A Station Eight Fan Web Site

Gargoyles

The Phoenix Gate

Ask Greg Archives

Gargoyle Customs

Archive Index


: « First : Displaying #62 - #161 of 294 records. : 100 » : Last » :


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


Bookmark Link

GATHERING 2009 - Monday, August 24th

GATHERING 2009 - Monday, August 24th

Midnight - The goodbyes begin for folks who are leaving first thing Monday morning or right now. Said goodbye to Marina, Zehra, Sarah, Michael McAdam and probably quite a few others...

1:30am - The party downstairs finally breaks up and I head up to my room.

4am - Went to bed. But I just couldn't sleep at all.

8am - Finally gave up and got up.

9am - Brought my luggage to my car and then went to the staff breakfast: crepe, ham, potatoes, OJ.

10am - Comic book panel with Karine Charlebois and Greg Guler. I'll just repeat the main message I gave. I have no info on the future of Gargoyles comics beyond this: SLG's Dan Vado is sincerely interested in doing more. His ability to make an offer for the license to Disney will depend on the sales of the three trade paperbacks. Beyond that, we had some really interesting discussions about the books.

11:30am - Gargoyles Biology and Culture panel with Jade Griffin and Matt Parker. I love this panel. Always full of interesting discussions, that influence how I handle things in the Gargoyles Universe.

1pm - Closing Ceremonies. Okay, I admit it. I pretty much lost it more than once. It was VERY emotional. A number of us told stories of past Gatherings and how they changed our lives. It was warm and all too fuzzy, but wonderful. I love all you guys. Thank you.

2:30pm - We finally closed the Closing Ceremonies. I helped Patrick and a bunch of other volunteers carry things down to Patrick's rented van. Then we headed up to the Constaff Suite for a dead dog party. Christopher bought pizza for everyone, which was very generous. I had a coke and a virgin jello shot. And we just hung out.

5:45pm - Time to go, to return to real life. I hugged EVERYONE. Jennifer Anderson walked me to the elevator. I was pretty wrecked. It felt a bit like it felt to end a long job. You walk away. What else can you do? You take your memories with you, but you also know you're leaving a piece behind.

But it's been a FANTASTIC THIRTEEN YEARS. Thanks to everyone who ever attended a Gathering. You really changed my life!


Bookmark Link

Clark Cradic writes...

Do gargoyles posess a written/spoken language all there own or do they just adopt ones similar to the local humans?

Greg responds...

Check the ASK GREG archives under "Gargoyle Customs" or come to the 2009 Gathering's "Gargoyles Biology & Culture" panel.

Response recorded on August 11, 2009

Bookmark Link

Clark Cradic writes...

I've loved this show ever since I was a kid. In fact you could say this show helped me get through elementary school cause I'd rush to get my homework completed so I could go right the tv when I got home to watch the newest episode. Now that I'm older I still get this wonderful since of nostalgia when I watch this and start asking questions about the Gargoyles I never thought of as a kid, specifically their biology and culture since I loved those electives in high school.

1. Are gargoyles more likely to get certain traits and characteristics if they're from a specific clan? If so, is it just genetics or do they aide them in their territory? If not, does that mean that all gargoyles are generally the same with just different looks that are just for show?

2. How do gargoyles see the sun? Do they see it with a sort of reverence like Demona and Hudson did in The Mirror, or do they see it more of a curse due to their vulnerability?

3. Are there any diseases only gargoyles can get?

Greg responds...

1. All of the above, if I understand your question.

2. All of the above, depending on the individual gargoyle.

3. None that I know of.

Response recorded on April 10, 2009

Bookmark Link

The Flaming Tortoise writes...

Hi Greg,

Good to see this place open again!

My question is basically, how do Gargoyle populations sustain themselves? With females having (almost always I've believe you've said) a maximum of three eggs, and as you said in reference to why gargoyles practice communal parenting: "Perhaps this is the result of the high Gargoyle mortality rate. " would it not be an intense struggle to just maintain a clan's population?

And with this in mind, even considering that in modern day mortality rates for gargoyles has probably dropped significantly, wouldn't the practice of the London clan of limiting each pair to two eggs total be very risky for the continuation of their clan?

Thanks for you time

Greg responds...

1. Yes, it has been a struggle since at least the Iron Age of Man.

2. Obviously, if the population starts dropping dangerously low, they'll allow the third eggs to get it back. The point is to maintain a consistent quantity, not blindly follow rules for the sake of rules.

Response recorded on April 08, 2009

Bookmark Link

Demonskrye writes...

Hudson has or had a biological child in Goliath's generation, the Trio's generation, and Bronx's generation. That means that Goliath and the Trio would have considered him one of their rookery fathers and Hudson regards them as his rookery children. (I'm guessing he regards Bronx somewhat differently, though correct me if I'm wrong.) So why do we never hear Goliath or any of the Trio calling Hudson "father" or him referring to any of them as "son"?

Greg responds...

Their relationships are MORE specific than that. When you have a LOT of fathers (back in the day), many different varieties of relationships develop in addition to the paternal-filial. That doesn't mean they don't consider Hudson a rookery father, but it's not how they define him.

Response recorded on April 07, 2009

Bookmark Link

Curious writes...

I have two questions about gargoyle homosexuality:

We know there are homosexual male gargoyles, but are there any lesbians?

How do homosexual gargoyles fit into the gargoyle social structure? Do they face any difficulties socially because of their sexual orientation, either similarly or unexpectedly different from humans?

Greg responds...

1. Yes.

2. I've answered this many times before. Check the archives under either Gargoyle Biology or Gargoyle Customs.

Response recorded on October 01, 2008

Bookmark Link

Demonskrye writes...

This is more of a Wyvern Clan culture question than a hypothetical one.

After Goliath sends the Trio and Bronx to the rookery and Demona questions his decision to punish them (out of their earshot like a good second, as you noted in the commentary), Goliath tells her that he will make it up to them somehow. If the Wyvern Massacre hadn't intervened, what are some things Goliath might have done to make it up to the Trio and Bronx?

Greg responds...

I'm not sure he even knew. Probably a heart-to-heart and a little winging.

Response recorded on June 25, 2008

Bookmark Link

Nina writes...

Hello Greg,
First of all, thank you for such an intelligent, brilliantly-written series.
Secondly, I have a question regarding Broadway and Angela's kiss in The Journey. I'm sorry if this has been answered before, but I don't recall finding anything related to it in the archives.
Anyway.
You've stated (I believe in the DVD commentary) that gargoyles don't kiss to show affection, but rather wrap their wings around each other and stroke each other's hair. So why do Broadway and Angela kiss? I've had a number of theories, myself:
1. being younger, Broadway and Angela (especially Angela) have been heavily influenced by the tendencies of humans, ie. ways of displaying affection. I mean, Angela must have seen Tom macking on Katherine a few times back on Avalon, right? Not to mention the fact that the eggs were raised in an unconventional (human) way.
2. To show the pair actally kissing would have truly established them as a solid couple in the minds of viewers. It's also a lot more heart-wrenching to see them kiss with Brooklyn watching them.
3. It WAS The Goliath Chronicles, and the writers weren't aware of all the nuances in the world of the gargoyles.

Well, I've probably gone and answered my question, in there. But thanks for taking the time to read through this, anyway!
You and Gargoyles truly are the bees' knees.

Greg responds...

We're stuck with 1 & 2, since I was the writer of "The Journey".

Response recorded on June 10, 2008

Bookmark Link

Lizzy writes...

Not so much a question as an add-on. One question on the Gargoyle FAQ asks why Gargoyles do not kiss as humans do. While it is true that kissing is a human custom, it is not universal; some cultures view kissing as gross or bizarre. In ancient Inuit tribes, couples would share affection by leaning close to each other so they can feel the warmth of each other's breath. That is where the original term "Eskimo kissing" comes from. In Bali, couples will lean close to each other and gaze into each other's eyes as a show of intimacy. (This has changed as Westernization moved in.) Kissing was not a custom in many Asian countries until relatively recently, when American culture became very popular. The Sirinio in Bolivia and the Thonga in Africa do not kiss as they see it as a sharing of dirt and saliva.

