not the future outcome.

<<Your own objectivity is rather compromised by your *apparent* hero worship of Goliath,>>

I sure as hell am not gonna deny that :P I've only maintained bits and pieces of objectivity >:) But you can't extol yourself and say you haven't been doing Demona worship either. ;P

Anyways, this debate is degenerating into bickering.
Gabriel "gaygoyle"
Thursday, August 1, 2002 09:36:18 AM
IP: 129.120.35.51

Matt -- [your arguments in the whole Goliath/Demona debate are, IMHO, preposterous.]

You are welcome to your opinion, but that's all it is, your opinion.

[you are taking scenes from the show and totally twisting them into something new, and often, favorable to Demona's cause! i'm astonished that you can so easily justify Demona's actions! and worse, you villify Goliath! whats up with that?! ]

I'm putting forth an opinion supported by action from the show. Call it twisting if you like, I call it debating an opinion formed from watching the show and giving the relevant references that support that opinion. You are calling it 'twisted' because it is different from your own opinion. IMHO, that is close minded.

It is my opinion that there were things that did give Demona cause and motivation for her actions. That is part of good story telling. The story was written for Demona to do certain things that led to certain events. The supporting motivation for Demona was, in my opinion, a little richer than just her being "oh let's kill some humans, and if my clan gets whacked in the process, too bad" -- I see Demona as a tragic character because her situation was complex. I think, given the setting and story, Demona's reactions and were not entirely wrong or unreasonable.

I do think going along with the Captain of the Guard after the original plan went foo bar was a mistake, but she was rushed and cajoled by said Captain, and I can understand her making that mistake. Does it show Demona in a favorable light? No. Does it show her in an understandable position? I think so.

As for villifying Goliath. I am not one for sacred cows. I think he was in part culpable for how things went down. At fault? Not directly. Contributing factor? Most assuredly.

Cause and effect, in the course of this story line, Goliath's actions did bear upon Demona's reactions and further actions.

[no one here is disputing that demona didn't want the Massacre to happen and was sad when her Clan was shattered, but her sadness doesn't excuse her crime. ]

Did I ever say Demona was excused from the consequences of her actions? No. However I do think she had reasonable cause for the actions she took. Unfortunately her actions led, **unintentionally** to the destruction her clan. The massacre of her people was not her intent. Nor can the whole of the tragedy be laid solely at her feet. The captain of the guard did his part. Katherine did her part in setting up the actions of the Captain and Demona. Goliath did his part by ignoring the concerns of his second.

The situation was complex, and that is part of why its such a good story. You seem to want to see everything in stark values of black and white, all good versus all bad, with no shades of gray. I evaluate shades of gray, and see the connections of cause and effect shaping the events, not a one note song that Demona is the be all and end all of all evil.

[you keep saying things like "the humans were gonna destroy the Clan eventually" and "Demona's plan would've worked" when really you have no proof that the humans of Wyvern would've destroyed the Clan,]

First, this is a FICTIONAL situation. We can't "prove" any event would have happened, because it wasn't written anyway but what DID 'happen'. However if this were a REAL situation, the odds that the humans would have turned on the Gargoyles and destroyed them would be very high. Humans as proven by real history, are given to persecution and destruction of fellow humans for less reason than they had to go after the Gargoyles. There's no 'proof' that if Demona hadn't fallen in with the Captain of the Guard's plan, that the Gargoyles would have lived happily ever after either.

[and Demona's plan had a million flaws that she should've seen (and perhaps did see when she went to sleep below the castle) the biggest flaw of her plan was that she was taking away the ONLY security the Clan had during the day (the humans of Wyvern) and inviting in an enemy that had tried to destroy them already (the Vikings). that was really dumb, once she learned Goliath wasn't gonna take the Clan with him she should've abandoned the Clan or just ran off WITH THEM herself.]

A) Demona didn't invite the Vikings to party. The Captain of the Guard did. B) She trusted the Captain of the Guard. C) It was that trust in the Capt. that was her major mistake. She should have know better that the Captain wouldn't be able to protect her clan.

That she went ahead is not so much blind stupidity on her part, as the fact that the writers wanted the Castle Massacre, and this is how they achieved it. I see it as a weakness in plot that Demona would trust the Captain to protect her clan, not a weakness in the character. She should have known better, given her characterization. That she didn't was because of the plot needs of the writer who made her conveniently agreeable to the Captain's flawed plan. No disrespect to Greg, but the reason the Gargoyles were massacred was because that was desired for the plot line. Demona is merely a fictional character used to felicitate the fictional masscre so the fictional Goliath has this neato tragic past and a reason for being dark and brooding.

[and as for Demona's anxiety over the plan and her leaving the castle that morning, well someone who is a little anxious doesn't run off. you said you get anxious about plane flights even if most likely you'll be fine, but do you get off the plane and refuse to fly?]

I don't refuse to fly, and Demona didn't refuse to go along with the plan. However I do take precautions like life insurance, even though I don't plan or intend on dying. Demona in a last moment didn't go to her usual perch, perhaps out of instinct, or last minute jitters, but ultimately because the writers wanted her alive for being a continuing character. If she had conveniently died with the rest of the Gargoyles, the ongoing story would have been much poorer for her absence.

[Mooncat. first off, please stop saying that so and so did this or that cuz the writers wanted to do that a certain way. its true, but we are not debating that,]

If I want to say a true thing, and it proves a point I'm making, then I will comment on that true thing. And yes, it was part of the debate.

[ i hope you have more respect for the show than to say that the characters and situations were unrealistic so as to make good drama.]

I have a lot of respect for the show. That doesn't mean if I see something that seems unrealistic, I won't comment on it. I don't make the show so sacred I can't offer a critique on it. I think that would be far more disrespectful to not offer an honest opinion out of some kind of blind worship, as if the show couldn't withstand a little honest criticism.

[and secondly, you have admitted that your tone is rude and have said you won't change it. thats not appropriate, and its immature. please try to be nicer. ]

Frankly, I'm pretty tired due to lack of sleep and lots of work, and don't have a lot of energy to falsely coddle people unwilling to hear the idea that Goliath isn't a holy icon, or an opinion that Demona isn't the personification of evil. I offer an honest, personal view point, and give no apologies for being blunt and sometimes succumbing to the temptation of light sarcasm. If you can't take that, then don't debate me. I'm not about to dumb down my responses for people who think debate is everyone agreeing with their personal views and calling opposing views twisted and preposterous, then crying that those people are rude for daring to give thought out and detailed reasons for their view points. I am sorry you find my bluntness to be rude, but that's your problem, not mine. Personally, I find your comments condescending and immature, but I'm not trying to make a big deal about it.

Mooncat
>^,,^<

Mooncat
Thursday, August 1, 2002 07:52:47 AM
IP: 68.102.1.42

*chuckles at the thought of Blaise walking up to Broadway and slapping him across the face, lol*

ok, i'm trying to refrain myself here, but:
Mooncat> your arguments in the whole Goliath/Demona debate are, IMHO, preposterous. you are taking scenes from the show and totally twisting them into something new, and often, favorable to Demona's cause! i'm astonished that you can so easily justify Demona's actions! and worse, you villify Goliath! whats up with that?! no one here is disputing that demona didn't want the Massacre to happen and was sad when her Clan was shattered, but her sadness doesn't excuse her crime. you keep saying things like "the humans were gonna destroy the Clan eventually" and "Demona's plan would've worked" when really you have no proof that the humans of Wyvern would've destroyed the Clan, and Demona's plan had a million flaws that she should've seen (and perhaps did see when she went to sleep below the castle) the biggest flaw of her plan was that she was taking away the ONLY security the Clan had during the day (the humans of Wyvern) and inviting in an enemy that had tried to destroy them already (the Vikings). that was really dumb, once she learned Goliath wasn't gonna take the Clan with him she should've abandoned the Clan or just ran off WITH THEM herself. and as for Demona's anxiety over the plan and her leaving the castle that morning, well someone who is a little anxious doesn't run off. you said you get anxious about plane flights even if most likely you'll be fine, but do you get off the plane and refuse to fly? smae with Demona, her running away proved it was more than a little anxiety, and if that doesn't prove it, her crying when she ran away proved that she knew she had made a mistake!
two more things, Mooncat. first off, please stop saying that so and so did this or that cuz the writers wanted to do that a certain way. its true, but we are not debating that, i hope you have more respect for the show than to say that the characters and situations were unrealistic so as to make good drama. and secondly, you have admitted that your tone is rude and have said you won't change it. thats not appropriate, and its immature. please try to be nicer.

i'll leave my other countless points to Gabriel, Fan and others who are doing a great job of making clever and thought out posts.

still hope to do a "Kingdom" ramble, we'll see if i find time to watch it!

matt
Thursday, August 1, 2002 04:41:57 AM
IP: 207.230.48.65

****Blaise appears, sitting in his overstuffed chair that floats in mid-air.**** Too tired now to do anything big. My apartment search may have found something, at least for the short term, but now I'm worrying about moving (and how long it will take me to get back on the Internet and into this Room after I've moved). In addition, I just recieved word on Monday that my parents are splitting up after 28 years of marriage. It was quite a shock to me, but they don't seem angry or sad about it. Still, it didn't exactly make my day....
Anyway, you all better get some cookies and milk, or whatever, 'cause ol' Uncle Blaise is going to get long-winded here. [takes a deep breath]

MATT> RE: THE PRICE
Actually, in my area at least, it aired between REVELATIONS and DOUBLE JEOPARDY (very disconcerting to see Owen's hand become a stone fist, only to be perfectly normal in the next episode).

BROOKLYN VS. GOLIATH> Oh no! Not THIS again!
We had this whole thing a while back, and I said my piece then (and Greg Weisman preserved it in one of his rambles), and I'll say it again.
Brooklyn looks up to Goliath. G is B's role model, his *hero*.
Goliath made Brooklyn his Second because he believed that Brooklyn was the best qualified at that time, and the one who showed the greatest potential to lead in the future. I'd even say, Goliath is proud of Brooklyn.
If you're slamming one, you're slamming the other, too.

DEMONA VS. GOLIATH> I repeat: Oh no! Not THIS again!
An observation: The more people argue, the more they seem to dig their heels further into the ground. A lot of people seem to be making *absolute statements* without really giving the other point of view a fair shake.
As for myself...I don't know how long the situation at Wyvern was as bad as we saw it in AWAKENING. That might have been a fairly recent development--heck, Malcolm might have been around for YEARS after 984, and got on great with Goliath.
We know that Katharine and the Magus are rather contemptuous of the gargoyles, and the nobles in the dining hall seem to follow Katharine's lead, and the refugees who had probably never seen a living gargoyle before Wyvern were very afraid of them, but what about the others? The soldiers, while they certainly took credit for the gargoyles' work, may not have necessarily shared the disdain of the nobles.
And I'd guess, looking at Goliath's reaction at the end of AWAKENING PART 1's, ACT 1 cliff-hanger, that Goliath did know about the deteiorating situation, and was not happy about it. But we don't know that he was ignoring it. I feel he was trying to handle both the short term situations and the long term concerns. Part of that was making sure that any tensions had to be defused or kept low. That would mean swallowing his pride when he was insulted by Princess Katharine, and trying to understand where the humans were coming from.
Then there are the eggs in the Rookery. Even if there was no reason for Goliath to leave the rest of the clan at the castle to protect the humans, there were still the eggs to look after. Come to think of it, when Demona and the Captain were planning to get ALL of the gargoyles out of the castle, were they planning to include the eggs at all? It was practically a miracle that the Vikings didn't go down into the Rookery and smash everything there, including the Trio and Bronx.
I think *both* Demona and Goliath were very concerned with the situation in Wyvern, the difference being in how they handled it. Demona, fiery and impulsive as ever, wanted an immediate solution, even if it wasn't the right thing...or the best thing...or the smartest thing. With Goliath, we only got a chance to see him trying to defuse a few fires, but I feel that with a little more screen time, we would have seen him wearing a trench into the ground with his pacing while he was trying to think about a viable, more permanent (sp?) solution.
But unless we know for sure what's going on in Goliath's head, all we can do is assume. And wise men say "Never assume."

KINGDOM> Now we're at the meat and drink of my post (or vegies and drink, if you prefer).
Like METAMORPHOSIS and THE CAGE, I missed this during the first airing (an episode spotlighting Brooklyn, my favorite character, and the Mutates, my favorite arc). Consequently, this was the last "new" episode I watched. So, I already knew that Brooklyn would be trying to start something with Angela and that Fang would be imprisoned for something, but I was left wondering about the how Fang got in there and what closure there was to Brooklyn's crush on Maggie. This ep was almost like a long needed salve for me.
First, let's get the animation out of the way. I must say, with all love and respect, that this really is some of the least in the series. It could have been good--the movements are very smooth, almost liquid and supple. However, some of the characters seem to go slightly "off-model" every now and then, and image continuity suffers quite a bit. Aside from the infamous scene, which I affectionately call the "Two Hudsons and a Bronx" scene, the gargoyles seem to not only change positions, but places during their day of stone sleep. What, did they all have to get up at noon to go to the bathroom/get a drink of water/have a mid-day snack--what?
Regardless, there were some things I liked in the animation. One of the big things, by either accident or design, was Brooklyn's change. He seemed a lot smaller in the beginning, both shorter and skinnier. When he accepts his responsibility though, he seems to stand taller, and become well-muscled. I also like it when the gargoyles bust through the ceiling at the end. Lex looks especially cool with the way his arms are folded.
Anyway, I was also glad that Cagney was well taken care of--but I already knew he was from THE GATHERING. I did like how the clan did not instantly know that Elisa was missing along with Goliath and Bronx.
Brooklyn's reluctance to accept leadership in this situation was nice, and exactly what I had wanted to see through most of the World Tour (too bad I had to wait until summer reruns). I must admit, I had not figured out that Brooklyn saw accepting leadership as giving up on Goliath, but it makes sense. I had guessed that he was held back by fear. The fear of doing something wrong, bringing everything crashing down. So, I was half-right, I suppose.
Brooklyn still has his crush on Maggie, but he's not chasing after her anymore. Showing a bit more maturity (sp?) there. He can obviously figure out the best course of action to take (like not outright attacking Xanatos, nor letting on to him that Goliath is missing--I feel like slapping Broadway when he blurts that part out). Of course, he lets his insecurities get the better of him (until Maggie asks him for help). I like how his wings fold into a cape for a moment after he accepts leadership (caping wings is something Goliath does more than the rest--it kind of gives Brooklyn that extra majesty).
Hudson, the old soldier, gently nudging Brooklyn in the proper direction. I like him here--not only does he get on well with the cat, and admits he misses the "dog," but he allows Brooklyn to grow. Hudson's always been a very patient fellow, and a sly teacher when he needs to be. He fits the "advisor" role quite well.
Fang--I already knew he'd be a bad guy, but I wondered when the schism came up. Fang loves to have power, and so he becomes, for all intents and purposes, a super-powered bully. I thought he was pretty funny, and a good threat. I especially like James Belushi's reading of "I'll show him who rules down here."
Talon--I always found it ironic that Talon basically goes around saying, "No one is in charge, and that's an order!" Talon's behavior actually kind of adds to Fang's character--it gives the latter a valid point ("For someone who's not in charge you sure like dishing out orders.") I find it interesting how Talon seems mocking/angry when he tells Brooklyn, "You want to be in charge? Speak now or hold your piece!" I wonder what got him in such a tizy about leadership. I would have loved to see Talon's face when Fang says "THIS army--and you're our first prisoner of war" (love that line). Maggie had warned him about Fang....
Now Claw was the surprise for me. I knew he was one of the good guys, but I never thought that he originally went with Fang. Claw's an odd one--he's the biggest and most heavily muscled of the Mutates, and yet he was one of the most submissive. I liked how he took no part in the fight between Brooklyn, Fang, Chaz, and ?, and even looked worried about it. I liked how he helped Maggie escape, and I laughed at his pantomime (along with ?'s reaction of "Boy, are YOU asking the wrong guy!") and his hiding inside his wings. I liked how he never used his gun, instead falling back on his electro-blasts. At the end, he finally grows in resolve, and develops the strength to rebel against Fang. I like the look on his face there. Very nice.
It never bothered me that Maggie was the only female really portrayed here, because I had never given any thought to it before. Maggie is more of a "support" sort of character, anyway--she makes suggestions and helps in more passive ways. But she can still give a good tongue-lashing (she tries to scold Fang after he riles up Talon--I like the shocked look on her face when she realizes that Fang really IS trying to get Talon out of the way).
Some comparisons. Although Talon was ultimately captured, it was only because of Chaz and ? using their guns that he fell. Talon bested Fang--in terms of power and stamina it seems to me Talon was the better. The Mutates may have limited flight capability, but the gargoyles still manage to outdo them in aerial manuevers (sp?). Maggie does a good acting job, and so does Brooklyn. For Maggie, this scene is so much more fun now that I know she was trying to be an actress--but she still has trouble concealing her smile as she deftly unlocks the cage (of course her's is nothing compared to Talon's pleasantly nasty little grin as he exits the tube). With Brooklyn, I wonder how he learned to act that well--did he have to talk himself out of trouble a lot when he was younger?
While I'm on this tack, I liked the closure this brought to the whole Brooklyn/Maggie arc, while also strengthening (sp?) Talon and Maggie as an item. I like how Brooklyn comforts Maggie in the Clocktower and she doesn't flinch from his touch like the first time--in fact, she ran to him. Perhaps appropriately, the plight of her and Talon seems to be what compels him to finally accept leadership (though it takes Hudson's "Is that an order, then?" for Brook to aknowledge it as such). And then when Brooklyn practices his deception on everyone at the end...I must admit I almost believed that Brooklyn would trade his integrity for a chance with Maggie. But then he surprised even me. I like the expression on his face when Maggie looks at him after noticing the keycard, and the smile on her face immediately afterwards. Brooklyn's head does bow when he sees Maggie and Talon's joyful embrace, but it seems to me like a gesture of acceptance as well as sadness. I'd like to think that, even though Brooklyn only had a crush on Maggie, that those two did develop something of a friendship.
Crikey! I almost forgot about Xanatos! Now I know I'm tired. Anyway, Xanatos and Owen were great fun. All the good lines have already been stated, so I won't repeat them. The whole "turret-cannons" thing was rather silly, and I don't think non-projectile cannons would be able to fire when the barrels are bent. Still, I like the looks on X's and Owen's faces as they dodge debris after the castle takes a pretty heavy hit. How much you want to bet that after the gargoyles and Talon started their search, X turned to Owen and said, "Get rid of that security system and fire the man who designed it...and sue him for the damages to my castle"? I kind of miss that we didn't get to see Xanatos take advantage of Goliath's disappearance--it would have been nice to see Xanatos underestimate Brooklyn and gain an admiration for the new Second, or something like that.
Pointless trivia: Owen says, "An intriguing development." Immediately after which, Brooklyn says, "Perfect." The ONLY time in the series, as far as I remember, in which Owen and Brooklyn (both voiced by Jeff Bennett) speak two consecutive lines. I would have loved them having a conversation.
Broadway and Lexington smashing the guns with the rocks. I figured the audience was supposed to, at first, think they were bashing Chaz and ? on the head, but I don't know if I ever thought that myself.
My ramble has been kind of piece-meal, but hey, I guess I'm just rather tired now and stressed from trying to find an apartment in LA. I'll just finish off by saying that I really like this episode.

