A Station Eight Fan Web Site

Gargoyles

The Phoenix Gate

Ask Greg Archives

Lexington

Archive Index


: « First : « 10 : Displaying #101 - #110 of 147 records. : 10 » : Last » :


Posts Per Page: 1 : 10 : 25 : 50 : 100 : All :


Bookmark Link

Psycho girl writes...

THREE POSTS IN ONE DAY!!!! Im on a role (hopefully a cinnamon 'role' ;) ...haha a play on words!

Why am I posting soooooooo many...well, posts? Well, you said that you would close the question asking thingy for a while (probably a long while) after January and I just want to hurry and talk to you. (I LIKE YOU!!!).......(Not in THAT way....sickos.) When February comes around, you wont have to deal with my farce anymore, at least for a while.......(snickering).......I typed farce...(snickering)

I have some questions about Lexington.

1. Why dose Lexington walk on his heals sometimes? (He has VERY flexible hips to sit the way he sits)

2. Why did you (they) end his wing membranes at his knees instead at his ankles?

3. Who was Lex's favorite Pack member?

I don't know why, but I just thought about Fang and his voice actor......I really like Jim's performance as Fang! Also, I wonder how Fangs old co-workers thought of him?

I wonder why the animators couldn't get his height right, some times he's right other times, he's the size of a 10 year old....oh well, he still looks good.

Farce.......(hearty laugh)

well, thanks!

P.S. my next one will be rambles about episodes so.....it will be BIG....pre-warning you.....but not today!

Greg responds...

1. I'm not sure what you mean.

2. It looked right anatomically, I think.

3. Uh... to slaughter?

I don't remember Fang ever looking like a ten-year-old, but I agree that Jim was great in the role.

Response recorded on January 11, 2007

Bookmark Link

Anonymous writes...

[Mr. Jensen, could you please just pass along this version if you deem my question worthy of being passed along at all? I just realized the way I'd worded the stuff I mentioned in the ending in the first version it might sound impolite.]

Hello. I was just reading the Lexington section last night in the hopes you had clarified something about Lexington's motives, and some stuff I read made me wonder about something. As the question I was looking for hasn't been answered, however, I'll ask this first.

I recall a long time ago that you mentioned that, in Future Tense, Puck chose Lexington as the mastermind because he was going for shock value. What were this dream-Lexington's reasons for carrying on Xanatos' legacy after the "real Xanatos" died in the fight with Hudson, though?

Secondly, and here I get to the main reasoning behind writing this: I very much applaud your intentions to, if the societal climate ever provides for it, portray Lexington as attracted to other guys. Although I'm not attracted to my own gender myself (I am a young man), I do believe in tolerance for people who are attracted to their own genders, so I approve of this very much.

However, some of the reasoning mentioned in the discussion as to why Lexington is attracted to other men concern me that you may be unintentionally indulging another kind of intolerance without knowing it. That of the intolerance directed towards a person, often ostracized by their peers simply because they prefer books and the so-called more "thoughtful, intellectual" pursuits as opposed to what the majority of the society prefers; simply because they're "smarter." This is a group I belong to.

In the discussion some of the people asking the questions theorized Lexington was attracted to other guys because he was scrawny, wasn't as interested in Angela as the others, was friends with Alex, and some other reasons I don't recall. You confirmed their questions in such a way I'm unable to tell if you're also confirming their reasoning behind which gender Lexington finds attractive.

This is a concern to me because there are plenty of ostracized "smarter" people. (By the way, I can't think of a better term right now, but I apologize to anyone who reads this if it sounds arrogant. My personal belief is anyone can become as smart as anyone else, some just choose not to enhance their thinking capacity as much as others.) Plenty of people in this minority who don't care about their appearances because they believe appearances are on-the-surface traits which don't matter. Plenty of people who find the opposite gender attractive but choose not to pursue attractive people because they're either uninterested in a relationship, or believe whether a person is or isn't attractive is not important in life and not worth concerning oneself with in any way. (Or, to use a less extreme example, plenty of people who do pursue the opposite gender a little, but even if they are interested in relationship or paying attention to attractiveness, are much less interested in a relationship or a person's appearance because they would rather engage in other "intellectual" activities.) And plenty of people who do not believe in the stereotype that a male of any age should only associate them with "tough" aspects of life and befriend children outside of their own family, show affection to them. So on and so forth.