Greg responds...

So it goes...

Response recorded on June 03, 2008

Bookmark Link

Brenden Thoreson writes...

Hello Greg, long time fan of gargoyles, and most of my questions about the Gargoyles universe have been answered by browsing the archives but these questions.
I see from the archives that Angela and Broadway will raise their children in the traditional gargoyles fashion, and I am assuming that Brooklyn and Katana will try to do the same. But this has led me to some interesting questions about the relationships between generations of gargoyles in the same clan.

I have seen that from the first episode that gargoyles from the same rookery generation call one another rookery brother or rookery sister, or if there are close bonds just brother and sister. So my first question is do gargoyles have the same endearing names for an older or younger generation with in the clan, for example rookery mother, rookery father, rookery son, rookery daughter, or some other term like those? Yes I do know that Goliath's generation calls Hudson My Mentor, I am assuming that is so only because he was the leader and teacher of the clan before Goliath.

Another is I have noticed that Hudson has a stronger relationship with Goliath then any other of Goliath's rookery siblings, or at least just the ones we have met so far. I am assuming this is do to, that Hudson saw Goliath's potential as a successor and paid special attention to him to prepare him for the role. I have also noticed that gargoyles in one generation develop strong ties with a few siblings like Coldstone's and Goliath's relationship. My next question is do stronger relationships develop between certain hatchlings and certain members of the parenting generation or members of another older generation of gargoyles?

But in Mark of the Panther Goliath, who is having trouble dealing and even understanding Angela's unusual need for parents and her attachment to him after she finds that she is his biological daughter, says to Elisa's mother Diane "gargoyle hatchlings belong to the whole clan, I cannot hold one hatchling over the others." So are these kinds of relationships, I have asked about in the previous paragraph, taboo, shunned, frowned upon, or generally accepted as a part of the growing up process of young gargoyles, or are they just Goliath's personal words do to the fact that he is the clan leader?

Thanks for even putting up a general questions website, not many writers do that or post the site on there publications. I apologize for my long winded questions but it just the way I write. Just to let you know Gargoyles has been a huge influence in my own stories and don't worry I have absolutely no fan fictions of Gargoyles and I have never understood why people have to do them, they don't make sense to me any ways.
I can't wait for Brooklyn's little trip, especially the clan's reactions when he gets back five minutes later, they will be priceless. I might have to scan the images in and use them as a desktop. I just can't see Time Dancer done in six issues like I heard the spin offs will be done in, too much happening from what I have found on Ask Greg. Well I guess that is why it is third in line and thanks again.

Greg responds...

Some gargoyles will develop stronger relationships with some. With that many parents, siblings, children, etc. running around, it's natural. But neither "shunned, frowned upon, or generally accepted" fits the bill to my mind. Amd citing Hudson/Goliath hardly proves anything. Hudson's pre-massacre relationship with anyone else in Goliath's generation has not been explored. Nor has Goliath's relationship with anyone else from Hudson's generation even been touched on.

In Panther, Goliath is NOT having trouble with Angela's "unusal need for parents". He's concerned about what her specific need to acknowledge their BIOLOGICAL relationship might mean... both in terms of his relationship to the rest of the Avalon Clan and especially HER relationship to her biological mother.

Not all of Brooklyn's TimeDancer adventures are designed to fit into one six episode mini. Just one six-part story. I could tell TimeDancer adventures for forty years. And I hope I get that chance.

Response recorded on May 28, 2008

Bookmark Link

Chimaraz writes...

Is the practice of raising eggs communally based on tradition for Gargoyles, or is it more of an instictual biological imperative? The answer we usually get is that it's the Gargoyle way, but is it the Gargoyle way because they're told they've always done it that way, or is it the Gargoyle way because instinct tells them that if they lay an egg in the rookery, all eggs in the rookery are theirs? It is the most sensible course of action, based on their reproduction, but did the practice arise because of how they reproduce universally as a species, or do they reproduce universally as a species because of how they practice parenting?

... Chicken or egg?

Greg responds...

Egg or gargoyle?

Response recorded on May 20, 2008

Bookmark Link

juan writes...

hi mr weisman again.

I was wondering what kind of beliefs do gargoyles incorparate from peoples religions into theirs

Greg responds...

I'd advise browsing the Gargoyles Customs archive here at Ask Greg. Then if you still have questions, post again.

Response recorded on April 07, 2008

Bookmark Link

Anon writes...

Dear Greg -- I would first like to just say what a wonderful series you created and that I'm happy new stories are being made after all these years!

My question relates to the concept of monogamy in Gargoyle culture --

You had stated that Gargoyles are both biologically and culturally inclined towards monogamy, including, for the most part, remaining alone after a mate dies, etc. You also said at one point that affairs, cheating, divorce, etc. are quite rare, though wires do on occasion get crossed and such things do happen, so...

1. Obviously every clan and every individual within a clan is different, but if two gargoyles were cheating on their mates with one another, how would the other clan members, in general, react? Would they consider it clan business or personal business? Would the two 'cheaters' be treated any differently either socially or 'officially' by the clan leader? Would cheating on one's mate be considered a banish-able offense? I'm speaking of an affair where both cheaters consent to the relationship and not an Othello-Desdemona-Iago situation.

2. Similarly, how would a clan typically react to two mates 'divorcing' one another? Would one have to leave the clan -- would both? Likewise, would it be considered the entire clan's business or personal business?

I apologize that I'm asking for generalizations (I know after years of reading Ask Greg that you don't much care for those!) but hopefully you can answer anyway because I'm very curious about this.

Thank you and all the best!

Greg responds...

1. I think officially it would NOT be considered "clan-business"... but that's not to say the clan or clan leader might not still attempt to deal with the situation.

2. Same answer.

Response recorded on December 11, 2007

Bookmark Link

Tanya writes...

As answered in a previous question, Gargoyle females (can) bare eggs at 'biological ages 25, 35, and 45'. What about the males; what's the age limit for their potency? Also, does age difference play a great role in choosing a mate or is it mostly love and good genes? Finally, how common is it to take a new mate after a previous mate has passed away?

Greg responds...

Re: the males. Don't know.

Age difference between mates is relatively rare. They usually are the exact same age, give or take a few hours.

Gargoyles RARELY take a new mate after a previous mate passes away.

Response recorded on November 15, 2007

Bookmark Link

NOVEMBER 15

This day in Gargoyles' Universe History....

November 15th...

1994
While Elisa again tries to convince Goliath to abandon the castle, they are attacked by a Steel Clan Robot. Goliath destroys it, but Owen uses the opportunity to acquire some of Goliath's genetic material.

1995
The Pack attempts to rob a bank. The gargoyles try to stop them. Goliath is badly injured - allowing the Pack to escape. Hudson informs Goliath that he needs to choose one of the Trio to be his Second-in-Command.

1996
1:16am EST - [withheld]

5:02am EST - [withheld]

5:05am EST - [withheld]

5:12am EST - [withheld]

5:38am EST - [withheld]

5:40am EST - [withheld]

5:43am EST - [withheld]

7:00am EST - [withheld]

7:36am EST - [withheld]

8:06am EST - [withheld]

8:07am EST - [withheld]

9:23am EST - [withheld]

10:59am EST - [withheld]

11:04am EST - [withheld]

3:13pm EST - [withheld]

3:15pm EST - [withheld]

8:06pm EST - [withheld]

8:07pm EST - [withheld]


Bookmark Link

Anonymous writes...

*I hope this doesn't sound like story suggesting*

Was Nashville concived before or after Katana and Brooklyn's mating ceremony?

Greg responds...

Well, since they don't mate until after the ceremony (such as it is)...

Response recorded on November 13, 2007

Bookmark Link

Matthew writes...

We know that there is faerie magic and mortal magic. Mortal magic seems mostly to be used by humans. Is it less common for gargoyles to study magic than humans? If so why?

Greg responds...

Seems less common, but that may simply be because there are fewer gargoyles period.

Response recorded on November 01, 2007

Bookmark Link

Broadway's Angel(a) writes...