That's it from me for now. I'll try to post again no later than early next week (before I move). Until then, farewell. ****Blaise leans his head back and falls asleep. As he begins to snore, both he and the chair fade from view.****

Blaise
Thursday, August 1, 2002 02:11:13 AM
IP: 128.125.236.95

Fan - [You aren't objective when you point out his flaws.]

Everything is subjective, when giving an opinion. Your own objectivity is rather compromised by your *apparent* hero worship of Goliath, and *apparent* dislike of Demona.

[If she thought the clan was safe, why did she hide on a cliff underneath the castle? It doesn't make any since why she would flee from the castle if she felt the clan was going to be safe.]

You can be sure of something, and still have an anxious moment. Demona was feeling uneasy, which does not necessarily mean she thought the clan was going to die. I felt uneasy going on my first airplane trip. I was sure the plane would make it okay, but that doesn't mean I didn't have a bad moment prior to take off. Nerves are funny things, you can have them even if you 'know' things are going to be perfectly fine, or most likely fine.

['m leaning towards the fact that she knew, but wasn't up to explaining the next day to the clan how she knew what was going to happen.]

Well, yes, this makes perfect sense. She decides to let the clan get smashed to bits rather than have to come up with an excuse for why she is able to save their hides.

[By the way, I'd appreciate it if you'd be a little more polite in your tone when you are addressing me and others.]

I'm sure you would. Unfortunately it isn't going to happen today. Many apologies.

[ Anyway you cut it the plan to get rid of the humans wouldn't have worked]

Sure it would, it's a fictional event controlled by the whims of the writers. Theoretically, there are several ways for Demona's plan to have worked. But that would scarper the story. The plan fact is the tragedy was necessary to set up Goliath and others so they could have this dark, moody/romantic past to show case them in their ongoing story line.

This is fiction. A good writer can make just about anything happen if they want to, in a fictional setting with fictional characters. Demona's betrayal and the onsuing tragedy made for a entertaining story. No more, no less.

Mooncat
>^,,^<

Mooncat
Thursday, August 1, 2002 12:14:59 AM
IP: 68.102.1.42

one mroe thing.

<<Demona clearly thought the gargoyle clan would be safe.>>

The first problem is that Demona thought. The second problem is that she thought she was smart and that her thoughts were logical, which arose out of only more thinking. ;P
Gabriel "gaygoyle"
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 10:51:51 PM
IP: 24.219.165.75

Mooncat> <<and the other is an obvious fact>>

Uhhhhh, that depends on how much you want to contribute as being Goliath's faul. If you call plotting behind the leader, keeping the leader in the dark, not telling the clan, and betraying your clan all GOliath's fault, then yeah I could say that, though the logic is hugely skewed.

That's just like saying it's my fault for someone planting a bomb in my apartment, me walk in, and the bomb goes off.

All the blame rests on Demona and the Captain. Demona was foolish for trusting the Captain of the guard to make a deal with the Hakon; to trust that Hakon wouldn't take a chance to smash the enemy. She would have made an awful leader, and it's obvious that she slept her way into that position :P That, I call Goliath an idiot for doing ;)
Gabriel "gaygoyle"
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 10:49:42 PM
IP: 24.219.165.75

Mooncat><I never EVER said I didn't like Goliath.> I didn't say that you said you didn't like Goliath. I said the way you word your statements about him makes it sound like you don't like him. You aren't objective when you point out his flaws. <Demona clearly thought the gargoyle clan would be safe.> If she thought the clan was safe, why did she hide on a cliff underneath the castle? It doesn't make any since why she would flee from the castle if she felt the clan was going to be safe. Since she supposedly thought it was safe for the clan, shouldn't she have thought it would be safe for her to stay? <She was certainly devastated to find them destroyed after she woke up.> Who said she wasn't? <If she had certainly thought her clan would be smashed to bits, she would, I think, have gotten them out of harms way. Why wouldn't she?> I'm leaning towards the fact that she knew, but wasn't up to explaining the next day to the clan how she knew what was going to happen. <Demona had her clan's best interest at heart.> And Goliath doesn't? By the way, I'd appreciate it if you'd be a little more polite in your tone when you are addressing me and others.
Captain's/Demona's Plan> Anyway you cut it the plan to get rid of the humans wouldn't have worked. If Goliath had listened to Demona and taken the whole clan with him, which wasn't very likely, they would have wound up going to the human's rescue the next night. There is no way that Goliath would have allowed the vikings to get away with that. Another scenario could be that Goliath takes half the gargoyles with him, which would be more likely. Half the clan would be destroyed, and the other half would've hunted down the vikings and gotten their vengence, saving the humans at the same time. Half the clan would be dead, and the humans returned to the castle. Demona's goal wouldn't have been accomplished.

Fan
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 10:45:38 PM
IP: 216.160.96.116

Hey gargs and goyles!

MGC (Monthly Gargoyles Art Contest) is officially BACK in Business!!! Please feel free to look around! (and notify me if you experience broken links or problems)

Our first topic: Gargoyles on DVD!
http://mgc.gargoyles-fans.org/current.php

Ignore the internal page design for now, I'll be working on making it prettier within the next month.

Enjoy!!

Siryn - [<--MGC is UP!]
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 10:14:58 PM
IP: 129.21.145.3

Fan << Well, I apologize if I misread you.>> Mmm hmm? <<You can't blame me though.>> Sure I can. *^_^* It's called free will.

<< The way that you have stated your opinions made you sound like you didn't like Goliath.>>

I never EVER said I didn't like Goliath. I just said I thought Brooklyn would surpass him as a leader, and that Goliath contributed to the fall of Wyvern. One is an opinion, and the other is an obvious fact. Neither of which reflects on how I feel about Goliath in a like/dislike way.

<<You sounded just like Demona, and Demona hates Goliath. I figured that since you're a huge fan of Demona, you'd hate Goliath who is her enemy. >>

Ooookay... there is this thing called fiction and reality, and being able to like a antagonist of a fiction does not mean you have to hate the protagonist. Or in other words, if I think Darth Vader is cool, it doesn't mean I think Luke Sky Walker sucks eggs. Or if I think Catwoman rocks, it doesn't mean I want Batgirl to eat dirt and die. The great thing about being a fan of a fiction, is you are allowed to like more than one character, even if said characters are enemies inside the fiction.

<<< <Why Demona went to a different perch that night? I'd call it a last minute moment of uneasiness.> Yes, she went and hid on a cliff and didn't let anyone in on her uneasiness. In affect, saving her own life while everyone else was killed. >>>

Oh sure. Demona absolutely knew her clan was going to get smashed, and she did a little dance of joy when she woke up and found them in lots of tiny dusty chunks. Yup, she surely thought her clan was going to bite it, that's why she was so satisfied when she found out the Captain didn't keep his promise to her, and all those pesky clan members were wiped out. Oh happy day, caloo calay...

Most likely, Demona going to a different perch was just her having a moment of anxiety. Everything was happen in the space of a single night, and she was just a wee bit rushed and stressed. If she had certainly thought her clan would be smashed to bits, she would, I think, have gotten them out of harms way. Why wouldn't she? She had no beef against her clan, and every reason to want their best welfare. What possible reason would she have to let them get all smashed up? Cause and effect. Motive and method... The whole reason of the 'betrayal' was to get rid of the humans. ***There is no point in getting rid of the humans if there are no gargoyles left afterwards to enjoy the lack of humans.***

Demona clearly thought the gargoyle clan would be safe. She had the promise of the Captain. She was certainly devastated to find them destroyed after she woke up.

Patrick -- [She remembers the ruined castle and shattered clan that her future self showed her in "Vows." I would think having that in the back of one's mind for so many years would make anyone just a wee bit uneasy.]

I agree. I think this warning of the future would have been in her mind a lot, and probably contributed to her decision to go along with the Captain of the Guards plan. Because she wants to prevent this from happening. From her reaction to the warning, and to her future self, it was pretty evident that the gargoyle who would become Demona had her clan's best interest at heart. She wanted to save her people, not destroy them.

nuff said
Mooncat


Mooncat
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 09:48:16 PM
IP: 68.102.1.42

Mooncat> I meant, that was "not" very honorable.

Fan
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 08:39:30 PM
IP: 216.160.96.116

Mooncat > There's no plot hole as I see it. Demona doesn't have a motive to want the clan destroyed, but she has motive to suspect that something MIGHT go wrong with her and the Captain's plan. She remembers the ruined castle and shattered clan that her future self showed her in "Vows." I would think having that in the back of one's mind for so many years would make anyone just a wee bit uneasy.
Patrick Toman
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 08:38:41 PM
IP: 67.38.243.8

Mooncat><I do not have a dislike for Goliath.> Well, I apologize if I misread you. You can't blame me though. The way that you have stated your opinions made you sound like you didn't like Goliath. You sounded just like Demona, and Demona hates Goliath. I figured that since you're a huge fan of Demona, you'd hate Goliath who is her enemy. My apologies. <Why Demona went to a different perch that night? I'd call it a last minute moment of uneasiness.> Yes, she went and hid on a cliff and didn't let anyone in on her uneasiness. In affect, saving her own life while everyone else was killed. That was very honorable.
Fan
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 08:36:38 PM
IP: 216.160.96.116

Oops...wrong pic. Heh....though I suppose Delilah is somewhat appropriate for the Kingdom episode. I wonder how I selected her when she's at the top of the list and Tom at the bottom. Go figure...
Jim R.
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 08:29:41 PM
IP: 65.173.70.209

Dear Lord...it's as I feared!!! There's a war of "friendly debate" going on in here yet again! Run for your lives! Ahhhh!

OK, I'm going to say something stupid about this, only to lighten the mood, but rather still, to parcipate (infantesimally) in the Golaith/Demona thing. "Demona hates humans because she traveled back in time and told herself to do so!" See, now wasn't that funny? Heh heh....heh...(cough) ahem. <:)

Anyways...my take on Kingdom.

I liked this episode because already I was beginning to wonder if we'd ever see anything happening back in New York. I mean, it's not as if time stopped when Golaith & company went on their world tour, so it's about time we see *something* with how the rest of the clan is taking Goliath's absence.

I think everyone has a certain fondness for Brooklyn. I know I did and this episode (though sort of poorly animated) does give him some highlights, like for instance, HE DOESN'T GET TOTALLY SCREWED OVER FOR ONCE! Wow. He actually shows his true leadership characterisitics and makes it out on top though he still doesn't get the girl. Talon does. (sigh)

One thing still gets me on this ep. (And I think I'll go browsing through the archives after posting this) Who designed the special "cage" or "gun locker" with the keycard? The U.S. military? Cyberbiotics? Xanatos? Microsoft? (Heh...yeah, leave it to Microsoft to come up with something that's bullet-proof, laser-proof, smash-proof, drop-proof, kick-proof, hacker-proof, water-proof, earthquake-proof, maybe even nuclear bomb-proof, but only has one key. Ha!)

And of course, we get to see some more of the labyrinth and its dwelling followers. My favorite part: the twist in the end where Brooklyn fools Maggie to gain Fang's trust, and then backstabs him.

I wonder how long Fang stayed in Microsoft's portable hell before Talon jailed him? The world may never know...

Jim R. - [jim@dialwforwarp.com]
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 08:27:23 PM
IP: 65.173.70.209

Why Demona went to a different perch that night? I'd call it a last minute moment of uneasiness. And the fact that the writers wanted her to survive the massacre because she was supposed to be a major ongoing character.

Otherwise it's a huge honking plot hole, because there is *no reason*, no *motive* for her to let the clan be destroyed or to WANT her clan to be destroyed.

Mooncat
>^,,^<

Mooncat
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 08:02:11 PM
IP: 68.102.1.42

Fan <<Since you have a dislike for Goliath and an admiration for Demona, it'd be very difficult for you to have an unbiased assessment of his performance.>>

Incorrect. I do not have a dislike for Goliath. Just because I don't think he's the ultimate best leader in the universe, isn't an indication that I don't like the big purple guy. I like him fine. Long dark hair. Deep sex on a stick voice. A body to conjure with... *purrsss* Goliath appeals to me in his own way. *^_~*

My assessment of Goliath not being the best leader is not based on my 'dislike of him', but on his performance in the given circumstances. In fact, it is **despite** the fact I think he's uber sexy and all, that I still think his leadership of the clan back in the 10th century SUCKED. I do think he is a better suited to lead in a 20th century setting, but I don't think he is the last word in leadership.

<<Personally, I believe that they'd both make good leaders. I just don't think that Brooklyn would be able to rise to Goliath's level. >>

I think Brooklyn would surpass Goliath, in looking out for the best interest of the clan. Brooklyn for all intents and purposes is a teenage youth at the time of the series, and Goliath a 'mature' garg in his middle years. Of the two,
Brooklyn impresses me more in catagories of perception and strategy.

I don't think Brooklyn is perfect, but being young and at the very beginning of his experience as a leader, he's got hella lot of potential.