And from what I've heard and inexperienced, one of the harshest insults levelled against people such as this, who simply would rather be different than the majority, is to accuse them of being different not because every person is unique and because people could be interested in things outside of what the majority is interested in, but because they are attracted to their own gender. Which is insulting not only because these people mistakenly think it is wrong to be attracted to one's own gender, but also because they are claiming that the only reason they could still be a human being and not be interested in sports, cars, appearances, popularity, et cetera, is to be part of a minority they see as horrible. In other words, that no one could ever not be interested in what the majority is interested in and still be a human being of any kind.

So what I want to know is; why did you characterize Lexington in these ways? I know you would never intentionally portray anything intolerant, but I feel the minority I'm a part of is often misrepresented in many ways: for instance, as "wanting to be popular despite being different" when many of us simply don't want anything to do with the majority of a society we strongly disagreed with and just want people to recognize its okay to be different. And because of this, when studying how to best portray Lexington right, some of your ideas came from this misinformation. Hence, I'm asking now to allay my worries you were misled by this misinformation - which I doubt you were - and the minority I belong to is being represented accurately as well, since aspects of tolerance are a recurring motif in Gargoyles and has become a major topic involving discussion about Lexington.

Thank you for your time.

Greg responds...

See my previous response.

Response recorded on December 15, 2006

Bookmark Link

Anonymous writes...

Hello. I was just reading the Lexington section last night in the hopes you had clarified something about Lexington's motives, and some stuff I read made me wonder about something. As the question I was looking for hasn't been answered, however, I'll ask this first.

I recall a long time ago that you mentioned that, in Future Tense, Puck chose Lexington as the mastermind because he was going for shock value. What were this dream-Lexington's reasons for carrying on Xanatos' legacy after the "real Xanatos" died in the fight with Hudson, though?

Secondly, and here I get to the main reasoning behind writing this: I very much applaud your intentions to, if the societal climate ever provides for it, portray Lexington as attracted to other guys. Although I'm not attracted to my own gender myself (I am a young man), I do believe in tolerance for people who are attracted to their own genders, so I approve of this very much.

However, some of the reasoning mentioned in the discussion as to why Lexington is attracted to other men concern me that you may be unintentionally indulging another kind of intolerance without knowing it. That of the intolerance directed towards a person, often ostracized by their peers simply because they prefer books and the so-called more "thoughtful, intellectual" pursuits as opposed to what the majority of the society prefers; simply because they're "smarter." This is a group I belong to.

In the discussion some of the people asking the questions theorized Lexington was attracted to other guys because he was scrawny, wasn't as interested in Angela as the others, was friends with Alex, and some other reasons I don't recall. You confirmed their questions in such a way I'm unable to tell if you're also confirming their reasoning behind which gender Lexington finds attractive.

This is a concern to me because there are plenty of ostracized "smarter" people. (By the way, I can't think of a better term right now, but I apologize to anyone who reads this if it sounds arrogant. My personal belief is anyone can become as smart as anyone else, some just choose not to enhance their thinking capacity as much as others.) Plenty of people in this minority who don't care about their appearances because they believe appearances are on-the-surface traits which don't matter. Plenty of people who find the opposite gender attractive but choose not to pursue attractive people because they're either uninterested in a relationship, or believe whether a person is or isn't attractive is not important in life and not worth concerning oneself with in any way. (Or, to use a less extreme example, plenty of people who do pursue the opposite gender a little, but even if they are interested in relationship or paying attention to attractiveness, are much less interested in a relationship or a person's appearance because they would rather engage in other "intellectual" activities.) And plenty of people who do not believe in the stereotype that a male of any age should only associate them with "tough" aspects of life and befriend children outside of their own family, show affection to them. So on and so forth.