You said in your FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) archives that Broadway and Angela would probably raise their children the gargoyle way, "children of the clan, not individuals," by not favoring biological children over the rest of the clan's children, but does that mean they won't identify their own biological children. I believe that if they didn't recognize their biological children, they wouldn't have been so particular about the naming of their own children (Artus, Gwenyvere, and Lancelot) after Arthurian characters in reference to Broadway and Angela's connections to Arthur, Broadway being inspired to read from hearing about the Scrolls of Merlin and Angela living on Avalon where Arthur slept. So, do Angela and Broadway recognize their biological children but attempt to parent all clan children instead of favoring their biological children, or is the naming of all their children after Arthurian characters coincidence?

Greg responds...

You're assuming that Broadway and Angela named them. Facts not in evidence.

Response recorded on October 29, 2007

Bookmark Link

Jarrod writes...

Hi Again Greg!

In Gargoyle Society, You have stated that Clans would use Banishment as a form of Punishment. You have stated that Iago was Banished before the Massacre, but then came back to the clan, and I believe you have mentioned that it was because he set Othello against Goliath over Desdemona. Did Gargoyles who were banished, and without a clan have a lower chance of survival than those in a clan? Would clans let other nearby clans know about those who were banished so that they would not assist them during their Banishment. (Of course this would only apply if there were nearby clans.) Would Temporarily Banished Gargoyles always return to the Clan at the end of their sentence? Or would the majority stay away and find a new Clan, Home, or Protectorate? What sort of things would constitute a Banishable Offense?

Thanks for Reading, Writing, and Answering!

Greg responds...

Gargoyles aren't generally solitary. So any clan who saw someone stumble in, would pretty much know the score... unless that person weaved a tale... a tale that would be pretty easy to prove or disprove. Generally, gargoyles don't like being banished, so they'd tend to come back when their sentence ended. But I'm sure there have been exceptions, and not all sentences were temporary. Lot's of potentially banishable offenses. Use your imagination.

Response recorded on October 19, 2007

Bookmark Link

tyler writes...

how do gargoyles decide the clan leader? and y is the leaders mate usally second in command? ( by this i mean clans like avalon or ones without current leaders to chose)

Greg responds...

I'm confident I've answered this before. Check the archives -- and/or ask in the comment room. I'm sure the friendly folk there (http://www.s8.org/gargoyles/comment/index.php) can direct you to the correct answer.

Response recorded on October 15, 2007

Bookmark Link

Greg Bishansky writes...

This is more a ramble reply to Alex Garg's post, but I definitely think this is a fascinating subject, and could make a great Ask Greg discussion.

Honestly, at this point, I don't think anyone in the Manhattan Clan cares much about any of the clones. Any of them. What was the first thing said when Thailog appeared to perish and the clones had no where to go? "We can't just bring them back to the Clock Tower can we? I mean, they kind of give me the creeps."

Right there, the Manhattan Clan wanted nothing to do with them. Wanted to pretend they didn't exist. Let Talon take them to live in a sewer. Out of sight, out of mind. Not that the reaction is not understandable, it is. I think we'd all be uncomfortable around clones of ourselves made against our will and knowledge. It's a fundamental violation of our individuality.

Did any of the Manhattan Clan go down to see them between "The Reckoning" and "Invitation Only"? I'd be very surprised if the answer is yes. The one time they do go down, they want something. Goliath is following Elisa's request to attempt to date Delilah. Brooklyn... just wants to make a play for the only available female he's aware of. They were down there both for selfish reasons.

So, yeah, all of their talk about free will probably was less for the clones' sake, and more towards the Manhattan Clan's hatred for Thailog. They hate Thailog, so naturally they don't want the clones to be helping him. At this point, do they have any other reason to care?

Lexington's only real concern when Brentwood chooses Thailog is how it makes him [Lexington] look. Not concern for Brentwood's safety, or eventually having to face him as an enemy. Lex thinks it makes *him* look bad.

I know this is a pretty serious indictment of the Manhattan Clan. I love them, they are heroes, there's a lot to admire in each and every one of them. But, they're not saints. Which is fine, they're more interesting this way... if I wanted a group of pure goodie goods, I'd read a Silver Age Justice League of America comic book.

Greg responds...

I don't disagree with any of the above, but I would temper it.

Again, I think Angela has an INTEREST in individuality and wouldn't want Delilah blindly following ANYONE. Delilah may have reacted to Angela as if Angela was giving her another order, but I don't think it's hard to see that that was clearly NOT Angela's intent. And if your looking for proof, just check out Angela's relationship with Goliath. She respects him as a leader. As a hero. A legend. She loves him as a father. But check out the World Tour, particularly Sanctuary. She's hardly following G. blindly.

And Goliath... in his slow, deliberate, bleeding-to-death way... had clearly given all this some thought too. He told Thailog that Delilah would not CHOOSE him (i.e. Thailog). He may seem confident of this (perhaps even over-confident), but there's nothing to indicate that Goliath plans to decide FOR her. And he doesn't decide for Brentwood either. There's preference and action. Two different things.

Response recorded on August 21, 2007

Bookmark Link

Alex Garg writes...

This is something that had I wanted to bring up in the Culture/Biology panel at the Gathering, but we ran out of time. Besides, it feels a little better to be able to ask this question now that "Bash" has broad exposure (although it's still new enough to constitute a SPOILER warning).

Gargoyles and Free Will.

A theme of Gargoyles since the introduction of the clones has been just how much control they have over making their own decisions, particularly given that they were programmed to obey Thailog. This comes to a head in "Masque" and "Bash," where the clones are bombarded with the "Free Will" message to the point where they can finally make their choices, but what's most curious to me is the pressure that they receive from the Manhattan Clan.

It doesn't surprise me that Maggie would bring it up in "Masque" - she was born and raised in a democratic society, so the idea that people have free will and the right to self-determination is ingrained in her psyche - but for Goliath and Lexington, and Angela to a lesser extent, to make the case for it in "Bash" was more surprising.

Goliath and Lexington both come from an era where there was no broadly applied concept of a person's right to self-determination. On the human side was the reign of the Catholic Church (and I'm writing very generally now) which in terms of ethics framed the argument for free will in such a way that while humans have the *capacity* to choose between different courses of action, our *obligation* is to obey God's commands; the fact that they did not was why we were expelled from the Garden of Eden. Therefore, under those circumstances, we don't really have a choice - God's infinite wisdom overrides our mortal judgments. That dogma then went on to inform the monarchies of the day, Scotland not excepting, where kings ruled by Divine Mandate. The idea that a king could be overthrown for unjust rule wasn't introduced until St. Thomas Aquinas, an act which prior to him (and even well after) would have been viewed as taking up arms against the will of God; and even then it was the laws of the Church which would be the standard by which a king would be considered ruling in an unjust manner, not the opinions of his subjects.

The gargoyles' "government" also has no apparent nod to free will or self-determination. Goliath became the leader because Hudson said so, Brooklyn became second-in-command because Goliath said so, and in each case the other gargoyles appear to acquiesce unconditionally to these decisions. Even in mating, you mentioned in the panel that gargoyles aren't necessarily choosing mates as much as they are naturally drawn to one another - even in human rituals it's a subject of debate over just how much "choice" we have in when and with whom we fall in love.

While you've said that gargoyles are free to pursue their own hobbies and curiosities, it doesn't strike me that alone is enough to constitute an understanding of free will in the sense of making determinations about leadership in the way that the clones were being pressured to choose between the Labyrinth and Thailog.

So from what we saw in "Bash," where Lexington demands to know why the clones are choosing to help Thailog, and where Goliath says that "choice must extend to those who choose unwisely" - which is a very different concept than a basic, arbitrary choice between right and wrong - I have to ask: Where have Goliath and Lexington gotten the understanding to ask those questions?

Angela also presents an interesting case, because while she was raised by humans, she was raised by humans for whom it can't be assumed would have had the same understanding of free will as you and I do having grown up in a democratic society as it applies to personal choice, much less in making decisions of leadership. So is her command to Delilah founded more on her hatred of Thailog, or is she also making a case for free will; and if the latter, what informs that for her?