Mooncat
>^,,^<

Mooncat
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 07:57:18 PM
IP: 68.102.1.42

Mooncat><So, why would Brooklyn's own horniness be a good reason to put a prospective mate with two other horny guys instead?> Did I say that? No, I did not. Your statement seemed to imply Brooklyn wasn't "horny" himself and only his brothers were. <And Demona only wanted to get rid of the Castle humans because she thought it was the only way to save her clan. An unselfish reason.> Gabriel pretty much stated what I was going to say about that. <She Did Not Know Her Clan Was DOOMED.> Oh, really? I have one glaring question for that statement, why did she hide herself away at dawn? If she didn't know that her clan was doomed, why didn't she go to her usual perch? Her actions don't strike me as one who didn't know what was going to happen. She knew it all right, and chose to save herself. <I don't have to project Demona's wrongs on Goliath, he has enough of his own to account for.> I'll quote Greg Weisman on that, "Goliath isn't perfect, far from it. But the angel of his better nature is a pure and powerful thing." Could you say the same about Demona? No, you "reasonably" could not. <Oh, always for a 'good cause' -- but real and actual lies passed his lavender lips.> I don't recall ever saying that Goliath never lied. You misunderstood my statement. I meant that Goliath doesn't lie egregiously like say, Demona. Speaking of a "good cause," look what Demona's actions toward a "good cause" got the gargoyles. <Goliath, out of the MANY eps he is in, did not favorably impress me over all> Of course you didn't, since it's very obvious that you don't like him. Since you have a dislike for Goliath and an admiration for Demona, it'd be very difficult for you to have an unbiased assessment of his performance. Personally, I believe that they'd both make good leaders. I just don't think that Brooklyn would be able to rise to Goliath's level.
Gabriel><Someone cannot determine the breadth and deftness of someone's skills off of one viewing. We're seeing potential, NOT fully developed leadership skills.> True, that.
Aaron> I had a feeling that wasn't what you meant. <And yes, Goliath, for pride and arrogance> What pride and arrogance?
Todd><In both cases, it was her own actions which brought about the massacre - betraying Castle Wyvern to the Vikings and abandoning Macbeth to Canmore - but she's unwilling to accept that fact. Blaming the humans for it all allows her to believe that none of it was her fault. > 'Tis true.

Fan
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 07:38:05 PM
IP: 216.160.99.46

Re the English invading Scotland with Canmore to get rid of the gargoyles: my own suspicion is that there was a lot more to their helping Canmore out in "City of Stone Part Four" than just anti-gargoyle attitudes. For one thing, after Demona deserts, the English attack Castle Moray anyway, even though there are no longer any gargoyles there, and sack it - and they continue to fight for Canmore against Luach thereafter, after all the gargoyles (except for Demona - and she's believed dead) are killed. Such behavior suggests that they had other motives for invading Scotland than just hating gargoyles.

I can easily guess at what they were, too. For one thing, in actual history, the English general (Earl Siward of Northumbria) was related to Canmore, his sister or daughter (the history books disagree on this issue) being Duncan's wife and Canmore's mother; he'd obviously favor Canmore's cause thereby, on the basis of family ties. Also, it no doubt occurred to the English that if they put Canmore on the throne, then they'd have a northern neighbor who'd be sympathetic to them, which would certainly be very useful. (Of course, in actual history again, the English wound up being conquered in turn themselves by the Normans a few years later and so didn't get to benefit much thereby - but Canmore did provide sanctuary for the last survivors of the old English royal family fleeing William the Conqueror, and even married one, Princess Margaret).

And I do think that Demona's cry "They should bow to us!" is indeed significant. She doesn't just want gargoyles to survive. She wants them to rule. (And she especially wants herself to rule).

Don't forget, of course, one of the most crucial reasons why Demona hates humans: it allows her to overlook how she helped bring about the destruction of her clans. In both cases, it was her own actions which brought about the massacre - betraying Castle Wyvern to the Vikings and abandoning Macbeth to Canmore - but she's unwilling to accept that fact. Blaming the humans for it all allows her to believe that none of it was her fault.

Todd Jensen - [merlyn1@mindspring.com]
St. Louis, MO
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 06:54:04 PM
IP: 67.28.95.35

Gabriel -- If Demona wanted humans bowing to her, she'd have sought to enslave them, not simply get rid of them. Her remark to Goliath wasn't a declaration of her wanting to have human pets/servants/slaves as much as just an irritated complaint.

In all her plans and actions, there is no indicaton Demona wanted dominence over humans. She wanted humans GONE. Pure and simple.

Brooklyn and Goliath, leadership ability pros and cons. I think in the *few* eps I've seen of Brooklyn in leadership positions, that he has done very well and shows every indication of being a great leader. Goliath, out of the MANY eps he is in, did not favorably impress me over all. So, IMHO, Brooklyn, given time, would probably be a better leader.

<<Somone cannot determine the breadth and deftness of someone's skills off of one viewing.>>

Yes someone can. And in this case it was more than just one viewing. I don't think the few viewings give the broadest view of Brooklyn's skill, but it doesn't take a five inch novel or 20 episode mini-series to give a person an idea of a character's potential.

Mooncat
>^,,^<


Mooncat
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 06:40:40 PM
IP: 68.102.1.42

Fan> That was NOT what I meant. Goliath is an idealist, and Demona, (Before she went insane to chase an opposite untenable ideal) was a pragmatist. Goliath's belief in some pie in the sky future where everything was going to work out, and gargoyles were going to be given their due...

Not gonna happen. Humans seem more then content to destroy each other on a grand scale over slight variations in skin color, or which invisible man they believe in, and on a personal level for things like "he looked at me funny." And that's *today* mind you, not a thousand plus years ago, in "barbarian" times, but modern "civilization".

Maybe the day when Goliath's beautiful vision could come to pass is possible. Maybe. But that day was *not* in 994 at Wyvern. Katherine and her "advisor" the Magus were both anti-gargoyle. The Captain of the guard, seemingly the only pro-gargoyle voice to be found, is considered an eccentric at best, like some explorer who'a "gone native" to live with the indigenous primatives. Without a change either in attitude or identity of the leadership at Wyvern, the gargoyles were living on borrowed time. If Katherine acted like this after her father made an alliance with Hudson, what would a child raised by Katherine be like? (Assuming Katherine could have children) The Captain was already getting on in years. Remove him, and the situation deteriorates to untenable levels. Something had to give.

And why should the gargoyles continue to serve an ingrate like Katherine? Because they were "safe"? Katherine could revoke her "protection" at a moment's notice, and might, if it became inconvenient. If the English would support Canmore against MacBeth because the latter had a some "tame" gargoyles serving him, there could certainly come a time when the ruler of Wyvern might have to choose between political expediency and the clan... And the odds of the gargoyles winning that fight are practically nil. Gargoyles could legitimately claim "We were here first!" Why serve foreign masters? To quote another Scot, "You're so busy fighting for the scraps from Longshanks' table, you've missed your God-given right to something better." Why *not* try and regain their ancestral home? If Wyvern needed the protection of the gargoyles to stand against raiders, it obviously wasn't a very strong castle. If it was sacked once, would anyone want to reclaim it? (It's built in a lousy tactical position anyway. Stuck out on a promontory of rock with the sea behind it, no place to retreat to... Anybody who had more time then Hakon could just lay siege to the place and starve the inhabitants out)

There's another quote that I knew until I wanted to use it here, but it's something to the effect that the line between traitors and patriots often being very thin. Our own country was founded by people rebelling against a corrupt and ungrateful monarch, against whom we had much less legitimate grievances then the gargoyles did against Katherine. If things had gone differently, Demona might have gone down in history as a kind of gargoyle George Washington, fighting bravely for the rights of her people in the face of tyranny.

I'm not trying to say that Demona is blameless for what happened at Wyvern. She shares the blame, and the guilt from that is what she's been running from for the last nine hundred years. But she is not solely to blame. There's plenty of culpability to go around. Hakon, for attacking in the first place. Katherine and the Magus for their stiff-necked ingratitude. The Captain, for making promises he couldn't back up. And yes, Goliath, for pride and arrogance.

Todd> A minotaur in the Labyrinth. Cute.

Gabrial> Goliath vs. Brooklyn> One, we have more then two episodes of Brooklyn exhibiting leadership qualities. Two, maybe we would have more examples if we could have gotten more then "Kingdom" and "Pendragon" to check back with the more interesting half of the cast.


Aaron - [JCarnage@Yahoo.com]
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 06:38:36 PM
IP: 209.33.140.99

<<And Demona only wanted to get rid of the Castle humans because she thought it was the only way to save her clan. An unselfish reason>>

THat is SO not true, mainly because we see how much contempt she has for humans: "humanity should bow down to us!!" SHe was too caught up in her own little dream of humans bowing to gargoyles that she didn't even rationally think out anything.

That line alone convinces me that Demona is not out for the greater good for her clan, but to see her own dream of dominance over the species she hated made flesh.

To add to what fan said, GOliath's decision to use the eye was not out fo an abuse of power; rather he felt he had to to protect Elisa and Angela. The eye took over and drove him to near insanity for power. Brooklyn, on the other hand, purposefully ordered his brother to go patrole somewhere else so he could do his thing to impress Angela. THAT is an abuse of power and authority for selfish reasons.

And I still stress that one cannot base Brooklyn's leadership skills over TWO episodes. TWO FREAKIN' EPISODES!!! We have two entire seasons of Goliath's leadership skills, and two episodes of Brooklyn's. Somone cannot determine the breadth and deftness of someone's skills off of one viewing. We're seeing potential, NOT fully developed leadership skills.

I seriously doubt any will change their mind on this.
Gabriel "gaygoyle"
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 06:28:52 PM
IP: 24.219.165.75

Fan < Excuse me, but you seem to forget that Brooklyn himself was "horny." Duh.> So, why would Brooklyn's own horniness be a good reason to put a prospective mate with two other horny guys instead? I fail to see how that would be an intelligent decision in any way shape or form.

<Goliath put on the Odin's "Eye" because he thought it was the only way to save Elisa, for an unselfish reason. >

And Demona only wanted to get rid of the Castle humans because she thought it was the only way to save her clan. An unselfish reason.

<Besides, that wasn't Goliath, that was the "Eye." The "Eye" used Goliath, not the other way around.>

Who says? Did Goliath not have free will? Wasn't he able to choose to take off the Eye? The Eye gave Goliath power, it was Goliath's own reaction to power that was corrupt. There is absolutely no indication that the Eye had free will or a malevolent nature. It looked to me the exaggeration of Goliath's protective nature was just that, an exaggeration of what already existed in Goliath. That includes the basis for his 'corruption'.

<<<The Eye, as observed by Goliath, makes one more of what they are.> What are you talking about? >>

Remarking on Goliath's own observation in Eye of the Beholder.

<<The "Eye" corrupts someone.<If that is the case, that made Goliath more of a manipulative liar and tyrant.> That is utterly preposterous. You totally misunderstood what Goliath was saying. Since Fox and The Archmage were already corrupt, the "Eye" just compounded on it and made them even more corrupt. Goliath is not a corrupt guy by nature, so the "Eye" just corrupted him, it didn't "make him more of what he is.">>

No, I think I understood him quite clearly. The Eye exaggerates inherent traits of the user. And yes, Goliath has lied. Oh, always for a 'good cause' -- but real and actual lies passed his lavender lips. And yes, Goliath has acted with imperious actions that can be considered tyranical. Not as extreme as his actions when suffused with the power of the Eye, but he has acted judge, jury and executioner throughout the series, deciding when to obey the law and when to go ahead despite the law as fits his personal decisions. Yes, for 'good intentions'... but many tyrants begin the same way. I am not saying Goliath is a bad guy, only that taken to exaggerated lengths, he has inherent personal traits that are the base of his 'corrupt' actions.

<<He isn't a liar and a tyrant, "especially" not a liar.>>

uh, yeah. he's lied. big fat whoppers. Always for what he's deemed the greater good, but the big guy is not above spindling the truth to get the results he wants.

<<If Goliath was such a terrible and stupid guy, why was he chosen as second and allowed to become leader? >>

Never said he was terrible or stupid. Just not the best leader for the time (10th century) or place (a castle full of humans whose leaders despised Gargoyles).

<< What threat? Just because the humans were acting like total butt-holes toward the gargoyles, didn't mean they were out to destroy them. >>

Wow, how could I forget how humans never irrationally or wrongly persecute and destroy a minority they have antipathy for? Oh wait, the entire history of humanity is full of examples of persecution and destruction of small groups of fellow humans that the majority decide are inconvenient or destestable. hmmm...

Oh, and the fact that Gargoyle kind elsewhere in the world is just all but stamped out by humans has no bearing either. In fact the one and only example where humans did not destroy Gargoyles that lived among them, out of the Entire World that they knew of, is what, *one* tiny villiage in Japan. Well, that is just great odds for a species survival. uh huh.

<<What's with this "it's Goliath's fault" anyway? That's Demona's skewed view. >>

Actually, since Goliath is the leader of the clan, whatever befalls the clan is his responsibility. That's the way leadership works. Good or ill, direct cause or indirectly, the final responsibility is the leader.

I'm not saying it's his fault. But his actions did contribute to the culmination of tragedy.

<<Demona is hardly the moral authority on anything.>>

She doesn't need to be. You don't have to be a saint to be right. You can be downright evil, and still make a correct assessment of events. I'm not saying Demona is blameless, but I think she is not wrong in thinking that Goliath put the humans interests above that of his own gargoyle species.

<< How was it that Goliath committed a "greater sin?" He wasn't the one who hid himself away at dawn, leaving his clan to be smashed to dust. I think that, in your obvious admiration of Demona and dislike of Goliath, you project her evils onto him. >>

Nope. Demona's 'evils' are her own. Goliath's are totally different and just as much his own and no one else's. I don't have to project Demona's wrongs on Goliath, he has enough of his own to account for.

<<You're right. Demona's inaction to do something, anything to get her doomed clan to safety, was the worst sin. >>

Demona was acting in what she thought was the best interest of her clan. She Did Not Know Her Clan Was DOOMED.

That she had doubts at the last moment was not a sin. Nothing in life is sure. I think if she really honestly thought her clan was going to be smashed, she'd have hustled them out of harm's way poste haste.

There is absolutely no point in letting the Vikings get rid of the humans of the Castle, if her clan is not there to take back their ancestral home afterwards.

It all goes to Motive. Demona's motive was the safety of her clan. She didn't think, "oh, well my clan is going to get smashed. *yawn* but at least those pesky humans will be gone. la la la..." The whole point of getting rid of the humans is so her clan won't be troubled by them.

Mooncat
>^,,^<

Mooncat
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 06:07:35 PM
IP: 68.102.1.42

JIMMY - Interesting that you'd use a Magneto scheme to illustrate/comment on Demona; I always did see a certain similarity between "Gargoyles" and "X-Men" (which, at the time "Gargoyles" first came out, I knew only from the FOX cartoon), in the sense that both dealt with characters who were an unpopular "minority group", involving a lot about "humans fear what they do not understand" and differing factions in that group; some seeking peaceful co-existence (the X-Men and Xavier; Goliath and his clan), others seeking retaliation partly for reasons of revenge, partly because they believe that the only way to stop human persecution is by force (Magneto; Demona). Certainly much of the arguments between Goliath and Demona over the issue echoed, for me, the arguments between Xavier and Magneto over the issue.

(It reminds me, in fact, of a question that I once asked Greg Weisman after he mentioned about how, in the early days of making the show - after they abandoned the comedy approach for the drama one - there was some concern that people would see "Gargoyles" as a rip-off of "Batman"; I wondered whether there were similar concerns over "Gargoyles" being viewed by some of its audience as a rip-off of "X-Men". Greg replied that there were none; partly, it seems, because "X-Men" came out a bit later than "Batman" did, and partly because the animation style of "Gargoyles" was closer to that of "Batman" than of "X-Men" - no doubt thanks, in part, to Frank Paur being one of the directors).

One point about Goliath having to leave Castle Wyvern in "Enter Macbeth": that was a different situation from abandoning an inhabited protectorate. The only people living in the castle were the gargoyles themselves and Xanatos (plus Owen), their enemy. They had nothing to gain by staying there (apart from nostalgia); there was nobody there to protect, just the building. So leaving it wasn't a true abandonment.

It becomes different when you've got people living in your protectorate whom you have a duty towards. You can't just desert or abandon them. It was no doubt a good thing for Goliath and his clan that there wasn't such a situation in "Enter Macbeth".

Incidentally, one slightly oddball notion about the Labyrinth, tossed out here more for the fun of it rather than anything else: we know that Taurus would have eventually shown up in New York (independent of the Goliath Chronicles episode featuring him and Proteus) on account of the New Olympians making contact with the outside world and Taurus being one of New Olympus's ambassadors to humanity. I wonder if Taurus, while in Manhattan, might have at some point wound up in the Labyrinth. (Think about it for a moment, and you'll see what inspired that notion).