And from what I've heard and inexperienced, one of the harshest insults levelled against people such as this, who simply would rather be different than the majority, is to accuse them of being different not because every person is unique and because people could be interested in things outside of what the majority is interested in, but because they are attracted to their own gender. Which is insulting not only because these people mistakenly think it is wrong to be attracted to one's own gender, but also because they are claiming that the only reason they could still be a human being and not be interested in sports, cars, appearances, popularity, et cetera, is to be part of a minority they see as horrible. In other words, that no one could ever not be interested in what the majority is interested in and still be a human being of any kind.

So what I want to know is; why did you characterize Lexington in these ways? I know you would never intentionally portray anything intolerant, but I feel the minority I'm a part of is often misrepresented in many ways: for instance, as "wanting to be popular despite being different" when many of us simply don't want anything to do with the majority of a society we strongly disagreed with and just want people to recognize its okay to be different. And because of this, when studying how to best portray Lexington right, some of your ideas came from this misinformation. Hence, I'm speaking now to make sure you were not misled by this misinformation and the minority I belong to is being represented accurately as well.

Greg responds...

It's a little, well, silly, to go into a lot of depth defining the motivation of a character that was a fiction of Puck's designed for shock value. But... we don't know the circumstances of Lexington's cyborgization... and how that might have effected him. Nor do we know how he truly felt about Goliath's forty year absense.

Now as for the real Lexington, you're not quoting whatever gave you these ideas, so it's hard to respond.

*But I can't imagine that I EVER said anything to imply that Lex was gay because he was scrawny or tech-oriented. Size and smarts have nothing to do with sexual orientation, and I don't think I've ever stated or even implied that they do.

*I certainly don't feel that his relationship with Alex has any baring whatsoever on his orientation. Lex's relationship with Alex evolved, I think naturally, from being possessed by Alex in "Possessions". He feels a kinship to the kid.

*And Lex isn't gay because he was less interested in Angela. He was less interested in Angela because he's gay -- although he hasn't fully realized that he's gay yet.

So I reject the notion that I'm uninformed or that I'm "misled by misinformation". You are mischaracterizing my intent and my work.

I myself was a scrawny, brainy teen. And I came of age in an environment (an all-boy school) where nothing was more terrifying then being accused of being gay. It wasn't until college that I learned to overcome my homophobia. So trust me, I'm not making the assumptions you seem to think I'm making.

Response recorded on December 15, 2006

Bookmark Link

Tanji writes...

If you could continue the show who would you pair Lexington with? (Yes I know that if you could continue the show you make him Gay. I meant that question in that sense)

Greg responds...

Because of the on-going comic, I'm not revealing this at this time...

Response recorded on December 06, 2006

Bookmark Link

LexRocks!!!!!! writes...

I was looking at the Lexington page, and noticed that you're very cagey on the subject of Lexington's mate.When Camcuru asked all those questions on how old she was,what's her name, yadda yadda yadda,you said she's ageless and speciesless.Does that mean she's one of Oberon's Childeren?Or because technically that would mean she does have a species, is she an alien? Or, seeing how you put the "she" in quotes, does that mean it's a guy?I would really like to know!!!!!!!

Greg responds...

Check the archives then. By this time, it's all been revealed. Well, not all. But the answer to your question.

Response recorded on November 10, 2006

Bookmark Link

Mike writes...

Greg, I hope you can read this. I am a homosexual, and Lexington is my favorite gargoyle. It really hit me hard, and it's still hitting me, that i found out, that in the gathering, it was said that Lexington is gay. I sadly understand why the show was cancelled. The world doesn't accept gay people any more than gargoyles were being accepted in the show before "Angels of the Night". It's very hard for me to cry, but this made me well some tears, that to a sad extent, i have found this connection, between one of your characters, that has now grown so greatly. Lexington is no longer my favorite, he is a kindred soul, he is gay and in hiding like i am, and this makes me love the show more. I know you are busy Greg, but, if we can ever talk, I would very much like to. If not, I leave you with a thanks, for giving me a kindred soul, even. if he does not exist.

LPdawgMike@hotmail.com.

Thank you Greg Weisman, thank you Thom Adcox-Hernandez. Thank you.

Greg responds...