Touching on the same vein: Since 1996 would be the first U.S. election year that the gargoyles have really been exposed to - it seems to me that in 1994 the Manhattan clan was more curious about their new physical surroundings than cultural; and it was a midterm election anyway with much less media hype than a presidential cycle - what do the gargoyles of the Manhattan clan make of democracy, given their less than democratic heritage?

Greg responds...

Free will seems essential to any discussion of Abrahamic religions... starting with the Garden of Eden. What God wants does not mean He FORCES you to do it, and I think even 10th century Catholics and Scotsmen got this idea whether or not they could articulate it.

And free will doesn't absolve us of personal debts, religious responsibilities, community obligations and the like. (Not to mention the laws of physics. Just because I have the free will to say I want to fly, doesn't mean I can.) Certainly Gargoyles would understand that. One ignores community contracts (even -- again -- if one cannot articulate these ideas) at the risk of banishment. (Cf. Iago, Demona or Yama.)

As for the articulation itself, well... I think we have demonstrated that Goliath is very well read. And that Lex is a very fast study. As for Angela... well, like her mother, she's not one to deny the right of the individual. I'll leave the rest to your interpretation.

Democracy probably seems to them to be the lesser of evils vis-a-vis humans. But I don't think of Gargoyle society as undemocratic per se. Leadership questions don't seem to vibe with democracy gargoyles-wise, but a good leader is sensitive to the needs of those he leads. Hudson chose Goliath, and as far as we know there was only one real objection to the choice (a clear minority). Goliath chose Demona as his second, with no objections that we know of. Goliath chose Brooklyn as his second with, again, NO objections... even from the two other gargoyles competing for the gig. So... draw your own conclusions. Gargoyles may just be better attuned to each other based on NON-verbal cues... They don't need to name things or spend a fortune on television advertisements to know what there community is looking for in a leader.

Or maybe not. Interesting questions. We should definitely raise these issues again next summer.

Response recorded on August 21, 2007

Bookmark Link

Bazell writes...

"Gargoyles protect." It's fairly straight-forward, but how did this cultural tradition begin? As the credo exists throughout the world, it was obviously some instance that happened very early in the evolutionary history of the Gargate species. Was it a pact made by the original gargoyle clan with a single human or community? Is it a biological urge (doubtful though, i.e. Demona, Thailog)? Or is it a tradition orally passed from generation to generation from the earliest of times by a single, extremely noble gargoyle/clan?

Greg responds...

I think it originates with the need to protect the gargoyles' own rookery. Which would, I imagine, be a biological imperative.

Response recorded on August 17, 2007

Bookmark Link

Bazell writes...

I've noticed since first watching the show that most gargoyles do not use weapons. Demona does (which is understandable since she has witnessed- and perhaps taken part in- the development modern technology), as does Thailog (also understandable since he is the polar opposite to Goliath and uber-evil). However, Hudson is the only "old school," shall we say, gargoyle who consistently carries a weapon. What is the history between Hudson and this blade? Is it unusal that he carries it, or have we just not seen enough gargoyles to see others who choose to utilize weapons?

Greg responds...

Other gargoyles utilize weapons. Check the Hudson archives for a more detailed explanation of why Hudson uses one.

Response recorded on August 17, 2007

Bookmark Link

Derek writes...

Will we ever see the biological parents of Demona, Goliath, Lexington or Brooklyn in the comics in Flashbacks?

Greg responds...

Sure. But you might not know it, as it's of no moment to these characters. If I hadn't let it slip that Hudson was Broadway's bio-dad, would you have guessed, known or cared?

Response recorded on August 10, 2007

Bookmark Link

Bazell writes...

Do Gargoyles have there own unique appreciation for artistic asthetics? I have noticed that the Manhatten clan has developed a true appreciation for human literature (like SHakespeare), but do they have there own asthetic disposition for other art forms such as music or painting?
I'm sure that, just like with literature, they've learned to enjoy the human endeavors in art. Also, I'm sure that each individual has his or her own opinions when it comes to what they enjoy, just like everyone else, but have the Gargoyles ever (or will they ever) developed an artistic culture of their own? Or do they, in general, have a unique opinion as to what constitutes art? For example, I could imagine that battle styles could be a sort of art form within clans.

Greg responds...

I deal in individuals more than species-wide generalities, but probably.

Response recorded on August 09, 2007

Bookmark Link

dph writes...

1.Before humans made contact with gargoyles, did gargoyles have a unique (non-written)language unto themselves?

2.Before gargoyles made contact with humans, did gargoyles have a unique written language unto themselves?

Greg responds...

1. We've discussed this before... it might not have been necessary for them... isn't language a process of naming?

2. No.

Response recorded on August 09, 2007

Bookmark Link

Personperson123 writes...

What do gargoyles eat?And would they kill or hurt humans?

Greg responds...

Gargoyles eat more or less the same stuff as we do. And kill for more or less the same reasons.

Response recorded on July 09, 2007

Bookmark Link

Purplegoldfish writes...

Do gargoyles generally hold mating ceremonies, or do they more or less elope? In "Vows," Goliath and Demona facilitated their own union-would there have been a more official ceremony later attended by the clan?

Greg responds...

I'm not responding to this at this time.

Response recorded on June 13, 2007

Bookmark Link

Adam writes...

Hi Greg. It's great to see Gargoyles back. Anyway, I have a question about when the Wyvern Clan split between 988 and 994. What I would like to know is why didn't the departing Gargoyles take any of the eggs with them? The new clan would have missed out on an entire generation of the clan. Or did they do something like take more of Bronx's generation(978) with them? I guess that would make sense. Thanks.

Greg responds...

The why had to do with the difficulty of establishing a new rookery. Otherwise, I think you answered your own question.

Response recorded on April 30, 2007

Bookmark Link

Dusk Rider Q writes...

This is less serious than my last post.

It had occured to me the other day while watching the Green that the Guatamalan clan and all the other clans take names. Some of them such as the Griff's clan have had contact for some time with humans, but what's Zafiro excuse. Is it only a Wyvern Clan tradition, not a gargoyle tradition across cultures, to remain nameless?

Greg responds...

Only the four pendant wearers had names. Unfortunately, only the four pendant wearers were still alive.

Response recorded on March 13, 2007

Bookmark Link

Anonymous writes...

Is there any significance to loincloth color for the gargs? Goliath and Hudson, both leaders, have brown, whereas the Trio has blue.

Greg responds...

None that I know of.

Response recorded on March 13, 2007

Bookmark Link

Danny Dyche writes...

Have you thought of how you would handle traditional gargoyle namelessness should you make "Dark Ages"?

Greg responds...

I've thought about it a LOT. Probably won't make a final decision until I'm forced to. (The same was true about what to do about the Goliath Chronicles.)

Response recorded on March 09, 2007

Bookmark Link

Anonymous writes...

How often do gargoyle clan leaders name their mates their seconds? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a younger second, not a contemporary?

Greg responds...

It often depends on just how young the leader is, I would think.

Do you really think Brooklyn was ready to be a second back in 994?

But as you've seen, Goliath was Hudson's second. Yama was Kai's. So a younger second is sometimes chosen.

Response recorded on March 09, 2007

Bookmark Link

Makhasu writes...

You've said that gargoyles predate humans. Were there ever any gargoyle cities, civilizations, or unique cultures?

Greg responds...

Cultures... sure. But I'm not seeing them defining civilization by human standards. And cities... depends how big a rookery has to get before you qualify it as a city. Competition for resources kept rookeries smallish. With new rookeries spinning off of existing ones when necessary.

Response recorded on March 07, 2007

Bookmark Link

Makhasu writes...

How do gargoyles view their beaked brethren like Brooklyn in terms of physical beauty?

Greg responds...

I don't believe in monolithic appraisals. But I'm sure MOST would find Brooklyn as attractive as many of our fans do.

Response recorded on March 05, 2007

Bookmark Link

Makhasu writes...

You've said that gargoyles show affection by stroking hair. What do they do if their mate is bald like Lexington and Broadway?