Todd Jensen - [merlyn1@mindspring.com]
St. Louis, MO
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 05:48:35 PM
IP: 67.28.95.35

Matt [Katherine, Magus and the other humans of Wyvern became gargoyle lovers because Goliath protected them]

Goliath was protecting them in the beginning, but Katherine and Magus weren't the least bit grateful, much less loving to the Gargoyles. Katherine had to be in first person mortal peril falling off a bloody cliff before she changed her tune about Gargoyles. The irony, is without the peril that was caused by the Captain of the Guard's betrayal and also led to the destruction of Goliath's clan, Katherine and Magus would have gone on hating Gargoyles. Magus certainly wasn't loving when his hide was being saved, and until he saw Katherine peeping out from behind Goliath, was ready to kill his saviors. The only reason he did not kill them dead was because he had no means to kill them, only enchant them.

And let's see, who are Katherine and the Magus? Only the two most powerful humans in the castle/region. So if they felt prejudice against the Gargoyles, the clan was pretty much assured destruction or it's equivalent in enchantment.

As for why Katherine and Magus are so intent on protecting the eggs after the tragedy, is in a very great amount related to the huge amount of GUILT they felt for basically destroying/enchanting the last of Goliath's little clan. They did a really bad thing, and they knew it. I'm not saying that Katherine and Magus are not good people, but their actions were the root cause of the Wyvern tragedy. It's a thing called cause and effect. Demona would have had no cause for 'betrayal' if the humans in charge gave the Gargoyles their just due. All the time under Malcolm, Demona was content to follow Hudson, then Goliath's lead of several years. So what changed? What was her motive to fall in with the Chief of Guard in betrayal? She didn't out of the blue decide 'humans smell bad and they dress funny, guess I'll see them all dead even though my own clan perishes with them' -- Her motive was protection of her own clan. She felt they were in danger from the current human regime. And. She. Was. Right. -- IMHO, unfortunately her response to the obvious peril her clan was in was not the wisest. Given a change in events, such as Goliath actually taking the clan with him, or the Captain of the Guard actually preventing the Vikings from smashing the stone form clan, Demona's actions would have borne success.

Though, in the end, the real reason why did things happened the way they did: The writers thought it would make a good story, tragic destruction of the clan and all. So they wrote it that way. *^_^*

Mooncat
>^,,^<

Mooncat
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 05:21:19 PM
IP: 68.102.1.42

Brook/Goliath> Kudos to Gabriel, Todd, Matt, Jimmy, and Airwalker. You guys had very good, credible points.
Mooncat><horny brothers, or go on assignment with her himself. Duh!> Excuse me, but you seem to forget that Brooklyn himself was "horny." Duh. <As for Goliath abusing his power... Eye of Odin anyone?> Goliath put on the Odin's "Eye" because he thought it was the only way to save Elisa, for an unselfish reason. Besides, that wasn't Goliath, that was the "Eye." The "Eye" used Goliath, not the other way around. <The Eye, as observed by Goliath, makes one more of what they are.> What are you talking about? The "Eye" corrupts someone.<If that is the case, that made Goliath more of a manipulative liar and tyrant.> That is utterly preposterous. You totally misunderstood what Goliath was saying. Since Fox and The Archmage were already corrupt, the "Eye" just compounded on it and made them even more corrupt. Goliath is not a corrupt guy by nature, so the "Eye" just corrupted him, it didn't "make him more of what he is." He isn't a liar and a tyrant, "especially" not a liar. If Goliath was such a terrible and stupid guy, why was he chosen as second and allowed to become leader? <She made a mistake in action, but Goliath's was I think the greater sin, as he WAS the clan leader, and should have been concerned for his clan instead of ignoring the human threat.> What threat? Just because the humans were acting like total butt-holes toward the gargoyles, didn't mean they were out to destroy them. What's with this "it's Goliath's fault" anyway? That's Demona's skewed view. Demona is hardly the moral authority on anything. How was it that Goliath committed a "greater sin?" He wasn't the one who hid himself away at dawn, leaving his clan to be smashed to dust. I think that, in your obvious admiration of Demona and dislike of Goliath, you project her evils onto him. That is not right.
Aaron><I think sins of inaction are worse then sins of action. And that's all I'm going to say about that.> You're right. Demona's inaction to do something, anything to get her doomed clan to safety, was the worst sin.

Fan
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 05:05:54 PM
IP: 63.224.55.32

I think sins of inaction are worse then sins of action. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

"It's better to ask forgiveness then permission." - Unknown.


Aaron - [JCarnage@Yahoo.com]
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 04:00:44 PM
IP: 209.33.140.99

just saw this quote and it reminded me of the Goliath/Demona debate going on in here:

"The secret of success is constancy to purpose."
-Benjamin Disraeli

matt
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 03:43:57 PM
IP: 216.178.8.56

Mooncat> Goliath hardly did anything wrong, and certaintly wasn't commiting a bigger "sin" than Demona! even if Goliath did ignore the warning signs, at least he didn't betray the Clan outright as Demona did. but thats moot cuz Goliath didn't ignore the warning signs. he knew the tensions between the Clan and the humans was pretty bad, but he also knew he had a responsibility. do you think alot of the Clan would've been ok with abandoning the castle as Othello suggest? "A gargoyle can no more stop protecting the castle, than breatheing the air." i think the Clan would be betraying themselves if they had left Wyvern. and what could Goliath do if they stayed? keep working to protect these people and hopefully they will come around. and of course, they did, but at a terrible price. Katherine, Magus and the other humans of Wyvern became gargoyle lovers because Goliath protected them, unfortunatly Demona had already caused the destruction of most the Clan.
there is nothing to suggest that the people of Wyvern would've destroyed the Clan. true there was some animosity, but i think Katherine and Magus were more talk than action. i think the Gargoyles had the friendship and respect of Captain and very possibly the guard of Wyvern too. the only people we saw harbor ill feelings towards the Clan were Katherine, and Magus (who, we saw, had the potential to change) and the refugees (who were not true inhabitants of the castle and probably wouldn't have stayed long) i think if Demona and the Captain hadn't betrayed them all, the Clan would've been fine and eventually peace would've prevailed. it would've been harder and taken more effort, but the rewards are much greater....
Goliath was doing the only thing he could do: he was protecting his protectorate, working for peace at Wyvern and trying to make steps towards unification of the Clan and the humans.
Demona's actions were betrayal of the Clan and the Clan's purpose.
just because Demona thinks she was right, doesn't mean she is right, and just cuz the Clan was destroyed doesn't mean its goliaths's fault or that he did anything wrong.

matt
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 03:38:16 PM
IP: 216.178.8.56

Jimmy [Where did you hear that quote? I first heard it in "Enter Magneto" the third X-Men episode. But I'm assuming it has more literary origins.]

Try historic.

"We born in freedom, would rather die on our feet than live on our knees." -President Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Goliath is all virtue, but his tolerance to human antagonism in the 10th century most probably would have been his clan's death. That Demona's mistake led to the clan's destruction before this was only a matter of trusting the Captain who made promises he could not keep. She made a mistake in action, but Goliath's was I think the greater sin, as he WAS the clan leader, and should have been concerned for his clan instead of ignoring the human threat. Case in point:

****
Captain: Uh, your pardon, your highness. I took the liberty of asking them to appear and be recognized for their bravery.

Princess Katharine: Captain, we are most seriously displeased to allow beasts in the dining hall.

Magus: You speak wisely, Princess. These are unnatural creatures. No good can come from associating with them.

****

I don't know about you, but that sounds very dire to me. Demona heard this, and Goliath, but Goliath wasn't thinking "better keep alert in case my clan is in danger" no, his policy was to simply ignore the abusive attitude of the ranking power and taking no action even in precaution to the safety of his clan.

From what I could see, Goliath was going to get his clan killed. I think that was Demona's view point too when she agreed to the Captain of the Guard's plan to get rid of Katherine and her people. Katherine did not see the Gargoyles as people. They were beasts. Worse than beasts if you mind the dogs in the hall were welcome but the castle protectors were not. Not only were they lowly creatures, but as the Magus said, "unnatural"... and in those Dark Ages, good Christian humans would be duty bound to destroy the unnatural.

Just some thoughts
Mooncat

Mooncat
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 02:52:32 PM
IP: 68.102.1.42

"Better that we die on our feet than live on our knees."
Where did you hear that quote? I first heard it in "Enter Magneto" the third X-Men episode. But I'm assuming it has more literary origins.
Anyway, Let me paint that Magneto scenario for you, it corrolates quite well with Demona's. Magneto is about to launch nuclear warheads on America's cities, citing the abuse of mutants as his reasoning. He decides that if mutants didn't strike the humans, the would enslave them. Cyclops tells him that that would mean war and would surely bring about the destruction of both their races (And in an alternate timeline where the X-Men fail he ends up being right). Prompting Magneto's response: "Better that we die on our feet than live on our knees." (It's amazing how I remember all that.)
So you see, the mentality that the pharse implies should have it's limits. Once you get to the point where you're saying "If I can't be happy,nobody will" then you've taken it too far. Demona often use that mentality. Demona (until Angela showed up) was at a point of hopelessness so she really didn't care about what happenned to Gargoyles or Humans, she just wanted blood for blood. All her talk about saving gargoyles was just rhetoric she used to fool herself as well as others.

Brook v Goliath> Like I said, their strenghts lie in different areas. Right now Brook is too guided by his passions to make a good leader, but ater his Timedances, I don't think he will be so prone to that, so his main flaw would be gone. And Goliath, though he has been leader for awhile, is still learning too, and after "Hunter's Moon" when his impulsiveness nearly killed Elisa, I don't think that he would be so stubborn. But Brooklyn's leadership style seems to focus more on overall planning and strategy than Goliath's. Goliath makes an awesome field commander and due to his philosophical nature would probably be a better leader. (I'm assuming that a clan leader is a spiritual leader as well.) But Brooklyn is more practical and more indoctrinated, and not quite as eloquent. He works very well as a leader in combat and dictating orders, but as far as being in tune with the hearts and minds of his clan, I don't think he is capable.
Goliath's reaction to the Gargoyles scaring the refugees was a necessary one. It wasn't fair and even Goliath knew it. (He even said he would make it up to them.) But he had to defuse tensions before they escalated, that that was the only quick way to do it before anybody got hurt.

Labyrynth joining Manhattan. If both clans started living in the same area, they would effectively become one. So I wonder how Talon and Goliath would work out the leadership issues. Neither of them seem to be the type to accept other peoples views, Talon especially.

Jimmy
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 01:44:10 PM
IP: 172.132.111.121

TODD - You wrote: [I suspect that he wouldn't be too pleased about the clan moving back in with Xanatos. He'd most likely see it as "selling out", even if it might have been necessary]

What I wonder is if he would argue the point or even bother to get that upset about it despite how much he might find their choice distasteful. I think that considering the atmosphere he might not like their choice but wouldn't rub their faces in it so to speak. I wonder though - would he be in a rush to offer sanctuary to them in the Labyrinth as an alternative? After all they are an established Clan with an existing powerbase and it could be more of a source of friction and conflict to have the two groups living together outright. (Talon after all wasn't exactly that pleased when Goliath basically took the leadership initiative in THE RECKONING and left him watching the funhouse while he went back to get the other Gargoyles.)

You wrote: [I doubt that the Mutates would seriously abandon the Labyrinth, any more than Goliath would abandon Manhattan; after all, Talon would see it as his responsibility to protect the people who took shelter there, and Maggie and Claw would probably support him on that.]

There is a difference between want and need. Goliath didn't want to leave the Castle in Season 1 but in the end he needed to. Talon might not want to relocate the Labyrinth but in the end he might need to. If the position is compromised to the Quarrymen then those people he wants to protect are put in even more danger than they would be living outside the Labyrinth. Besides is it a good long term solution for all those people Talon and the Mutates took in to live in the Labyrinth? The Mutates and Clones don't really have a choice other than moving to another hiding place but the Human inhabitants have other options open to them. And now that we have Xanatos as a more neutral figure he could throw in some help even without letting Talon know about it. (It feels like something Xanatos would do since if he can control the size of the Human population of the Labyrinth then it does sort of give him a little control over the Mutates.)

You wrote: [Also, I certainly doubt that Talon would be willing to accept Xanatos's hospitality at Xanadu.]

I don't think that he would want to accept anything from Xanatos but on the other hand the situation could get a little desperate. How long can the Labyrinth hold out if the Quarrymen really turn their attention to it? (And whats to stop them from really turning their attention to it? After all its isolated so they don't run any risk in interference from authorities or getting any bad publicity. It's an even better target than the castle or Goliath and his Clan.)

I don't think that Talon would be able or willing to move back in with his parents as an alternative. And other than the Castle or Xanadu there aren't that many options. (Onless he's willing to take over the Clocktower with the Mutates and the Clones. That would offer some protection since the Quarrymen wouldn't be able to get away with an attack on the Clocktower or anything near what the Hunters did in HUNTERS MOON. And he would still be able to protect the Homeless; in fact you could have a division of labor between The Manhattan Clan and the Labyrinth Clan with Manhattan focusing on crime and Labyrinth focusing on a more social angle.)

You wrote: [From the time that "Awakening Part One" aired, I was siding with Goliath over Demona.]

In principle Goliath is right. But he was a little bit ahead of his time. Principle doesn't mean much when reality is trampling all over it. Goliath just wasn't ruthless enough for the Middle Ages. He was living on the hope of the good relations that the Clan had under Malcolm. But Malcolm was gone. A new generation was around now.

(You could almost call the tension in AWAKENINGS 1 a Generational conflict. Hudson was gone (from leadership), Malcolm was gone, and the Captain is still there. He was bound to be pushed out eventually. His demotion in the episode was the beginning of it. We might have been heading for a Clan smashing if things had continued the way they did - maybe that's why Demona was so willing to go through with everything. Aside from her glimpse of the future, she can see the tension existing of one generation eager to do things differently than the last one even if Goliath is blinding himself to it.)

You wrote: [I do think that the treatment of the gargoyles was not enough to justify the betrayal of the castle to the Vikings]

I agree. The betrayal was sort of overkill. But the honest truth is that the Vikings were just convinient. If something else had come along then Demona and The Captain would have used that. (And to be honest as ruthless as it is to us, Demona and The Captain lived in ruthless times. So they might not look at it as badly as we are.) I do agree that lack of praise isn't a reason for betrayal. But it wasn't just lack of praise they were getting. It was even more than ingratitude - it was almost an attitude of "Not only don't we care that you saved us but we could have done perfectly fine without you; your just an animal and should be glad we tolerate you at all. Malcolm's not around anymore after all."

You wrote: [If living with the humans really was impossible, a better solution would have been for the gargoyles to have relocated to another home, as Othello suggested in "Re-Awakening".]

Coldstone's suggestion isn't really that workable. Where are they going to go? Wyvern is an isolated area that is only inhabited because of the allience they made with Humans. And the only reason that any Humans are in the area is that Human refugees came to the Humans in the Castle and the Vikings were following them. If there hadn't been any Humans around then there wouldn't really have been that many people around to threaten them.

There really wasn't any place for the Clan to go - his idea was just one of frustration rather than of practical use. Either they had to live together or one side had to get rid of the other one.



GOLIATH/BROOKLYN LEADERSHIP - Both of them have potential and flaws. No leader is perfect after all. And I don't really think that I could compare the two. Both of them would be dealing with different circumstances and would probably react differently. Goliath is more philosophical and optimistic with all the benefits and flaws that sort of personality lends to leadership. Brooklyn is a little more realistic in his approach. But we have to ask which leadership would have more benefit in the time that they live in? Goliath strikes me as the best leader to have in a Post HUNTERS MOON environment but before a more peaceful, general (if not legal) situation is set up. A dreamer is neccesary, otherwise reality is going to bring the whole world down on him. To start a dynamic into which Gargoyles would find acceptance in the Human world, the type of mindframe that Goliath has is slightly better than the one Brooklyn has. Brooklyn would fit in much better in a time when a new status quo has been established. He's more realistic and more cynical - those are necessary traits to carry a dream forward after it has been laid out by someone else. But to put a dream of his own forward, that type of personality might work against him. After all looking at the world at the beginning of THE JOURNEY, it doesn't look like dreams of coexistance and hope are going to cut it. Cold reality would dictate another course of action.

