Aldrius writes...

Me again. (You remember me of course. *Shifty glance* *Ahem*)

My question is this, how do you think the environment of the comic book will allow you to address the... uh... 'issue'(?) of Lex's sexuality. Will it be easier to reveal than in the TV show? Not as easy? As I'm betting on the former, will it still be difficult due to disney's need to check every issue?

Or is it just something that we'll all find out when the time comes?

I hate yes/no questions, so I'll submit a bit more intellectual question asap!

Jarrod writes...

Hello Again Greg! I hope you are well. And now onto the Question:

Are Goliath and Elisa the Only Cross-Species couple out of favorite 8 Gargoyles, the Manhattan Clan?

We know that Booklyn ends up with Katana, Bronx with Boudicca, and Broadway with Angela, Hudson has already had and lost a mate. I guess it is pretty apparent as to why I ask this question, for you are no fool at all. I will gladly join the ranks of the fans who have an intense interest in Lex's mate whoever he is. When I was younger and watched the show I always felt Lexington was the cutest one, and now that I am an adult, I still feel the same. I also seem to (coincidentally) be attracted to men with a build similar to Lex's, and I would love to know what kind of guy, gargoyle, Fae (or alien???) our little green friend would go for.

I hope you find it in your heart to answer! Thanks to you and yours!!

Lata dayz

Jarrod

Charisma82 writes...

Okay, this is a question that's been on my mind for a while now. I've always wondered, was it a little harder for Lex to learn to type on a computer because he only has 4 fingers on each hand instead of five? Would it take him longer to type something up than a human because of this?

Thanks for your time.

-Charisma82

Anonymous writes...

Why does Lexington have to be gay? I am a girl and I'm insulted by this. I was always told being gay is a sin. As a fan I don't believe he's gay at all.

Adam writes...

How will the others in the clan react to Lex being gay? Angela and the other boys may be more accepting, but Hudson and Goliath struck me as "old school" in terms of acceptance. (well, not Goliath as much. He is dating a human for christs sake!) Just curous.

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!

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.

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.