Greg responds...

Stroking scalp.

Response recorded on March 05, 2007

Bookmark Link

Charisma82 writes...

Sunday, June 25, 2006: 3RD DAY OF THE GATHERING OF THE GARGOYLES

So how is everything going? Good I hope. Only one more day of Gathering of the Gargoyles. I'm sure everyone is having a great time out there at the gathering. Everyone must be really busy trying to get to everything there. Just curious, but how many sessions are going on out there? Do people have time inbetween sessions to do anything else? Did you do any sight seeing in L.A.? I hear that next year the gathering will be in Tenessee near the Smokey Mountains. That would be so cool to go to. There must be a lot of sight seeing to do for the next gathering, that is if you have time to get away from the convention. I've been to Tennessee once up in the Smokey Mountians. I barely remember it, but the few pictures I have in my mind are of very beautiful scenery. I can picture the mountains with dark clouds around the top of them. Maybe I can get a plane ticket and head out there next year not only for the gathering, but to recharge my memory of the scenery. I think that if there was another gargoyle clan out there in the U.S. (besides the Manhattan clan), they should be located in a place like that. The mountains would be great cover, and there are little towns all around in there that they could protect if they felt the need to. I'm really hoping that I can convince someone to go with me now that I'm getting myself psyched for the Smokey Mountains.

Since the gathering is almost over for 2006, I might as well get your opinion on it. Did you think that the turn out was better or worse this year than other gatherings? Did a lot of voice talents from the Gargoyles show come to the convention? By the way, how many of these gatherings have you attended? I know that this one in 2006 is the 10th annual one, but did you go to the first few, like the 1st or 2nd gathering? Who exactly started these gatherings (don't just say fans, please)? Do you think that more talents from the show will come to next years (2007) gathering?

Well, now that I've questioned you out, I might as well mention a few things that happened today since this is sort of a journal of what's going on during the gathering. Today is Sunday, so of course church. After that, we (my family) had tacos and I slept for a couple of hours. I woke up to find nothing great on TV or on TIVO. Later, my parents and I watched some murder mystery movie where some woman was being tricked into thinking she was crazy by her husband and best friend so they could get rid of her and get all her money that she'd made. It was interesting. Not as good as it would have been to be at the gathering (I had to throw that in there).

When I mentioned church, it got me thinking. I know religion is a touchy subject for a lot of people, but I was wondering if any gargoyles were religious in some way. If they are, do they practice human religions or do they have one of their own? I could see a clan living in a big church building with the stain glass windows and such, with them posing on top on the steeple or roof during the day and then protecting the town at night. I can just imagine the picture in my head. It would look rather gothiky though.

Now that's my ramble/journal for today. Just one more for tomorrow. I'm sure you'll miss my long talks about nothing (probably not). I hope all is well, and thank you for your time.

Charisma82

Greg responds...

Turn out for 2006 was high for a Gathering. Having the con in L.A. always helps, because we can get a TON of special guests (because they're all local) that we couldn't afford to bring to a more distant location. Someone from the Gathering would have to give you exact figures, but I believe the attendance was probably our second highest ever - second only to G2001, which was also in L.A.

We did have quite a few voice actors, including Keith "Goliath" David, Thom "Lexington" Adcox, Brigitte "Angela" Bako, Elisa "Obisiana" Gabriellie, Morgan "Petros" Sheppard, Jim "Dingo" Cummings and others. Plus quite a few voice actors from WITCH and other shows as well.

I've attended all TEN Gatherings. It might seem like quite an achievement, but really it's all thanks to the fans, who pay my way for every non-L.A. convention and put me up (and put up with me) at the L.A. cons. There are a handful of fans whom have also been to all ten conventions. They are my heroes.

"Who exactly started these gatherings (don't just say fans, please)?" - Okay, I won't say fans. I'll say FAN. May "Elisa Maza" Li (I hope I'm spelling that correctly) was THE fan that got the ball rolling by almost single-handedly organizing the first Gathering in NYC. Burned her out so much that she didn't attend again until this past year, when she was given the Fan Guest of Honor award. Of course since then there's been a long list of people who have contributed. I'd list 'em, but I'm sure I'd forget some people, and I don't want to offend.

For info on Gargoyles religion -- which is both Animistic and Monotheistic -- check the archives under GARGOYLE CUSTOMS.

Response recorded on January 23, 2007

Bookmark Link

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.

Greg responds...

You're assuming that for Gargoyles, "Old School" means homophobic. I don't accept that.

In fact "Old School" for humans wasn't homophobic either. Homophobia is a relatively RECENT phenomena, as far as my (very limited) research has revealed.

Response recorded on January 19, 2007

Bookmark Link

Rain writes...

Gargoyles don't 'marry' (at least not as humans do)from what I've gathered. Most people demand that marriage comes before children, or at least what their idea of what marriage is. I have friends who liked the show and bought the dvd (although they aren't the hardcore fans that would attend a Gathering..I tried LOL) and if hatchlings started appearing without any 'wedding' taking place beforehand I know for a fact that they would stop watching out of moral beliefs. Many conservative viewers would likely follow suit. So onto the question..(if new eps are ever made) do you see gargoyles observing a ritual of some sort that could replace a wedding in the mind of a more conservative viewer?

Greg responds...

Gargoyles have a "Commitment Ceremony" which is the equivalent of a human wedding. This isn't something I've added for conservative viewers by the way, it just is part of my conception of their culture.

Response recorded on November 30, 2006

Bookmark Link

Man Mountain writes...

Hey greg, love the show and see you in Vegas! Now for my question...
Gorlois is the Atlantean name for Gargoyle. So how is it used? What is the singular and plural? Are Gargoyles Gorloien? Was the Captain of the Guard Gorloisian or Gorloien since you said he was (WAS.. traitor) Gargoylean (if thats a word)? This has been gliding about my brain since I found out about "Gorlois." I realize I'm asking you to mix english and atlantean, so do what you can. Thanks for answering this and all our questions!

PS: If you could mention to Goliath and the others that we in the SF Bay Area would be happy to host a fledgling Gargoyle clan. We've got tall buildings, lots of room to glide, great weather, and lots of wind. Oh, and tell them not to worry about earthquakes, all our buildings are retrofitted and earthquake safe. I guess by Samson's time there isn't one here, but I'm still hoping nothing is set in stone.. at least till sunrise. Thanks!

Greg responds...

If you hold a Gathering, they will come.

As for Gorlois (pronounced gor-LOY), it is the Atlantean word for Gargoyle. It's used for both singular and plural. Like "sheep".

Response recorded on November 25, 2006

Bookmark Link

Demona Taina writes...

Hi Greg! I couldn't make it to Montreal this year, but I've made up my mind to go to Vegas. Thank you so much for the DVD; I'll buy several copies when it comes out! Now, on to my questions... This is something that's been puzzling me for a while, and I couldn't find it anywhere on the archives. I'd be so happy if you had the answers.

1. In the episode Reawakening, after Coldstone and Goliath fell into the river and Goliath was losing consciousness, he holds on to Coldstone's forearm. Is there a deeper meaning behind that? Was it:

a) a warrior wrist-shake
b) a cry for help
c) asking forgiveness
d) an unconscious reaction

If the answer is a, b, c, or d, why? If none of the above, what? I'm just so curious about that scene. It's so deep and moving; definitely one of the best scenes in the entire series.

2. When Goliath and Coldstone are in the river, Hudson is heard in the background saying "A gargoyle can no more stop protecting the castle than breathing the air," it slowly trails off. Was Goliath thinking that and it trailed off as he lost consciousness? Was Othello? Or does it have a deeper meaning?

I would be so grateful if you had the answers! Thank you so much, and I look forward to meeting you in Vegas!

Greg responds...

1. All of the above.

2. It's somewhat symbolic, but yes, Goliath wa thinking of it. And it trailed off as Goliath began to lose consciousness. I like to think that Coldstone was thinking something similar.

Response recorded on August 17, 2006

Bookmark Link

Spore writes...

Do gargoyles believe in corporal punishment?

Greg responds...