Honestly I think that both Goliath and Brooklyn compliment each other in leadership style - Goliath sets the goal and starts the journey there while Brooklyn is the practical one who gets them through most of the way. (Besides to be honest at this point we don't know how different Brooklyn will be at the end of his timedancing. He could have changed completely or had some eye opening experience in some of the other times. And being married and having kids will have had to change his outlook - so at this point its all really speculation as to who would be better. I think that they both would do well although they probably would both do it differently.)



MOONCAT - You wrote: [Demona words, "Are you blind?!" weren't just whistling Dixie. Goliath has an established history for this kind of thing. Not to mention his bull headed refusal to put the clan's interests before his own personal view of of how things should be. His whole clan had to practically mutiny before he agreed to leave the Castle to Xanatos and accept Elisa's generous gesture in finding them a new home.]

Goliath does have tons of flaws as a character and as a leader. That's what makes him an interesting character to watch. I really think that he was a person out of place; his worldview and philosophy don't really seem to me to fit into the time that he was originally born into and living in. I don't think that he was ruthless enough. Demona had a lot of good points in her arguments - personally I think that her more ruthless, less trusting attitude fit the time better than Goliath's "Let's be Friends" position. (The problem now of course is that her ruthless attitude doesn't fit the time anymore while his more philosophical view does.)

You wrote: [Goliath's refusal to hear his clan members concerns was on-going in the beginning, from Demona's justified complaints about the castle humans, to the rest of the clan who were quicker on the common sense uptake than he.]

Even Elisa got frustrated with his attitude. (What was her comment? "Sometimes I think that your head stays stone even at night" or something to that effect.)

Goliath is stubborn and can be pigheaded. On top of that he can even be intimidating to the rest of his Clan to the point that in HUNTERS MOON 2 Brooklyn and Lexington were a bit afraid of him and kept their mouths shut while he went hunting for Hunters. They didn't really pull another "mutiny" until after the Clocktower was destroyed. (And even then it didn't work as well as it had the first time - a great reversal of situation; that they had to mutiny to get him to accept the Clocktower and then they had to mutiny to try and get him to forget about the Clocktower.)

But those are personality flaws. That doesn't mean that his leadership is flawed. (It does mean that he can make flawed decisions. But on the whole he has made more better decisions than worse ones. And that's really the only way we can judge the strength of his leadership. That and that his Clan is still following him. After all could he lead if they didn't want him to?)

You wrote: [Brooklyn has his own faults, but I think in the fullness of time, he'd have made a better leader, if not for his shining nobility, than for his cannier mind and less stratified world view.]

I think that Brooklyn would be a great leader in a war situation; so he'd probably fit perfectly into G2198. But I'm not so sure he would be good at laying out a dream like Goliath and his personal philosophy does. The way Brooklyn is makes him more suited to me anyway to help that dream be achieved through practical action. Like I said above I think that both of them are good leaders and fit the times that they end up in. But both of them are adapting to specific situations. And I think that THE JOURNEY situation is one where you need a dreamer to give some hope and then a doer to get things done.



GABRIEL - You wrote: [Well, this coming from the Gargoyle who wanted to destroy all of humanity and betrayed her clan in the process.]

In 994 Demona didn't want to destroy humanity. That became he hobby about a hundred years later. But at that point she was old and bitter with her crap life. In 994 she's still trying to avoid the future that she showed herself in 975.

You wrote: [That's what he was acting on; the clan could not risk the kind of behavior Brooklyn and Lex took on in the particular situation lest a fight broke out and the situation becomes worse than it already is.]

You have a point. But the thing is that the fight would have only been with the refugees, not the native inhabitants of the castle. (And we're figuring that the refugees wouldn't back down like the Human Gargoyles did in THE MIRROR. If Goliath hadn't shown up the situation might have worked itself out with the refugees running away and Demona and the Trio getting a good laugh out of it.) I don't think it would have caused as much trouble for the Clan as you might have imagined. Especially since the odds were good that the refugees wouldn't have been staying at Wyvern after that night. (That probably would have left if there hadn't been another Viking attack on the Castle.)

You wrote: [Demona is only out for blood, not justice or peace.]

Now. Not then. (And besides technically we can argue that Demona thinks that she's out for justice in her own twisted way.) To be honest Demona saw the Trio enjoying themselves and then a Human Boy coming over and bothering them which she knew could lead to an incident. She wasn't happy about him bothering them after all. But she didn't get involved until Tom's presence attracted his mother to attacking Brooklyn and then got the rest of the refugees moving.



JOHN - You wrote: [He hints at WWII in the episode with Brooklyn (forget the name). According to her immortality she probably would have seen it... that and the systematic destruction of her own kind.]

The episode was called TEMPTATIONS. I do think that she did witness WW2 or at least parts of it. (I think that it would have been more likely for her to set up shop in America for a while to be safe and avoid accidentally getting blown up. After all does she know the limits of her immortality?) At the very least she was alive and walking around at the time - she knows in detail what happened and it could only have served to strengthen her ideals. After all if that was how Humans treat Humans then what could Gargoyles expect?

But at the same time, while she saw her race slowly disappear (at least from the area of the world she had as her sphere of influence) I don't think you can describe the destruction of Gargoyles in Europe as systematic. The Europeans in the Middle Ages after all didn't get together and decide to wipe out all at once and in a certain method all the Gargoyles of the area. The end of Gargoyles in Europe was more of a piecemeal thing - one Clan at a time, one Gargoyle at a time over a very long period of time without any planning to it. The English for example weren't trying to exterminate all Gargoyles when they thought they got all of them out of their kingdom. They were just trying to get them out of the lands they ruled. I don't think that they would have cared much if Gargoyles remained in France for example.

Besides we have to ask if there were really that many Gargoyles left after the end of the 11th century in Europe outside of Demona and the London Clan for her to think that there was a population to be exterminated.



MATT - You wrote: [she DID betray her Clan.]

I think that she only truly betrayed her Clan when she ran away to hide and left all of them to be destroyed. That was the moment when she betrayed them. If she didn't trust the Captain to protect them then she was in a position to help protect her Clan (or at least some of them) and she didn't. That was true betrayal. Until then she hadn't betrayed the Clan. Her plot with the Captain was more of a betrayal of the Clan ideal than of the Clan itself.

Airwalker - [airwalker9999@yahoo.com]
Brooklyn, NY
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 12:38:09 PM
IP: 12.88.92.9

Anyone know where I can find the show on DVD or VHS.
Maximus - [bxsylez@yahoo.com]
bx, ny
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 11:30:25 AM
IP: 65.119.246.3

opps, that should be "wasn't made out of pyschopathic..." etc.
MC
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 11:03:08 AM
IP: 68.102.1.42

Matt - At the time Demona sided with the Captain of the Guard, she wasn't 'pyscho' -- even after the fall of Wyvern, she still felt compassion that in the face of destroying the Hunter or saving the young Gruoch and Macbeth, she went to rescue the two humans instead of killing the Hunter. And she really, really wanted to kill the Hunter. The decision to get rid of the Wyvern castle humans was made out of a psychopathic desire to destroy all humans, it was made out of seeing how badly the Gargoyles were treated by the humans they were allied with, and realizing things would only get worse. Goliath wasn't addressing the problem at all. He was ignoring the humans treatment of his clan, which to me was not noble or strong, because to me it looked like he was being all smug "oh that's just how humans are" and not being concerned for his clan's safety. Was he acting to perserve his clan by punishing gargs who had not instigated a fight with humans? Or was he just bull headedly maintaining a status quo that he refused to see was deteriorating into persecution of his clan by the very people they were defending? His own rookery brother Othello suggested leaving. A sensible suggestion, because the leading human power of the castle, Katherine, had a public disgust of the gargoyles, and this was a day and age when such disgust by a powerful noble means doom for one who has no power or will to use power to protect themselves.

Even if Katherine herself did not move directly against the Gargoyles, her disgust of them was shaping the opinion of her court. The Magus and his oh so convenient turn to stone 'forever' ...

Anyone remember the words, "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest."

Goliath's idea of serving no matter how badly treated and ignoring the growing danger the human's attitude towards his clan represented was not only foolish, but predictably fatal for his clan.

Point 2 - Demona didn't go to the Vikings and make this stupid deal. The HUMAN captain of the guard did. If Demona had said, "well, Goliath is being an idiot again, guess we can't use this plan." Do you think the Captain of the guard would have broken off his deal with Hakon? It was already in play. The most Demona could have done was denounce the Captain as a traitor, the one and only human we saw who actually treated the Gargoyles with respect and friendship. The man who perhaps was her only human friend.

At the time she made the decision to work with the Captain of the Guard, it was a reasonable course of action to work with him in getting rid of the castle humans.

Todd - <no matter how important it may be to perserve one's species - if the only way of doing that is to wipeout entirely, without mercy or remorse and entire other intelligent species, then is the first species really worth preserving?> -- I would think that would depend on which species you belong to. As it stands, humans did not "have" to destroy gargoyles to protect the survival of the human species, they did it simply because they did not like gargoyles. So on the whole, if you had to have a reason to wipe out another intelligent species, doing so for the survival of your race versus doing it because they "look scary"...

I do think Demona's current mindset is too extreme, because her emotions are too involved AFTER seeing two clans destroyed by humans. But her initial assessement about humans being a serious danger to all Gargoyles is still a correct one. I don't think wiping out all humans is the best course of action, but that was not her original goal. That was the goal she fell into AFTER seeing two clans destroyed. Before she was willing to work with humans. Hence her alliance with Macbeth. She wasn't against co-existence with humans. She wanted her people to have a place of strength, respect and safety among the humans. She and Macbeth were allies for 30 years, and they seemed to work out pretty well, until she heard what looked like serious betrayal on Macbeth's part.

Mooncat
>^,,^<

Mooncat
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 11:01:57 AM
IP: 68.102.1.42

I got the impression from "Kingdom" that Brooklyn was reluctant to take on the role of leadership because he feared that it would mean admitting that Goliath (not to mention Elisa and Bronx) was never returning, that he was gone forever. Which obviously didn't appeal to him.

As for the whole Goliath/Demona business:

From the time that "Awakening Part One" aired, I was siding with Goliath over Demona. Goliath struck me as taking the high ground in the interacting with the Castle Wyvern humans. He recognized what Demona did not - the reason why humans mistreat gargoyles is because they're afraid of them. Gargoyles terrify them. Aside from the fact that the physical appearance of gargoyles evokes images of demons (particularly important here in dealing with a superstition-ridden 10th century Scotland), there's also the fact that gargoyles are much stronger than humans and equipped with physical weaponry such as claws that can dig into stone. That naturally does tend to have an intimidating effect upon humans.

Goliath's punishment of the trio and Bronx made sense to me; by fighting back against the refugees, they were only escalating the situation, helping to reinforce the fears and prejudices that humans had against gargoyles. (No matter how tempting it is to "live up to the name" when you're being called a demon or monster, doing just that simply appears to validate the charges against you; the accusers can now say "See, I told you that those people are dangerous"). If I question anything that Goliath did in that scene, it was sending Broadway (who wasn't participating in the fight but quietly eating) into the rookery with the others. (And since Goliath's punishment for the trio and Bronx did save their lives when the Vikings took the castle, I'm not inclined to argue against it anyway).

The main problem with the humans was simple lack of gratitude. Would they have done worse without the Wyvern Massacre? We don't know; of course, one could point out that it is an ominous feature that the Magus was looking through the Grimorum just after the banquet, and that he might have used the "sleep until the castle rises above the clouds" spell upon them anyway, but we don't know for certain. What we do know is that he only resorted to it after he believed that the woman that he loved was dead and was in a state of near-deranged grief over it, rather than in a casual fashion.

I do think that the treatment of the gargoyles was not enough to justify the betrayal of the castle to the Vikings (actually, I don't think that anything could justify a betrayal, especially of the sort that Demona and the Captain came up with); indeed, the betrayal was a worse act than what the humans were doing. They were not seeking to kill the gargoyles or turn them over to the Vikings, but merely being less than eager to praise them for protecting the castle. The punishment was far worse than the crime.

If living with the humans really was impossible, a better solution would have been for the gargoyles to have relocated to another home, as Othello suggested in "Re-Awakening". It would still have been desertion, but a less evil act than actually turning them over to the Vikings and a fate of death or slavery.

Demona's war upon humanity may seem justified in light of the human hostility towards gargoyles, but it has some noteworthy flaws in it. First off, Demona blames all humans equally. But we've seen that not all humans hate and fear gargoyles (there are enough cases of that in the series, from Elisa on down, to demonstrate it). Furthermore, even among the ones who do, the ones who actually carry out anti-gargoyle violence aren't the "ordinary citizenry" or "man in the street" members, but the "criminal elements", such as Hakon and his Vikings, Gillecomgain (a hired assassin for Duncan, remember), Duncan and Canmore (a pair of tyrants), the poachers who looted the Mayan gargoyles' pyramid, the Pack, etc. Note that the one "ordinary citizen" (Vinnie) who took part in the Quarryman attack on Goliath in "The Journey" was the one who realized that it was wrong and saved Goliath and Elisa's lives, while the ones who proceeded with it without even a moment of questioning whether it was the right thing were the vengeance-ridden Castaway and the hired mercenaries Banquo and Fleance, none of whom were "ordinary citizens".

Second, Demona's strategy has only made things worse for gargoyles. It led to the slaughter of two clans (in 994 and 1057), the formation of the Hunters, and who knows what else. Certainly Demona's war on humanity has done a lot to convince humans that gargoyles are evil. One specific case: take a look at "City of Stone Part Four". Gruoch is one of the gentlest human characters in the series (a far cry from her Shakespearean counterpart, indeed), but when Demona betrays her husband and brings about his "death", she turns upon Demona and gives her a truly memorable tongue-lashing, calling gargoyles "your nightmare kind" and being clearly unwilling to mourn for their deaths. (Granted, the humans are being just as illogical here as Demona, judging an entire race by a few bad members).

And finally - no matter how important it may be to preserve one's species - if the only way of doing that is to wipe out entirely, without mercy or remorse, an entire other intelligent species, then is the first species really worth preserving?

Todd Jensen - [merlyn1@mindspring.com]
St. Louis, MO
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 08:51:00 AM
IP: 63.208.44.204

"defending Demona's actions is defending the actions of a pyschopath, IMHO. just cuz SHE believes she was doing something right doesn't mean she was right in doing it..."

Heh... history is written by the victors and wars have been started for less. :) For the most part her initial actions were for the gargoyle's own personal freedom. I think she saw the writing on the wall and decided to act upon it. She no longer wanted them to be of animal status and wanted them to take their rightful place as owners of Castle Wyvern. Was she right in doing that? Well... it would have to depend. Sadly sometimes morality is sacrificed for the greater good... it is like that in war... there is no real honor in war. Tricks, deceptions, stratagems, betrayal are all par for the course if it means the survival of your people. Do the ends justify the means? Would have Demona's clan have been wiped out by people of the castle if they would have followed Goliath's advice? I would have to say yes... due to the attitudes of Katherine and Magius they would have most likely have gotten rid of them in the end like the other towns did to gargoyles as well. If that was the case then the ends would have justified the means...

John Cronin - [jcronin@bellsouth.net]
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 04:40:57 AM
IP: 208.63.252.220

"defending Demona's actions is defending the actions of a pyschopath, IMHO. just cuz SHE believes she was doing something right doesn't mean she was right in doing it..."

Heh... history is written by the victors and wars have been started for less. :) For the most part her initial actions were for the gargoyle's own personal freedom. I think she saw the writing on the wall and decided to act upon it. She no longer wanted them to be of animal status and wanted them to take their rightful place as owners of Castle Wyvern. Was she right in doing that? Well... it would have to depend. Sadly sometimes morality is sacrificed for the greater good... it is like that in war... there is no real honor in war. Tricks, deceptions, stratagems, betrayal are all par for the course if it means the survival of your people. Do the ends justify the means? Would have Demona's clan have been wiped out by people of the castle if they would have followed Goliath's advice? I would have to say yes... due to the attitudes of Katherine and Magius they would have most likely have gotten rid of them in the end like the other towns did to gargoyles as well. If that was the case then the ends would have justified the means...

Anonymous
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 04:40:20 AM
IP: 208.63.252.220

seems not a week can go by that there isn't some debate going on in here...