Okay just to clear up a few things...

1. The show was ABSOLUTELY NOT cancelled because of Lexington's sexual orientation. That "fact" was not revealed in any real way until YEARS after the show went off the air.

2. Lex is NOT in the closet. He's not yet -- as of issue #5 of the comic book (the issue I'm currently writing) -- fully aware of his orientation. He's young. Give him time.

3. I don't mean it as any kind of personal slight, but I don't make direct contact with the fans through ASK GREG. If I did it for one person, I'd have to do it for everyone, so I cannot open those floodgates.

Having said all that, I'm gratified that the series and the character of Lexington mean something to you. I'm sure Thom feels the same way. Thank you for your kind words.

Response recorded on October 31, 2006

Bookmark Link

tyler writes...

I just want to say I Love gargoyles u r great at writeing i have a thing i was wondering
1. i read that at the gathering that lexington is to be gay is this true?
2

An Ask Greg Helper responds...

Greg Weisman says:

What I said, I believe, is that in my opinion Lex is gay -- though he may not yet realize it.

Response recorded on October 11, 2006

Bookmark Link

hellcat writes...

if the series was not canceled would lex and brooklyn have been able to find mates

Greg responds...

Yes. And the series is now of course UNcancelled as a comic book. So if you're still wondering, check it out. Be patient. We'll get to all of this eventually.

Response recorded on September 07, 2006

Bookmark Link

Ashley writes...

Hey. ive been reading all of this stuff about making lexington gay. i think that would be okay but what if little kids that watch this show would think its al right to be gay? i like that fact by making him gay but if little kids watch it and start to like the fact of being gay thier parents might get mad. anyway i like the idea im just wondering about little kids. GARGOYLES FOREVER!

Greg responds...

Well, you are in essence raising THREE issues.

One involves how Lexington will be portrayed in the future.

One involves what I personally think is and isn't appropriate for little kids.

And one involves how SOME parents might react.

So let's take them one at a time.

1. Gargoyles is owned by Disney, and I'd be kidding you and myself if I didn't recognize that there are certain limits to what Disney will allow. My goal with Lex is to be honest and consistent in HIS portrayal. Not to be titillating (let alone pornographic). Frankly, I wish I had the freedom to be more forthright. Perhaps there's an element of cowardice in my middle ground position. I'll cop to that. But I'm just trying to tell stories honestly. I face restrictions. I live with those restrictions. What that means practically, is that few people beyond the hardcore fandom will see Lex's orientation as any kind of issue at all.

2. Personally, I think little kids should (a) know that there are homosexuals out there and (b) know that they are just as human (or gargoylian) as anybody else. They aren't "sinners" or whatever other fill-in-the-blank name anyone feels like throwing around irresponsibly. That's just my opinion, but it is one that I feel strongly about.

3. Certainly some parents would disagree with me. Others wouldn't. But this brings our circular discussion back to the beginning. There isn't going to be anything in Gargoyles for parents to object to. We're not going to be depicting homosexual sex anymore than we're going to be depicting heterosexual sex. And unless the climate in our country changes considerably, we won't even be discussing the issue. I'll simply try to be honest in the depiction of my characters, whether or not I feel those characters are gay or straight.

Response recorded on February 03, 2006

Bookmark Link

Secret_Agent_Gerbil writes...

Sorry for two different questions, but as I was browsing through the unanswered questions at the time, I noticed that one mentioned that they supported your move to make Lexington homosexual.

1) Is this true

1b.) If so, why?

2.) Is this referenced in the series? It probably isn't, but I've only started rewatching the show so I may have missed something about it.

As a fan of the show who is homosexual, this strikes me as strange, since this is technically a children's show. If you did do this, I commend you. If you didn't, you still rock.

Greg responds...

1. Is it true they support it? I don't know.

1b. Not sure.

2. It's not. Although I don't think we're inconsistent with the interpretation.

I'm not exactly trying to be commendable. The characters often tell us their truths. But I'm not unhappy that you like the idea.

Response recorded on January 10, 2006


: « First : « 10 : Displaying #101 - #110 of 147 records. : 10 » : Last » :