I'm sure the point of view on the subject isn't monolithic, but I tend to think not.

Response recorded on February 16, 2006

Bookmark Link

WingedBeast writes...

I've got a number of questions about Gargbeasts and their relation to the Clan. It always seemed to me that the Gargoyles had a deeper connection to their Gargbeasts than we humans tend to have with our "lesser" beasts. (Though, where dogs are concerned, I don't get how a creature that is naturally caring and loyal can be considered lesser to anything.)

1. Are Garg-Beasts considered siblings, parents, and sons/daughters by the rest of the Gargoyles in a clan? Would Goliath consider Bronx a Rookery Son and the Trio consider him a Rookery Brother?

2. Do GargBeasts and Gargoyles nurse each others offspring? (Evolutionarily, I can see the advantage in this, as it provides a greater variety of anti-bodies to the hatchlings.)

3. While I have serious doubts that a Gargbeast can ever become a Clan leader, are they ever in positions of authority or rank over the sentient Gargoyles?

Greg responds...

1. No. There is an awareness that Beasts are a separate species. But I do believe that the bond between Gargoyles and Beasts is stronger, and more akin to blood relation than the bond between humans and their pets. Beasts are not considered pets. They do not have "masters". The relationship is closer to one of equals than of master/pet. Grok?

2. I don't think so. But I'll admit I haven't given this much thought.

3. I won't say 'never'. But it doesn't seem likely. Though you should keep in mind that typical gargoyle "government" isn't exactly ripe with bureaucracy. There is the Leader and the Second. And that is all. Beasts ARE warriors. And on that score, Bronx, for example, is considered an equal to Lex or Broadway or Hudson or Angela. Only Goliath as Leader and Brooklyn as Second have actual authority over Bronx and the others. Now, keep in mind, one of the other Gargoyles might tell Bronx to do something in the heat of the moment. Or ask him to come somewhere or refuse to let him go along. But that's not authority. That's just life. Hudson might likewise tell Lexington to do something in the heat of the moment. Or ask him to come somewhere or refuse to let him go along, etc.

Good questions.

Response recorded on November 08, 2005

Bookmark Link

J writes...

In "Future Tense" when Broadway is "killed" Goliath says "Goodbye, my friend". This surprised me. Wouldn't Goliath think of Broadway more as his son? The word "friend" just seemed awkward to me in context of the relationship between Goliath/Broadway. What are your thoughts?

Greg responds...

Broadway is too old for Goliath to regard him as a Rookery-Son. And too young for Goliath to regard him as a Rookery-Brother. Now, without a doubt, Goliath regards Broadway as family, as part of his clan, as a cousin, as someone so close to being a "little brother" that it might not be unexpected for him (if he were human) to use the term.

But Gargoyles aren't humans. They don't use the term "little brother" to describe that relationship. Or any relationship, really.

And the word "friend" to a gargoyle carries real weight. It's not insignificant or casual.

Response recorded on November 01, 2005

Bookmark Link

Hardwing writes...

1)Well based on the fact that Goliath rested on the highest tower of the castle and Demona, Hudson and a gargoyle I couldn't identify below him, I assume it was tradition that the gargoyles took their sleeping places after their status in the clan, correct?

2)Had the other gargoyle resting beside Demona(not Hudson) any special status in the clan? Or for Goliath?

Greg responds...

1. Generally. We tried not to be too anal about it though.

2. I'd have to look again.

Response recorded on October 05, 2005

Bookmark Link

Siren writes...

Okay, I looked in the Gargs Custom archive and in FAQ. I cannot find a direct question and answer for what I am wondering recently. Perhaps you did answer it and I missed it somewhere. If I did, I apologize. Let me know and I will do a better search. But here's my questions.

1.)Do gargoyles have a ceremony similar in anyway to a wedding ceremony as humans do?
2.) I remember Goliath and Demona watching a wedding and Demona broke the Phoenix Gate and gave Goliath half as a token of her love, similar to the wedding rings, but was this normal of gargoyle customs?
3.)Or did they simply announce their mate-for-life and go on with their lives?
4.)Or could that even be different from clan to clan?

I doubt very much the ceremony would be as lavish and pomp as human weddings are, but it would probably have been a lot less stressful and a lot more romantic

Greg responds...

1. They have a "first mating ritual".

2. No.

3. See 1.

4. Well, yes, certainly. I thought we were talking about Wyvern.

Response recorded on September 20, 2005

Bookmark Link

Entity writes...

When gargoyles scale a battlement, they like to just throw their talons into the rock like there is no tomorrow, chipping away at the solidity every time. They do this night after night, and my question is, how were Wyvern's walls, battlements and towers still standing after years of this abuse? This may seem like a question meant to stump you on an aspect of the show we were invited to turn our cheeks to, but I have got to say, almost 10 years later I'm eating perogies and I start jabbing my plastic fork into the Styrofoam container and wonder... this just isn't going to go away! I need to know!

Greg responds...

Sigh. If you need to know that badly, suggest an answer that works for you, and I'll see if it makes sense to me too.

Cuz the honest truth is... not something I dedicated any mental time to.

Sorry.

Response recorded on August 29, 2005

Bookmark Link

Lovel writes...

Hi Greg, this is my first time posting a question am almost reluctant to do it because of the amazing volume of questions that all the other Gargoyles fan post. I guess it's just an amazing testament to the show.

First off I wanted to express my love and admiration of the show. I have been a fan since the show first came out and I was about 10 or 11. The best part of watching the show now is that all the subtle nuansces and social commentary that was slightly lost on me as a child is fully realized and appreciated in me as a college student.

Second, I wanted to say that I spent the last 3 days LITERALLY reading all the archives I could to find an answer to my questions....Some I found answers to and some I thought up as I was reading some of the other questions posted by other fans. Which is why I wanted to say what a wonderful resource this website is...so having said that it prompts this announcement "THANK YOU GORE FOR HOSTING THIS SITE!!"

Now, on to the questions. Okay you are probably going to flip when you read this one....yes it is yet another "Gay Gargoyle" question...so sue me I'm gay and it's a topic that staunchly interests me. I wanted to ask if a Gay Gargoyle would imprint upon his or her mate just as a Straight Gargoyle would? I only ask this question because I figured the answer would be "yes" since in all your other responses about Gay Gargoyles you indicated that there would be no difference between Gargoyles, Straight or Gay. But I figured that since this is your universe and that since you are the author of said universe that it would be highly unethical of me to assume something without asking the creator.

Now that I got my first question out of the way, I wanted to ramble alittle of how much my appreciation of Gargoyles has grown from reading the questions in this forum. I never knew any of the subtlies that existed in the show such as the stroking of hair and horn, the tradition of not naming things, the practice of the whole clan being the Fathers and Mothers to all the rookery children, and the wonderful Wind Ceremony that you went into detail here in the forums. This all highlights the amazing differences between Humans and Gargoyles. This intensely intrests me now that I'm in college and am a Anthropology student,(yes I do realize the oddness of the situation, a Anthropology student getting a kick out of studying culture that isn't that of man). I particularly love the not naming tradtion in Gargoyle society. Both of my parents are deaf so growing up my first language was Sign Language, not English. This put me in a unique position of knowing 2 names for everything, and knowing 2 different ways of expressing my own name. One being that of my spoken English name "Lovel" and the other being the expressed gesture of my Sign Language name (which I can't even express in writing becasue it is something you have to see instead of read). So when I read your response to a ramble of one of the fans that Hudson would have been put off by the odd tradition of giving the sky a name when it already has a name, and that he would think it odd of giving himself a name since he is already known as "Friend,Father, Mentor, Old Friend etc." This delighted me when I read it since it made me reflect on how my name is not really who I am and I never identify it as "ME". When I try and think of who I am I think in adjectives, kind, friendly, smart, jolly, the last thing that comes to mind is my name. I also enjoy knowing that I can also think of myself as a gesture instead of a spoken word or a sound. Having said all of that,(thanks for putting up with it for this long), my second question would be, How would a Gargoyle refer to the great Hudson in a story? To clarify you once repied that a Gargoyle would refer to another one in a story as "The one of Broadshoulders". This made me wonder how would the clan refer to Hudson in a story. For that matter how would Golaith be refered to in 2198? Would he be refered to by his human name of Golaith or would he have a Gargoyle "name" to which they would refer?