Mooncat> "She did not intentionally betray her clan either, she believed she was going to benefit her clan." she DID betray her Clan. the Clan was swore to protect the castle and the humans there, not just themselves. not to mention that Demona plotted behind the Leader of the Clan. the Clan was at odds with the people of Wyvern, but they were at war with the Vikings. her worst move was thinking that she could open herself to one enemy to destroy another, but in fact she just made it easier to destroy her own kind. and she didn't think she was protecting the Clan, she knew she made a mistake! why else did she almost tell Othello and Des and then run herself!? protecting her clan? c'mon... she betrayed them more than anyone.
as for the contempt of the humans at the castle, well Goliath had the right idea. it was harder, but it was the right thing to do. protect the people to earn their trust, don't abandon them and earn their hatred. should the Manhattan Clan leave NY after Hunters Moon cuz the people hate and fear them? of course not.
defending Demona's actions is defending the actions of a pyschopath, IMHO. just cuz SHE believes she was doing something right doesn't mean she was right in doing it...

matt
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 04:20:23 AM
IP: 207.230.48.83

BTW... it is nice to see this site still running after all these many years. It was one of the few sites I would visit when I was first introduced to the internet. Ah... I miss those days... no pop-up banner spams... no flashing billboards... it was nice :)
John Cronin - [jcronin@bellsouth.net]
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 04:09:42 AM
IP: 208.63.252.220

"...For some, it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees."

So true... life is about the eternal struggle for survival. Whether it be for basic existence or right of freedom... It is inherent in all. We strive for our own individuality and the right to leave our "footprint" on this earth. It is better to be free then under the thumb of another.

The gargoyles in the 1st few episodes were mostly looked upon as animals and as animals they would have been treated as such. They would have been dominated and forced to do manual labor or such until prejudice caught up with them and they would have been killed. I think in later episodes you sort of see that trend with Demona's clan growing smaller and smaller. Why would humans during that era despise gargoyles that much? Many factors could come into play... superstitions (it was Dark Ages after all) or just that humans had more power over them so they were at their whim. Once they became the minority they ceased to have a voice and most likely had to rely on the benevolence of others for their saftey. For once a society turns in a direction it is very hard to stop its steam rolling effect... take the spanish inqusitions for instance...

As for Demona and her later take on humanity she does elude to their capabilities of genocide. He hints at WWII in the episode with Brooklyn (forget the name). According to her immortality she probably would have seen it... that and the systematic destruction of her own kind. Couple that with a few thousand years of isolation and you would have one very disturbed individual. I think the event that most summed up her inner turmoil was in the last episode of city of stone in where she reveals her access code.

Did the authors of the plot decide her to be insane or just bent on revenge? I think she really wasn't due to the fact that she felt some remorse at her actions when she was forced to analyze them. Most likely her anger resulted from her sadness and her anger was the only thing that really kept her from truly going insane. She has to defend her half-truth for if it is defeated or exposed her will would be broken and she would die (mentally). I think that is why you see her go after Goliath and other members of the clan with such ferocity. It was her own way of self-preservation (in her own twisted sub-conscious mind). In the beginning she wished for survival of her clan but later it was twisted into her own very survival that she was fighting for.

John Cronin - [jcronin@bellsouth.net]
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 04:06:33 AM
IP: 208.63.252.220

Gaygoyle - When Demona made her "are you blind" comment, she was NOT out to destroy all humans. She did not intentionally betray her clan either, she believed she was going to benefit her clan. Her misfortune was that first, Goliath did not behave as she expected and left the clan at the castle. She was ready to call off the plan that was put forth by the Captain of the Guard, until said Captain, a human she had every reason to trust at the time, persuaded her that he would protect her clan during the day. Her second misfortune was that the Captain of the Guard was all talk and no protection. Demona had no designs on humanity as a species at this point, she just wanted her clan to be free of their immediate and local danger. Considering that the castle humans had a great contempt of the Gargoyles, I think Demona's belief that humans were going to bring mortal harm to her clan was more than justified. Plus, she had the 'warning' of the future of her clan shattered and it being the fault of the humans. She was way working to protect her clan.

Goliath's "braver and more responsible" behavior would eventually get his clan smashed, all things considered. Say Demona didn't agree to the Capt. of the Guards plan, and Goliath kept turning the other cheek. Katherine would not have been personally rescued by Goliath from the Vikings, and her contempt and that of the Magus, would more than likely have led to the clan's destruction. Like you mentioned, all it would take is a few angry hmans to go "Hyuk, hyuk, those Gargoyles... we'll show them" and Goliath's rolling over like a good dog would be for naught. The prejudice was there. Goliath could suck it in non-stop, and it wouldn't prevent something from setting off the humans. Real life prejudice is like that. It doesn't need a reason to attack.

Demona's taste for blood was understandable. Humans were treating Gargoyles like the lowest dirt, even when Gargs were risking mortal harm battling for the castle's protection. Goliath cared nothing for justice, only perserving the status quo, or he'd have taken the Trio's situation in consideration instead of blanket banishment of them to the rookery. Broadway wasn't even a part of it and he got 'punished' for just being in the area.

Demona is not a peaceful gargoyle. But I think I like her better than Goliath, for having spirit. For some, it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

Brooklyn was very interested in the position of second. His problem with leadership in Kingdoms was not a distaste for the responsibility, but that by accepting the mantle of leader, he was acknowledging the fact Goliath was not coming back. Considering that Brooklyn was the equivalent of an 18 year old, seeing his reactions to things compared to Goliath's equivalent to a 30 year old was (IMHO) much more promising leader wise.

Impfac - Brooklyn never abused his power to get Angela. He didn't order his rookery brothers not to court her, nor did he order her to be his mate. If his assignment of forces meant he'd spend a little more time with her than his brothers, I don't see that as an "abuse" of power. He had two choice, send Angela on assignment with his horny brothers, or go on assignment with her himself. Duh! The decision was a no brainer. And as for "always" attacking Demona, Brooklyn has put that aside when the clan interests were at stake. As for Goliath abusing his power... Eye of Odin anyone? The Eye, as observed by Goliath, makes one more of what they are. If that is the case, that made Goliath more of a manipulative liar and tyrant. Hmmm... Brooklyn being swayed, at equivalent 18 years, versus Goliath's resolve at 30... I'd wager the impetuousness and inexperience of youth was more at fault here than any true inherent weakness in Brooklyn's character.

In the course of 3 seasons, we see a lot of maturation in the Trio, including Brooklyn. For teens, they were doing pretty good. I think this is indicative that they'd only get better in time. A fully mature Brooklyn, with the same years of experience under his belt, would be, I think, a better leader than Goliath because not only would he be working in a time frame that he is more adaptable to than Goliath (the 20th century) but because he seems quicker on the up take. Goliath is very strong, but he is not the brightest of gargoyles.

Mooncat
>^,,^<

Mooncat
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 03:18:33 AM
IP: 68.102.1.42

Also, (this comes from Impfac) Brooklyn tried to ABUSE his power to get Angela, and all he ever wants to do is attack Demona. He is way to controled to his passions. I don't see Goliath abusing his power to get a gal. He forsook his own relationship for his clan (he kinda had to though). Plus, Brooklyn is easy to sway as Demona did in "Temptation." Goliath has resolve and doesn't forgo it. He tries to keep to it and he is not easily swayed as we have seen Brooklyn easily sway.

The point is, both have flaws. Goliath let his thirst for revenge get in his way in Hunter's Moon. It was irrational and stupid. Both have flaws.

In the long run, you can't judge how good Brooklyn will be since we can't see what he would be. If Demona showed up, would he pursue her relentlessly and endanger his clan? He already abused his power, would he do it again? We have only seen beginnings, and people change over time. On the two or three instances we have seen Brooklyn act as leader, can we fully and justly say he would be better? Probably not. We need more.
Gabriel "gaygoyle"
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 12:33:42 AM
IP: 24.219.165.75

forgot the pic :)
Gabriel "gaygoyle"
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 12:15:46 AM
IP: 24.219.165.75

Mooncat> <<Demona words, "Are you blind?!" weren't just whistling Dixie>>

Well, this coming from the Gargoyle who wanted to destroy all of humanity and betrayed her clan in the process. Just as Goliath told Demona, "We cannot wage war on an entire race." To peacefully coexist requires taking the blame and the grunt. That's what he was acting on; the clan could not risk the kind of behavior Brooklyn and Lex took on in the particular situation lest a fight broke out and the situation becomes worse than it already is. All it would take is a few angry humans to go "Hyuk hyuk, those Gargoyles think they can tell us what to do, we'll show them" and their smashed to dust. He had to punish them so that they would just take something like that. As he said, "I cannot condone fighting beween their people and ours." He took the braver and more responsible part by stopping any violence before any began. Demona is only out for blood, not justice or peace.
<<His whole clan had to practically mutiny before he agreed to leave the Castle to Xanatos and accept Elisa's generous gesture in finding them a new home.>>

Goliath, nor do I think any of the clan, is not one to just toss away his ancestral-home. Waking up in a world with nothing to hold on to save the few tattered remaints of your former clan casues one to be as stubborn as he is. He also ended up seeing Elisa's point and gave-in. That's a trait of a good leader: admitting defeat and overriding your own personal wants. Part of the show was to realistically portray the characters; Goliath has faults without a doubt, and this was one of them. However, he did put it aside for the better of his clan.

Also, you can't brush aside the fact that we see Goliath accept his duty as a leader willingly when it is handed to him, Brooklyn just about sh!t a brick when it was dumped on him and he repeatedly refused to take responsibility that Goliath entrusted to him. However, he does overcome it and does take responsibility, jsut as Goliath overcame his fear of losing his home to Xanatos and just let him have it.
Gabriel "gaygoyle"
Wednesday, July 31, 2002 12:15:27 AM
IP: 24.219.165.75

Fan - <When the trio made mistakes, Goliath doesn't verbally abuse them. Instead, he tells them he understands why they did what they did in a calm manner and leaves it at that>

Uh... are we forgetting Awakenings and how Goliath didn't care if the Trio were in the wrong or in the right, he punished them for defending themselves from human attackers?

Demona words, "Are you blind?!" weren't just whistling Dixie. Goliath has an established history for this kind of thing. Not to mention his bull headed refusal to put the clan's interests before his own personal view of of how things should be. His whole clan had to practically mutiny before he agreed to leave the Castle to Xanatos and accept Elisa's generous gesture in finding them a new home.

Goliath's refusal to hear his clan members concerns was on-going in the beginning, from Demona's justified complaints about the castle humans, to the rest of the clan who were quicker on the common sense uptake than he.

Brooklyn has his own faults, but I think in the fullness of time, he'd have made a better leader, if not for his shining nobility, than for his cannier mind and less stratified world view.

As for how Goliath interacts with his clan as leader to followers, vs Brooklyn's prospective relationship as a leader, right now, the Trio are rookery brothers, and act as brothers. Brooklyn, as leader, would more than likely interact with his clan much differently than as just another warrior, or even as clan second.

I think Goliath is a good leader, and a great hero. But great hero's don't necessarily mean a great leader. Some of his shiny heroic qualities can get in the way of good leadership, if you qualify good leadership as looking out for the best interest of the people you lead. Sometimes a great leader has to be a real S.O.B. and I'm not sure if Goliath could rise (or sink) to the occasion if it were necessary. I think Brooklyn would do whatever would be necessary, for the good of his clan. Of course this is all fictional conjecture, but that's the sense I get from the character.

Mooncat
>^,,^<


Mooncat
Tuesday, July 30, 2002 11:41:34 PM
IP: 68.102.1.42

Brook/Goliath: I side with a fan on this one .Brookyln will be able to have the opportunity of guiding a 99% decimated clan in a new and alien world, where the odds of surviving are pretty much completley against. I doubt seriously that Brooklyn would be able to lead like Goliath did.

Yeah, I'm gonna get defensive cuz you's is messin' wit' my man!! :P lol
Gabriel "gaygoyle"
Tuesday, July 30, 2002 10:35:13 PM
IP: 24.219.165.75

Bud-Clare> who says stars are inanimate objects? in fact, who says stars are not living beings? and who says they don't think about philosophy??? you assume to much... this is not to say that i beleive stars are alive, but they could be! i think its obvious to all of us that gargoyles are not entirely driven by nature, but to a certain degree they are, just as every living thing is...

Airwalker> "(She's just lucky she didn't head to Hollywood - she'd probably have ended up in Porn.)" porn may not have been the greatest thing to do, but i think Maggie would've rather done that if she knew she'd turn into a mutate!

IRC Goliath> there was another show on NBC for a while that had a guys apartment and he had several gargoyle figures on a bookshelf, but i can't remember what show it was...

Brook/Goliath> theres no question that both are good leaders (or will be) but i think they are just different leaders and hard to compare. Brook may never be the philosopher that Goliath is for example, but despite the World Tour, Goliath will probably never gain the experience and world view Brook will get from his timedance. its hard to compare them...

matt
Tuesday, July 30, 2002 09:16:11 PM
IP: 216.178.8.70

AIRWALKER - Good question about Talon. Based on what I've seen of his character (combined with what Greg has mentioned about him), I suspect that he wouldn't be too pleased about the clan moving back in with Xanatos. He'd most likely see it as "selling out", even if it might have been necessary (Xanatos being probably the only person in Manhattan with the resources to protect them from the Quarrymen, after all). It's hard to say how Maggie and Claw would respond; as for the Clones, it would probably be "no opinion", since they have no previous history with Xanatos to shape their thoughts on this issue.

I doubt that the Mutates would seriously abandon the Labyrinth, any more than Goliath would abandon Manhattan; after all, Talon would see it as his responsibility to protect the people who took shelter there, and Maggie and Claw would probably support him on that. (As for Fang - given that he winds up joining the Redemption Squad soon enough, I doubt that he'll have any real say on anything involving the Labyrinth). Also, I certainly doubt that Talon would be willing to accept Xanatos's hospitality at Xanadu.

Todd Jensen - [merlyn1@mindspring.com]
St. Louis, MO
Tuesday, July 30, 2002 06:55:30 PM
IP: 67.28.94.195

<I think he would actually be a better leader than Goliath in the long run,> I disagree because I believe Goliath, in the long run, would make the better leader. Being a leader is more than just strategizing and leading in battles. It's about dealing with those under your leadership on a personal level, between the battles. Goliath has shown remarkable skill in that area. What I mean by that is he seems to understand why his clan members behave the way they do at times, what they're feeling. When the trio made mistakes, Goliath doesn't verbally abuse them. Instead, he tells them he understands why they did what they did in a calm manner and leaves it at that. For example, in "Temptation" after Brooklyn led Goliath into Demona's trap, Goliath forgave him right away. I was shocked at that the first time I saw that episode. I was expecting Brooklyn to get a major chewing out, but it never came. Personally, I would have been pissed and let it show. If I were Goliath, I would have at the very least kicked Brooklyn's tail verbally for getting me in that situation. I would have done the same with Lexington. But Goliath showed great poise and patience with them. That is a great quality for a leader to have and should have. Another reason thing that makes Goliath a great leader is his power to inspire. He is the heart, soul, and spirit of the clan. He signifies all the values they stand for, keeps them on track. He symbolizes the strength of their bond as a clan. When he stands strong, they stand strong. I greatly doubt even Timedancer Brooklyn would ever be the inspirational leader that Goliath is. I'm sure he would lack Goliath's eloquence and strength of presence.
Fan
Tuesday, July 30, 2002 05:05:10 PM
IP: 216.160.98.90

Bud-Clare> <<...Everyone died in the series...>> Well, that was open to interpretation. You can believe everybody died, or you can believe, like I do, that Shingi's refusal to give up his individuality short-circuited instrumentality, and saved the human race. The movie unambiguously kills everyone. Except Shinji and Asuka, a fate worse then death, IMHO. Poor guy.

IRC Goliath> In the first season of Men Behaving Badly, Rob Schneider and the other guy had one of the big Applause Goliaths perched on one of their stereo speakers. I'll have to see if I have any of those on tape anywhere.


Aaron - [JCarnage@Yahoo.com]
Tuesday, July 30, 2002 03:20:43 PM
IP: 209.33.140.99

And now for a fun new game that you too can play at home :D

GARGOYLES IN MEDIA
I was watching the movie Face/Off on DVD over the weekend and I happened to catch something that I had never seen before. In the scene where Sean Archer meets Sasha and Castor Troy's son Adam for the first time, Adam is playing with a toy that you can BARELY see over his shoulder… What is it? Could it be? Why yes, it is! It turns out (through the magic of freeze frame) that he's playing with an Icestorm Brooklyn! You can see one of the wings over his left shoulder and when you pause it and look at it, it's CLEARLY the Kenner figure. So today I thought, "I wonder if any other Gargoyles merchandise has shown up in other movies, shows, or commercials." So if anybody has a seen Gargoyles showup in another medium, please feel free to share and/or take a screenshot (I took one for Face/Off) your finding here :) Perhaps this could be an ongoing sub-set of DCV. What do you think?