Thank you for your time and I appreciate everything you have done for all us fans. I also want to thank you for coming up with such an amazing universe and introducing it to everyone here. Thanks

--Lovel

Greg responds...

I'm not entirely certain what you mean by "imprinting". But most gargoyles, gay or straight, mate for life.

Hudson wouldn't have just one name in the Middle Ages. "Broadshoulders" or the like, if used by everyone, would just amount to another name.

Different individuals would refer to Hudson by different callouts when necessary, including many of the ones you named above "Old Soldier" "Mentor" etc. "Friend". Mostly relationship driven things.

But naming once initiated is contagious and addictive. Goliath is Goliath is Goliath.

Response recorded on July 26, 2005

Bookmark Link

matt writes...

we know that gargoyles were once widespread around the world and much more common than today. we also know that gargoyles are extremely territorial and protective, so my questions are:

1. was there ever a time, in early gargoyle history, that wars between Gargoyle Clans were fought?

2. if so, were wars fought over territory? differing beliefs? something else?

3. if there were not any wars were there any minor battles between Clans or have Gargoyle Clans always had peace between them?

4. was there ever a time when two or more Clans shared strict borders between their protectorates or were the Clans pretty well spaced out even thousands of years ago?

5. how many Clans existed at the peak of the Gargoyle Species? closer to 1000? 10,000? 1,000,000?

Greg responds...

1. I think it would be ridiculous to issue a blanket "no". I think this would be a rare and isolated phenomena in a world which at the time would have had almost unlimited territory to expand into and no predators truly able to hurt the species. But to say it NEVER happened... no. It must have.

2. I don't currently have anything specific in mind.

3. See above.

4. Largely the latter, but again, I don't want to issue an absolute.

5. I'm not good with numbers.

Response recorded on July 07, 2005

Bookmark Link

James Sconawah writes...

Is Gabriel Coldstones son? If so then does that make his love his mother?

Greg responds...

Yes, Gabriel is the biological son of Coldstone and Coldfire. But from a gargoyle's point of view, Goliath is as much Gabriel's father as Coldstone is.

Response recorded on October 26, 2004

Bookmark Link

Anonymous writes...

Prior to the rise of humanity, did gargoyles ever develop agriculture or animal husbandry on their own?

Greg responds...

Gargoyle Beasts were domesticated.

Response recorded on October 08, 2004

Bookmark Link

Babs writes...

Since I can't get any sleep and was watching re-runs of Gargoyles. I remember someone asking how do Gargoyles show love do they kiss ?, and I believe the answer was that they pet eachother, (please correct me if I'm wrong) but I do recall Goliath kissing Demonas hand, and Angela and Broadway giving a kiss to eachother. Can you explain the differences for me, or just tell me if they do kiss ?
Danke for answering

Greg responds...

Culturally, the gargoyle equivalent of the kiss is to stroke hair or ridges, etc.

But Gargoyles have been living around humans for a long time. So the fact that they've acquired the habit (pleasant habit as it is) doesn't surprise or trouble me, continuity-wise or otherwise.

Response recorded on September 13, 2004

Bookmark Link

some REAL rambling...

Okay, this is not GREG SPEAKING FROM THE MOUNT...

This is just me thinking aloud. (Well, not really aloud. I'm sitting here typing.) I don't even know if I like these ideas. They're definitely not canon.

But the following notions occured to me today...

Gargoyles don't seem to have a native language. They acquire human language ... perhaps much the same way that they acquire names. Naming is clearly addictive. And language, in many ways, is just sophisticated naming.

Clearly gargoyles are just as intelligent as humans. Before humans developed tools, Gargoyles were at the top of the food chain. They may not have created/invented as much "stuff" as humans have, but they also had way fewer needs. Necessity being the mother of invention, they had less motivation for inventing sophisticated shelter, clothes, tools, etc. But that in and of itself isn't a comment on their brain-power.

So why no need for language and names?

When it comes to naming, gargoyles clearly felt that names were superfluous if not somewhat limiting, if not downright harmful to the spirit. Humans must define things. Gargoyles know that things just are.

We are friends. What other name do we require, etc.

It fits in with their animistic/monotheistic view of a higher power. A higher power that requires no name.

Does beg a question, though if you go back far enough.

Does the sky need a name? Does the river?

Elisa responds: "The river's called the Hudson."

But she could have responded: "The river's called a river."

Did the gargoyles have a language that they ABANDONED in favor of human words -- even if those human words were Atlantean (like the term "Gorlois", the true Atlantean etimology for "GARGOYLE")?

Or perhaps...

Gargoyles are so attuned to the earth. They have biological clocks that match the seasons. They have relationships that require no names, until those names have been imposed.

Is it possible, that gargoyles once... long ago... had mild psychic abilities that left them with no need to create language? It wasn't words that they intuited (or transmitted or read or whatever) but emotions, maybe images or sensations.

Maybe it was tied to magic. Not that Gargoyles are magical creatures, but if magic was free-flowing before the Will-O-The-Whisps evolved into the Children of Mab (or whomever) and somewhat confiscated that power for their own, perhaps that magic was just part of the Earth that gargoyles were so attuned to, and allowed for some psychic congress.

Or perhaps, it is a biological ability -- based on biio-elecricity and brainwaves -- that has faded with disuse. Perhaps the very language skills that Gargoyles learned from the human race dampened their psychic intuitiveness, much as Fox's natural magical abilities were stunted by her human upbringing.

Either way, it suggests that this ability could be latent.

I'm NOT saying that the gargs we know are psychic. They've all been fooled enough, even by the INTENSELY emotional Demona (who would theoretically be broadcasting as well as receiving) to bely that notion.

But I wonder if this isn't an interesting area of speculation.

If you see me at the Gathering THIS WEEKEND, it's a topic I'd be interested in discussing.


Bookmark Link

Ruth Lang writes...

OK, this page is a great idea, and I'm glad I finally found it.
I've been trying to work out how GOliath's loincloth is tied. All the others (except Hudson,who has trousers) have their loincloths just over front & back, nothing going underneath to keep things secure. ANd I just can't make a single piece of cloth fold around the way Goliath's seems to be. I'm sure it has be only one piece, because that's the way Scots did most of their clothes.
I'm going to have to spend a lot more time on this place and see if anyone else has come up with my theory on gargoyle sex etc, based largely on what they wear, or rather how. ANd figure out who all those characters are in the age list, I've seen all the episodes now but half of them I can't recall hearing of. What Othello & whatshername in Legion? COldstone's mate doesn't have a name, they're characters in something of Shakespeare.

Greg responds...

There is, of course, a part of the loincloth that goes "underneath". Trust me, Goliath et al are not just out there blowing in the wind. It is still one piece, it just folds over the belt with space cut out for the tail in back.

Othello is the name we use to refer to Coldstone before he became Coldstone. The actual character doesn't have a name. It's just a reference.

Desdemona is the name we use to refer to Coldfire before she became Coldfire. The actual character doesn't have a name. It's just a reference, though we did use the Desdemona name in the credits for actress C.C.H. Pounder.

Iago is the name we use to refer to Coldsteel before he became Coldsteel. The actual character doesn't have a name. It's just a reference, though we did use the Iago name in the credits for actor Xander Berkeley.

Response recorded on July 22, 2004

Bookmark Link

Starrynight writes...

Hello Mr. Weisman,
I am writing in relation to a thought I had about Gargoyle culture and society after taking a Anthropolgy class this summer. The earliest human civilzations such as the Maya and the Egyptians built large buildings and monuments out of stone.
1. Did gargoyles ever built any kind of stone buildings or sheltors besides their rookeries by excavating caves?

2.If gargoyles did in some form hue stone to make a monument. Would it have possibly have been for there unique god which you have alluded to before?