IRC Goliath - [irc_goliath@yahoo.com]
Tuesday, July 30, 2002 03:17:18 PM
IP: 207.126.67.35

Wow, it pretty quiet in here today.


TODD - You wrote: [After reading in Greg's ramble about how Fang's two sidekicks might wind up joining the Quarrymen eventually, I had this sudden idea: What if they were to tell Castaway about the Labyrinth and the Mutates?]

That is a good question. What I really wonder about is how well Talon and the others are able to keep the Labyrinth a secret in general? After all they have allowed a large Human community to develop and I would imagine that outside of a core group, most would not be remaining long term; rather people would flow in and out depending on their personal situation. That doesn't seem like the smartest situation to put yourself in if your trying to keep hidden from the rest of the world.

I imagine that Talon, the other Mutates, and the Clones would be able to hold out against any Quarryman force although to be honest it might be a real struggle if it came down to it - Maggie and Claw aren't really warriors and they wouldn't get much help from the Humans of the Labyrinth who aren't fighters at all. And the Clones would only be useful at night while it would make more sense for an attack to come in the daylight hours. (And even then are the Clones really Warriors or just fighters? Were they programmed with a mind for stategy in battle or are they just fighting blindly? They might not be as much help as we might think. Even Delilah, with more programming, might not be much of a fighter. She's more designed to be a consort than anything else.)

I get the impression that as the Labyrinth Clan is still counted as a seperate clan in G2198 that we might not get a major devastating attack or anything that they couldn't deal with. If something major did happen then it would make more sense for the Mutates and Clones to relocate; since they are still identified as a Labyrinth Clan then it makes sense to assume that they remain where they are. (Although as per the discussion two weeks ago, I still wonder if it is really viable for the Clones to live permanently underground.)

All this opens up another question or two - With the Gargoyles now living with Xanatos post HUNTERS MOON and with them basically dependent on him, how will the Mutates and Clones react? And will they be willing to accept the same amount of help considering the circumstances in the city? Or will there be a sort of role reversal of the situation in THE CAGE with the Mutates and Clones "in exile" and the Clan living and working with Xanatos?

You wrote: [Let's hope that Talon keeps the Labyrinth's defenses in good condition....]

I wonder about that. He seems to keep a more or less open front door to the Labyrinth - people who need help are welcome. But that is an extremely dangerous situation to put himself, the other Mutates, and the Clones in.

After all if the Government or any other group (Illuminati, etc) set to going after them they probably wouldn't be stopped by the explination "But I was originally Human officer!" I do wonder if it really is possible to maintain the type of situation he does in the post HUNTERS MOON scenario. It would have been an interesting story to see. I wonder if he and the others would even have the luxury to be able to refuse help from Xanatos. (And I do wonder, just because its called the Labyrinth Clan, does that mean that they have to remain in the Labyrinth? If they relocated somewhere else (like perhaps to the Xanadu estate that Xanatos has) then couldn't they technically keep the name? Besides I always wondered, is it really wise to keep two seperate Clans in such close proximity to each other? Wouldn't a little distance help to differentiate the two? After all at this point they all live in Manhattan, so technically they can both be considered a Manhattan Clan.

You wrote: [another reason why it's a good one (alongside the acknowledgement of his father's memory) is that it does match the tone of how medieval heroes and warriors talked, from the time period that Macbeth came from and even earlier]

That is another reason why I liked it - it does have this medeival sort of majesty to it, something that we'd never get to hear someone say today without his opponent breaking out into laughter :-) . I thought that that line was really defining for Macbeth though; he had spent the most of the series (aside from flashbacks and when he was being controlled) basically trying to get revenge through suicide and the rest of it sort of blending into the modern era a bit - that scene and that line sort of help define him in my mind as truly a King out of place in time with all the honor and ambition and even a little silliness that the situation produces. No matter how much he becomes part of the era in which he lives or how much he either seeks or abandons revenge, he's still a King who's outlived everything and everyone he loved and wanted; and a little bit of him is still trying to get that back as if to say to everyone he might feel he failed (His Father, Grouch, even His Son) that he's still there, he still remembers, and he's still King no matter what anyone says or does.

(Or maybe I'm just reading way too much into it :-) :-) But its still a great scene and a great line :-) )

Airwalker - [airwalker9999@yahoo.com]
Brooklyn, NY
Tuesday, July 30, 2002 11:57:27 AM
IP: 12.88.114.69

***FISHY NEWS FLASH***

My first ever story is up in the fanfic archive. It doesn't involve any of the original characters.. heck, it might not even be the same UNIVERSE as the original show but.. hey! It's got a garg in it! WOO!

You can find it at: http://fanfic.gargoyles-fans.org/author.php?author=Lurking%2BFish&sortorder=DESC

Also, my first ebay auction - ORIGINAL ART! I've never done this before so.. wish me luck!

Thanks!!

Lurking Fish - [<<-- EBAY!]
Tuesday, July 30, 2002 12:10:53 AM
IP: 65.92.90.120

One thought that I recently had. After reading in Greg's ramble about how Fang's two sidekicks might wind up joining the Quarrymen eventually, I had this sudden idea: What if they were to tell Castaway about the Labyrinth and the Mutates? They wouldn't know about the Clones, but they would know about the Mutates (who could easily be mistaken for gargoyles; I doubt that most people would be likely to distinguish between the two), and how they're allied to Goliath's clan. Let's hope that Talon keeps the Labyrinth's defenses in good condition....

AIRWALKER - I also liked that Macbeth line in "Pendragon" that you mentioned - another reason why it's a good one (alongside the acknowledgement of his father's memory) is that it does match the tone of how medieval heroes and warriors talked, from the time period that Macbeth came from and even earlier; they are always declaring themselves "So-and-so son of so-and-so". It even shows up in pre-medieval periods, such as the Iliad, where it's always "Achilles son of Peleus" or "Agamemnon son of Atreus". So it accurately caught the spirit of Macbeth's original time period.

Todd Jensen - [merlyn1@mindspring.com]
St. Louis, MO
Monday, July 29, 2002 07:50:31 PM
IP: 65.57.57.248

Kingdom, eh. Hmm... I can remember what it was about, but not the details. Probably because it was an episode thrown in to eleavate (sp?) some of the tension during the Avalon World Tour. I'll have to rewatch it, so more on my thoughts later.

Wore my Gargoyles t-shirt again today. A girl at K-Mart commented having seen the show when she was younger and liked it. I told her I got it from the Gathering, and had to explain what it was. She was amazed that the show still existed in some form, and would love to watch the series again. Seems everytime I wear the t-shirt, someone remembers watching Gargoyles... "Yes!"--Xanatos

Jim R. - [jim@dialwforwarp.com]
Monday, July 29, 2002 07:25:29 PM
IP: 65.164.19.157

KINGDOM RAMBLING - KINGDOM was a story that was extremely satisfying to me plotwise but that I felt sagged a bit on the animation side of it. Not the overall style of the episode but more the fact that this episode had such some stuff that just couldn't be overlooked - like Bronx showing up for example :-) That was for me the weak point of this episode. Otherwise it was a deeply character driven episode that gave us a little glimpse at what the rest of the clan was doing back in NYC.

One of the major reasons that I became a fan of this show was that it was set in what could pass very well for real life NYC except they have the Gargoyles Universe has the weirdness level toned down a bit :-) I was a big fan of the World Tour but it did sort of need "chapter stops" so to speak that we got in going back to the home front of the series. (After a while no matter how enjoyable or good the World Tour was, you were going to start to ask when the hell they were going to get home. This way we got a chance to get a little break from Goliath and Company to realize that not every day in NYC is filled with adventure :-) )

Besides it adds to the Oddessey feel of the World Tour to get a glimpse at the occasional hardship of the people left back at home. :-)



GREG - You wrote: [Hope it didn't screw too much with your sense of continuity.]

As for seeing it out of order, it didn't bother me too much. I had missed some of the World Tour episodes and was in the middle of recording everything when it popped up. And at that point since I'd just spent all that time watching Goliath and Company travel the world, I was curious as to what was going on at home. So I didn't really notice that it was out of order.

You wrote: [Can any organization exist without leadership? Or will a power vacuum by nature be filled by something, positive or negative?]

What I wondered about in this episode was why Talon was being so easily accepted by the Human community that set up shop in the Labyrinth considering how he lead? (When he defeated Fang, I could understand them rallying to him as a leader but how they would react in a wartime situation is different from how they would react in peacetime. His leadership style is a little basic, almost tribal and people, even people he helped, might not react well to that. I could see the question coming up in reply to one of his orders after a while - what about Democracy? :-) )

Talon does seem to have the bad habit of almost barking out orders and taking charge without asking for that much for anyone elses opinion. His argument to Fang that he thought that they could all work together sounded a little hollow when you consider that his style of leadership until he took over outright was sort of "I lead and you follow because I must know better". I could sort of see why Fang got frustrated with him - I don't agree with his behavior once he took control but still it might have been avoidable if some boundaries and roles had been defined among themselves outright in the very beginning. I wonder how Fang would react if BAD GUYS doesn't have enough power structure? Or if it has too much?

You wrote: [We have in this show two reluctant leaders. Brooklyn and Talon.]

What I loved about this episode was how the different reactions of the two who are ultimately both trying to avoid leadership (although Talon seems to have only been avoiding it in principle and not in actual fact) are leaving voids and causing friction that probably wouldn't have appeared if they would just stand up and take control like everyone expected them to. The Clan is directionless and sort of leaning towards Hudson when Brooklyn doesn't take control while Talon's refusal to outright say that he's leader but take all the perks of the job is causing his tribe to fall apart - I don't know if Fang would have been so eager to rebel if Talon had really taken up the job of leader - after all he followed him just fine in THE CAGE.

You wrote: [So throughout, Hudson uses psychology to gently nudge Brooklyn into the right mental space.]

I loved how Hudson's role tied into the entire leadership theme of the episode. He was after all a former leader and he does spend a good chunk of the episode basically doing Brooklyn's job and leading while pushing him to take his place. Sort of a foil for Talon and Fang where Fang isn't being looked to for leadership but was first trying to push Talon out of leadership subtly and then tried to take over outright.

You wrote: [Did it bother anyone that Maggie was the only woman depicted and that she never participated in battle?]

It would probably have bothered me more if she had. She really doesn't strike me as the personality who'd just strike out and join a battle. She spent most of her appearances in the series usually avoiding fighting or running away. She spent most of METAMORPHASIS running either from Sevarius or the Gargoyles and in the end ran from Xanatos too. (Even in the battle in that episode she ran away from fighting Brooklyn - she only attacked him when he wouldn't back down and leave her alone, when she thought she had no choice whatsoever.) And she spent THE CAGE unwilling to fight or as bait (which put her in the battle but without having to actually do anything). If she'd started fighting Demona style in KINGDOM it would have really seemed out of place. Besides it adds to realism if not every character is a fighter. I didn't mind that she wasn't a physically strong character like many of the others because if everyone is like that it would get boring after a while. Besides even though she started out weak in every respect and even though she didn't become a strong warrior, she still grew and strengthened in other respects. Actually it would be nice to have seen some more characters like her - not that the other characters weren't but she especially was extremely believable.

You wrote: [Maggie does get to shine in an area that comes more natural to her. Acting. She figures out at the end what Brooklyn is up to, and then performs her heart out to keep Fang in the dark, as she releases Derek. Well, I've always said she came from Ohio to make it in NYC as an actress...]

I swear everytime I hear that the motivation of some midwesterner is to come to NYC to make it big as an actor or actress, as a New Yorker I just have to laugh and shake my head. (It's still a very believable motivation for HER. To me it fits her personality very well. Its just the motive in general gives me that reaction sometimes. In fiction it sometimes seems that the only reason that midwesterners come to NYC is to get a start in acting or singing.) Nine out of Ten hopefulls get eaten alive in this city. What was she thinking? :-)

(She's just lucky she didn't head to Hollywood - she'd probably have ended up in Porn.)

You wrote: [Hey, how about that new security system, installed as a result of Thailog's 'kidnapping' in Double Jep. Doesn't it... SUCK??!!!!!]

Well he did say that it had just been installed. And with that type of security system on a Skyscrapper, you have to wonder how else they were going to be able to test it except to have it put in and then see how it worked? So it didn't bug me too much. I would have been bothered more if it actually worked the same way it did in Macbeth's villa.

You wrote: [which winds up being less of a debacle since we never figured out an episode that would show how X would take advantage of the info he learned]

It didn't bother me that much; after all what exactly would Xanatos have done differently with Goliath and Elisa missing that he wouldn't do anyway if they were there?



MOONCAT - You wrote: [I liked the Fang versus Talon battle]

It was a good battle; I liked how it further illustrated how different the Mutates actually are from the Gargoyles. Goliath and the others wouldn't have been able to sustain the same time of indoor air battle.

You wrote: [Fang, for all his vices, LED decisively]

Very true although the problem in his leadership was the same as what led to him "arresting" Talon to begin with - he lacks structure. He takes over the Labyrinth but doesn't know what to do with it. He wants to be in charge but he doesn't know where to go from there. Talon on the other hand has lots of structure; he knows what he wants and where he's heading. The two of them would have done great together if they hadn't ended up enemies. And the worst thing is that they fed into each other even in becoming enemies - if Talon had set boundaries then Fang would have fallen into line somewhat and followed him; after all he did in METAMORPHASIS and THE CAGE. But without that Talon left a void that Fang wanted to fill.

You wrote: [Brooklyn is shown to be quick thinking and adaptable to a situation, and delightfully sly.]

This rambling just makes me wish more and more that we could see TIMEDANCER get done in some format.

You wrote: [I didn't like Pendragon so much, as it was a King Arthur episode.]

I loved PENDRAGON. I'm not a King Arthur buff but I didn't mind him at all in this episode. (I loved Griff's reaction to him. :-) ) He did bug me a little constantly saying "I am the King of Britain!" which WAS technically true but isn't anymore. The character struck me as having great leadership potential (well, obviously since he is King Arthur :-) ) but being hopelessly limited in his worldview, even a little small minded. His obssession with Britain was something I believed he would have but I would have thought he would have started to think outside that box after a while instead of until the Lady of the Lake basically tells him to wake up and realize that the world is a bigger place and Britain doesn't matter that much anymore.

My main reason for liking this episode was Macbeth and his role in it. I wasn't sure as to what his motivation was to getting the power he felt coming towards the city; it did strike me as a bit of a backtrack into being a villain again after becoming a more neutralish character in his earlier appearances. But then again I could always chalk it up to ambition having developed into a flaw over the years of directionless life (maybe something Shakespeare threw into the play as a jibe at his drinking buddy :-) ).

His ambition (which Duncan feared needlessly and which is full blown here) shine through in the first half; but then in the second half when he thought he had Excaliber, the one line he declares "Your time is over Arthur Pendragon! Macbeth, SON of Finlaech is the one true king!", I felt that line carried a lot of the character in him in how he didn't just leave out his father's name and claim kingship in his own name but declared himself still to be son of Finlaech, that his father was still etched in his memory that much. Tone was magnificent too - that line and scene is probably the most favorite of mine in the entire series.

After that of course I loved about how he was honest enough to take his own advice and declare Arthur the king when he found out that he lost. Another person would have just left or let his shame or hurt pride guide his judgement. Instead he swallowed his pride over acting like an ass a few minutes before and did the right thing.

Airwalker - [airwalker9999@yahoo.com]
Brooklyn, NY
Monday, July 29, 2002 05:51:00 PM
IP: 12.88.86.208

matt> "maybe that star wasn't "raised" to be meaningful, but it sure accomplished something meaningful..."
Stars aren't sentient, either. They accomplish nothing. They were used to accomplish something, by God, the Universe, or by dumb luck, depending on your beliefs. Are you saying that Gargoyles should be treated as inanimate objects, with no will of their own?

Bud-Clare - [budclare@yahoo.com]
Monday, July 29, 2002 03:20:58 PM
IP: 129.21.10.123

I'll put up my ramble later, but I just wanted to comment on Mooncat saying Brooklyn would be a better leader than Goliath. After Timedancer I think Brook will become a better leader, but right now, I think he still has a lot of growing to do. He is still way too emotional to be a leader, he takes things very personally like the whole Demona situation. He also isn't quite as decisive.
I can see Brooklyn being an awesome guy for overall strategy, but as far a field command goes, I think Goliath has it.

Jimmy
Monday, July 29, 2002 01:29:47 PM
IP: 172.138.231.14

It's me again...
in the video a group of man is carrying Brooklyn's statue.
at least, answer me by e-mail
xy - [epantiras@yahoo.com]
Monday, July 29, 2002 09:05:45 AM
IP: 151.26.135.99

I've just seen a quicktime movie, at toon disney called "Brooklyn's missing": is it taken from a TGC episode? Help!
xy - [epantiras@yahoo.com]
Monday, July 29, 2002 09:01:55 AM
IP: 151.26.135.99

Ah, at last, a new episode ramble! Thanks, Greg!

Some thoughts of my own about "Kingdom":

Yep, this episode was aired out of order; the first time, I recall, was during the February new episodes period, just before "The Hound of Ulster". For that matter, the first time that it aired, I missed the first third of it or so, so it wasn't until much later that I got to see the whole thing.

I was glad that the gargoyles provided Cagney with a temporary home, during Elisa's absence. After all, I definitely wouldn't have wanted to see Elisa return from the Avalon World Tour to discover that her cat had starved to death while she'd been gone. (Count it as another example of the cat-lover in me).

I caught on to how Brooklyn was afraid to take on the role of leader, and why: his fear that by doing so, he'd be admitting that Goliath isn't coming back. My favorite scene in that development is near the end, when they're going off to the Labyrinth to rescue Talon, and Brooklyn urges Hudson to come along with them. Then (dialogue taken from memory and probably imperfect):

HUDSON: Would that be an order, then?

BROOKLYN: Yeah, I guess so.

Hudson smiles a little, as though pleased to see that Brooklyn's finally shouldered the responsibility of leadership.

Xanatos's cannons might be in bad condition, but Xanatos was in as good form as ever. "Don't you just hate it when people drop by unexpectedly?" "Do I need an excuse to have a good time in my own home?" And so on. Pity that his scenes only became a sub-plot here, with Fang as the real antagonist.

Fang was a fun villain, too. I got a big kick out of the part where he's attempting to bust out the laser weaponry without success and Claw finally shows him the key card. Although, actually, the funniest moment for me in the episode is the bit where Claw, when Fang glowers at him directly after the pantomime bit, frantically hides inside his wings. I always LOL at that scene.

The scene at the climax between Brooklyn and Maggie (where he's slipping her the key card) gives a nice wind-up to their arc, too.

A little comment of my own about how an episode with Xanatos taking advantage of Goliath's absence never got made. Actually, I think that it makes sense that Xanatos never really did "take advantage" of it, for one simple reason; what would he do? While he could have used the opportunity to capture Hudson and the trio, he had no reason to; it had already become clear to him that he wouldn't be able to use them as henchmen any further, so there was no point in capturing them, and going after them purely for the purpose of settling a feud was definitely not his style. Xanatos was too practical for that. Likewise, despite what "Future Tense" might suggest, taking over New York in Goliath's absence was also something that Xanatos was unlikely to attempt; he'd consider it unnecessary, simply because he's been able to achieve most of his goals under the present system, so why change it? In the end, the reason why Xanatos doesn't take advantage of the situation is that he simply doesn't find it necessary to. (One of the things that makes him such a unique "main antagonist").

Todd Jensen - [merlyn1@mindspring.com]
St. Louis, MO
Monday, July 29, 2002 07:09:26 AM
IP: 65.57.56.39

Kingdoms... umm... I liked the Fang versus Talon battle, all that sexy wing fluttering as they tussle *^_~*, hee... CATFIGHT...!!! I think Fang was really well developed in this episode. His frustration with how he can't go out looking like he does, versus how he liked the idea of the power of his new form in the beginning. Claw is developed as the follower type, but with an innate good guy-ness, Maggie gets a back bone, and Derek... umm... Derek has his weakness. He's noble and all that, but aside from the power his form gives him, I do not see him as a strong leader. Fang, for all his vices, LED decisively. Brooklyn was also unwilling to be a leader, but at least he showed the wisdom of thought that would stand him in good stead once he got over the "if I act like the leader, it means I've given up hope on Goliath" stint. Brooklyn did show good leadership qualities here, which was very cool. His wily nature was a plus at the end. I think he would actually be a better leader than Goliath in the long run, because his thought process is more supple. Brooklyn is shown to be quick thinking and adaptable to a situation, and delightfully sly.

All in all, I really enjoyed Kingdom, especially as we get to see the clan so rarely during the Tour. I didn't like Pendragon so much, as it was a King Arthur episode. Not that I dislike Arthur (though I kinda do dislike him when I think about it) but the thing is I watch Gargoyles for Gargoyles, not for Arthurian side characters. For me the saving grace of that episode was Macbeth. The clan seemed like guest stars in that episode, instead of the stars. Kingdoms the gargoyles had a much more central and forceful presence in the episode.

Kingdoms was fun to watch. Great dialogue, nice interaction between characters with tons of character developement. Really enjoyed it.

Mooncat
>^,,^<

Mooncat
Monday, July 29, 2002 06:20:19 AM
IP: 68.102.1.42

lucky 11th for me!!

ok, anyone wanna tell me how "The Price" aired too early? how could it have aired later? the next episode was "Avalon"???

and personally, the battle at the Eyrie in "Kingdom" is one of the FEW times in the series where i just cringe and wanna shut my eyes and not watch. i wish it had been a Steel Clan battle, it had been awhile since we saw the Steel Clan... more on "Kingdom" later, when i rewatch it!

matt
Monday, July 29, 2002 03:02:20 AM
IP: 207.230.48.77

Or tenth, I'm not sure how to count Greg.

*^_^*

MC
>^,,^<

Mooncat
Monday, July 29, 2002 02:06:18 AM
IP: 68.102.1.42

I claim the 9th in the name of the Fay!

Mooncat
>^,,^<

Mooncat
Monday, July 29, 2002 02:05:29 AM
IP: 68.102.1.42

 Rambled on Monday, July 29, 2002 02:00:38 AM 
Chapter XXXIX: "Kingdom"

Time to get back to rambling...

Well, we've had our adventure in Avalon and made a couple stops on what I knew was going to be a long trip. Time to check in on the home front.

Only trouble is, as these things originally aired, this one actually didn't manage to get broadcast right here. It just wasn't ready in time, and we had enough trouble airing reruns without holding up episodes that were ready to go just because this one wasn't. And besides it was all part of Tier Four. So we couldn't justify waiting for it.

Still. Out of the 66 eps I was involved in, only two aired out of order. "The Price" aired too soon. "Kingdom" aired too late.

Hope it didn't screw too much with your sense of continuity.

Oh, by the way, Kingdom was

Directed by Bob Kline
Story Edited by Gary Sperling
Written By Marty Isenberg & Robert Skir

--------

KINGDOM (BROOKLYN & TALON)

The title, I believe, was another one of my one word 'theme' titles. It refers, of course, to the newly established kingdom of the Labyrinth and who and how it will be ruled. Can any organization exist without leadership? Or will a power vacuum by nature be filled by something, positive or negative?

We have in this show two reluctant leaders. Brooklyn and Talon. Ironically, Talon seems to have no problem asserting himself to lead -- especially among the Gargoyles in the void of Brooklyn's unleadership. He wants the authoritiy of leadership without the responsiblilty that comes with actually having the title.

Brooklyn feels a burden of leadership that's two-fold. On the one hand, he feels like acknowledging his role as leader is a betrayal of Goliath. Like he's giving up on finding his older brother. On the other hand, he feels intimidated by trying to fill Goliath's shoes (assuming Goliath wore shoes).

He's specializing in 'avoidance' or as Kent Brockman would say, "Avoision".

"Why are you looking at me?"
"Perfect."
"Stop asking me that. I don't know."

Everyone else is actually working on the missing Goliath/Bronx/Elisa problem. Brooklyn isn't even doing that, because any action risks being misinterpreted as leadership.

--------


HUDSON

So throughout, Hudson uses psychology to gently nudge Brooklyn into the right mental space.

Guess he'll go to the Labyrinth to ask Elisa's brother if he's seen her. Might see Maggie there....

Suddenly Brooklyn is volunteering. For the wrong reasons, of course, but Hudson has at least gotten him started. Moved him from active to passive.

-----

CAGNEY

Is fun in this. Didn't want to leave the poor cat alone for months now, did we? I like how Broadway and Hudson care for him. How the cat reacts, sleeping on Hudson's head, when Hudson wakes up. How he reacts to Maggie the (other) Cat. How Hudson, quietly admits just how much he loves Bronx in Cagney's presence.

------

AL, CHAS and ?

I like these guys. They're well characterized in just a few little bits.

Al's the homeless guy that Fang harrasses. Chas and his buddy (who's name I didn't catch this time through -- though I know I have it written down at the office) are Fang's cronies.

Jeff Bennett (as Chas' buddy) is very funny describing their discovery to Fang.

There's a brief moment at the end, where it looks like Lex and BW might be smashing these two guys heads in with rocks. But we pull back and see they're really smashing the guns. I don't think we'd get away with even the tease of that in the current S&P atmosphere.

I wonder where they went after Talon chased them out. Can't help thinking they were naturals to join the Quarrymen.

And how's Al doing?

------

FANG & CLAW

I love Belushi as Fang. (He's got a great growl that's a sound effect, but it works great with Belushi's stuff.) My wife Beth thought Jim was too over the top. But I think he's hilarious.

He's got a bunch of great lines:

"...Flying bug zappers."
"Now wouldn't that be a crying shame."
"Open the door, Fang. Protect the weak, Fang."
"There's a new Sheriff in town."
"Ahhh, mannn...."
"Mutate humor."

Talon: "You and what army?"

Fang: "This army, pal. And you're our first prisoner of war." (Though technically Talon is the second, since Maggie's already trapped in the gun chamber.)

My nearly eight-year-old-daughter Erin asked, "Is he greedy or jealous?" Both, probably.

And he is bright enought to trick Talon.

And Claw is just a love. Charming in his silence. He really comes into his own in this ep, you know?

Incidentally, this year "Kingdom" made the fan's top ten favorite episodes, alongside such others as: "Hunter's Moon, Parts One, Two and Three," "The Mirror," "Future Tense," and others.

I was a bit surprised. Most of the other ten look a hell of a lot better than this one. It's a tribute to Brooklyn's popularity probably, but also, I think to Claw.

There's great fun throughout with that darn key card. Fang trying to bust into the gun chamber initially. Being so frustrated, and Claw just lowering the card in front of him.

"Give me that!" Fang says and grabs it.

Later, after Maggie's escaped, and Fang regains consciousness to find out what happened, Claw does his intentionally indecipherable pantomime schtick. And Fang simply repeats: "Give me that!"

-----

MATT

The scene with Broadway and Matt is oddly animated. Looks briefly like it's from some other show. But there's something strangely cool about the animation, even though it's off.

------

MAGGIE

Erin said, "I like Maggie. She's very..." But she didn't complete the sentence. Even with prompting from both Beth and myself. She just liked her, I guess.

Maggie begs Claw to let her out. So that she can join the fight? No. So that she can get help. That's Maggie's version of bravery. And I'm not knocking it. Frankly, it's what we teach our kids. You don't teach them to enter dangerous situations. You teach them to go get help. Dial 911. Maggie will never be a warrior, though she has the power for it. It's just not who she is. Normally, that might bug me. But this was a show with so many strong warrior female types, that I liked having the variety.

But this episode doesn't happen to have any of those strong female types like Elisa or Angela or Fox or even Demona. Did it bother anyone that Maggie was the only woman depicted and that she never participated in battle?

Maggie does get to shine in an area that comes more natural to her. Acting. She figures out at the end what Brooklyn is up to, and then performs her heart out to keep Fang in the dark, as she releases Derek. Well, I've always said she came from Ohio to make it in NYC as an actress...

She and Talon are now even more firmly established as a couple. Even in Brooklyn's mind. Finally, he adjusts and moves on.

-------

XANATOS & OWEN

Hey, how about that new security system, installed as a result of Thailog's 'kidnapping' in Double Jep. Doesn't it... SUCK??!!!!!

The cannons do WAY more damage to X's castle than to anyone or anything else. And I also felt like we had done this before at Mac's place in Lighthouse and the Price.

So this is just weak. A failure on our part to come up with something stronger, more original, etc. We needed some action around now. But I still wish we had cracked this better.

There are some fun moments, if not always for the right reasons...

There's a comedy WAY off-model Broadway riding the exploding cannon.

There's a couple gargs falling through X's ceiling.

And it leads into a fun scene...

Owen's stone fist use (though a great idea) is actually a touch feeble, but X is in rare form...

Xanatos: "Do I really need an excuse to have a good time in my own home?"

And Xanatos: "A man has to make a living."

And Xanatos again: "I wasn't aware I needed permission."

Of course, on my tape that effect is spoiled when he suddenly goes cross-eyed. I'm hoping that's a retake that got corrected after the first airing.

------

BROOKLYN

Finally, after the debacle at X's place (which winds up being less of a debacle since we never figured out an episode that would show how X would take advantage of the info he learned) and after Maggie's plea for help (Brook could never resist a damsel in distress), Brooklyn finally takes up the role of Leader. Reluctantly.

Brooklyn: "This has nothing to do with what I want."

Hud: "Is that an order then."
Brook: "Yeah, I guess it is." Then look at him right there. That's a hero, am I right?

And Erin says, "Funny. All the leaders have long hair."

Hmmmm....

And so Brooklyn can't avoid leadership...

"Yeah, try as I might."

And he and Talon shake hands, as both accept the roles destiny has thrusted upon them. It looks good on them.

And that's my ramble. Where's yours?

Greg Weisman
Monday, July 29, 2002 02:02:37 AM
IP: 67.224.28.106

<ENTER LORD SLOTH>
<Lord Sloth chops down Wingless's cookies from the air whilst Devil Doll chows down on some confetti just to spite him> Sebenths! Om sorgy, jumt a sekofd. <Chews for a minute> Seventh!
And it is a big fuck!ng deal (no sarcasm), don't mock our sacred station 8 traditions, even if they do waist time and stop people from taking about anything relevant and are basically just a mad grab for our personal delusions of grandeur (or is that just me?).
<EXIT LORD SLOTH>

Lord Sloth
Kingston, ON, Canada
Monday, July 29, 2002 12:45:59 AM
IP: 216.209.138.188

DOH! so i am. ;)
Knoxville - [knox@ketnar.org]
Monday, July 29, 2002 12:26:17 AM
IP: 208.54.204.149

Knox> You're fifth. i'm sixth. Bug Fuck!ng DEAL!!! :P
Gabriel "gaygoyle"
Monday, July 29, 2002 12:16:01 AM
IP: 24.219.165.75

7th. Big Fuck!ng Deal!!! >:(
Gabriel "gaygoyle"
Monday, July 29, 2002 12:14:54 AM
IP: 24.219.165.75

6th I mean
Knoxville - [knox@ketnar.org]
Monday, July 29, 2002 12:09:04 AM
IP: 208.54.204.149

5TH!! YAY I got into the Top 10 this week. :)
Knoxville - [knox@ketnar.org]
Monday, July 29, 2002 12:07:44 AM
IP: 208.54.204.149

Wooo! Fourth! *hops around and throws confetti and cookies*
...just don't eat the confetti^_^

Wingless - [canclan@rogers.com]
Monday, July 29, 2002 12:05:42 AM
IP: 24.43.42.78

Third!
Airwalker - [airwalker9999@yahoo.com]
Brooklyn, NY
Monday, July 29, 2002 12:02:02 AM
IP: 12.88.86.76

Okay sooo I say it twice.. :P Stupit me....
Demona May Stephens - [realdemona@yahoo.com]
Monday, July 29, 2002 12:01:13 AM
IP: 209.208.54.134

Top Ten!!!!!
Spacebabie - [LadyAndromeda@smstars.zzn.com]
Monday, July 29, 2002 12:01:05 AM
IP: 66.119.34.39

Number 1!
Demona May Stephens - [realdemona@yahoo.com]
Monday, July 29, 2002 12:00:29 AM
IP: 209.208.54.134

Number 1!
Demona May Stephens - [realdemona@yahoo.com]
Monday, July 29, 2002 12:00:12 AM
IP: 209.208.54.134