2. Early weapon making among humans began with one of man's earlies ancestors Australopithecus. Like chimpanzes today they used tools to get food. They used stones to break open roots. The techinques of more advanced tools like arrow heads and flint knives did not begin until the next human ancestor arrived called Homo erectus. Did gargoyles ever develope any kind of weapon making or use of objects such as rocks to better inable themselves with technology in order to survive in harsh enviornmental conditions?

Greg responds...

1. Rarely. They required less protection from the elements, which is one of the major motivators to inventing "shelter".

2. No. There animistic/monotheistic faith required no monuments, as the gods/God was everywhere in everything.

Second 2. Again, generally not necessary. Gargoyles were, until humans invented tools, at the top of the food chain.

Response recorded on July 15, 2004

Bookmark Link

matt and others in the Comment Room writes...

we were wondering if a gargoyles urge to protect is a natural urge or something they are taught by older generations to do, or a combination of both?

Greg responds...

I'd guess both.

Response recorded on June 16, 2004

Bookmark Link

Jacob writes...

Hi Greg,
did Gargoyles ever play music or are they uninterested in it?

Greg responds...

Sure.

Response recorded on March 15, 2004

Bookmark Link

Siren writes...

I was wondering with Gargoyles' names. Now, according to the show to date, in 994 A.D., it was still the habit, at least of the Wyvern Clan, not to name gargoyles. Save Goliath. And even after then, to my knowledge, Demona's small clan of gargoyles did not have names.
Come present day, the Manhattan Clan all adopt names, even more traditionalists like Hudson. When the Avalon Tour came around, we come to find all the clans give names to the gaargoyles. (Of course, the Avalon Clan has names because they were raised by humans.) So through the centuries, has all the gargoyles changed their minds about naming eachother? Did the gargoyles name themselves or do the humans normally name them?

Greg responds...

Naming is, as I believe I've said before, addictive.

Once the custom is introduced it takes hold rather firmly. I honestly haven't decided for sure whether all of the existing clans use names, but most do.

Sometimes these names come from humans. Sometimes they evolve within gargoyle communitities over time.

I feel that in Guatemala, only four gargoyles traditionally had names, i.e. the four gargs who wore the pendants: Zafiro, Turquesa, Jade and Obsidiana (though at other points in history they might have been Zafira, Turqueso, Jada and Obsidiano). But now that all but those four are dead, now that all the surviving Mayan gargs have names, it will be interesting to see whether or not the hatchlings that hatched there in 1998 were given names or not.

Response recorded on December 02, 2003

Bookmark Link

matt writes...

in "The Price" after Hudson's statue was destroyed was the Clan in effect beginning to perform the Wind Ceremony on Hudson when they were standing around talking about him?

also, in the credits of that episode there was a mention of parts of the episode being inspired by material in the comic books (presumably the Gargoyles comic books) any idea what thats about? i have a few of the comic books and i have no idea what the credits are referring to...

Greg responds...

No. They were just trying to get their heads around his death. The Wind Ceremony would have come later.

The story was inspired by an idea by Lee Nordling in a Gargoyles story he did in an issue of Disney Adventures Magazine. It was his idea (though he used Goliath, not Hudson) to have Xanatos replace a sleeping gargoyle with a stone statue to fool the rest of the clan.

That was the only thing from his story that we used, and I've never even met Lee, but it was a great idea.

Response recorded on November 21, 2003

Bookmark Link

Vanity writes...

Gargoyle customs-

It has been well established and I would think we all are well aquainted with the notion that Gargoyles didn't use names. Not for themselves as humans did and that the eventual use of names was influence and need of conformity from/by humans.

However you have said that gargoyles kept their myth, history and traditions alive by oral revelation from one generation to the next.

How where they able to tell sagas of things great leaders had done if they had no name of which to tell? (Try to tell your children about Napolean and all the things he did and all the people in his life without using his name)

It would be all too generic and vague for any real value. Did gargoyles never realy have great leaders? Did they consider the clan as a whole more important than the decision making of the leader?

Thanks

and further note-my post on the guitar tab--well the on the outro the difference in the type size from the field box to the post page made it look wrong. so here is the outro again.

E-6--6--6--6---6--6---6-------1---6---6---6]
B------------4------1---1---1-------]----CONTINUE
G
D
A
E

E--6h5h6h8---9h11h13h12---13h14---14h17---18
B
G
D
A
E

Greg responds...

History to the gargoyles is more about the clan, about movements, than about individuals. But descriptive terms can be used to identify individuals. (Cf. Homer's Illiad.) I'm forgetting the technical term just at this moment -- where's Aris when you really need him -- but if you've got a guy named Ajax of the Broad Shoulders, for example, then do you really need the "Ajax" part of the name.

The point of NOT naming, as Hudson would say is to NOT set limits on who or what an individual is. So he might be "Of the Broad Shoulders" one minute and also be "Of the Massive Temper" the next. Both would be true, but reflect an aspect of the individual, as opposed to making an attempt to wrap the entire individual up into one word: Ajax. Over time these epithets would become as familiar as a name for an historical figure -- particularly in the context of a tale told over and over again.

Response recorded on July 21, 2003

Bookmark Link

Vanity writes...

Questions regarding gargoyle sex and sexuality.

1) Do gargoyles reckognize their own sexiness, do they reckongnize that they may or maynot be sexier than another gargoyle?

2) Do gargoyles just instinctively know (or practice) sex or are they taught in some manner?

3) What is/are the function(s) of the female gargoyles' breasts? (Milk, motor oil, chiefly sexual)

4) Do tails play a role in sexual activity? If so how?

5) Do gargoyles practive pre mate-bonded sex, or generally stay virgin up to chosing a mate?

6) Oral sex?

7) Is rape a problem for gargoyles? Either by eachother or by humans whilst they are young.

8) Which would you consider more sexually active male gargoyles or female?

9) Goliath told Elisa that when she was human he hadn't realized how pretty she was. What physical traits in humans can potentially attract the eye of :
A- A male gargoyle to a human female?**
B- A female gargoyle to a human male?**
**no need for great specificity here, merely general qualities that may be attractive to a gargoyle

10) Do they suffer STD's?

note: I am not trying to be cute, I consider these serious questions, I however realise that question (4) is somewhat well...wrong, but I believe in its legitimacy.

Greg responds...

1. Huh? I think self-esteem/ego/etc. issues aren't much different for gargs than humans.

2. I'd lean more toward instinct, but I'm sure there is some discussion.

3. Milk. Garg females breastfeed the hatchlings.

4. Use your imagination.

5. Generally they mate for life.

6. Are you offering?

7. Without getting into rape specifically, I think the series has made an effort to show that no species corners the market on either good or evil.

8. Equal.

9. Likely the qualities they have in common, I suppose. Elisa's hair for example, I think, is very attractive to Goliath. Her lack of wings, tail and horns of any kind is probably not so attractive until (a) his eyes are opened during "The Mirror" and (b) he comes to terms with the strong attraction he has for her soul. I would think that for a gargoyle female, there wouldn't be that much in human males to find attractive. But that might just be my bias showing.

10. Not likely, as they heal every day, no illness really has the opportunity to take hold.

I get that you're serious. I tried to answer as seriously as I could and stay in the ASK GREG realm of PG. If you're attending the Gathering this year, Thom Adcox and I will be hosting a late night "Blue" Mug-A-Guest, i.e. an opportunity to ask us adult questions about the series. Over 18 only please.

Response recorded on June 20, 2003

Bookmark Link

Vanity writes...

When early man first met a Gargoyle was he just compelled to kill it? Did early man's superstitious and early proto-religous notions convince him that gargoyles must be evil? I would think that early man would be scared of the much more physically dominant gargoyles, however; mammoths proved no match for early humans. Of course I'm also curious as to gargoyles' reaction/response when early man first starting walking about.
Which specie of man first encountered gargoyle (Homo neanderthalis, Homo erectus, Homo sapien..ect..)?

Archeologists have definately found early man developing weapons crafted of wood and stone and bone. This would help offset the physical inequality between man and goyle. When did gargoyles borrow or invent tool making for themselves. Being 'rational' beings I would think it wouldn't take long for them to realize that the spears humans threw at them really hurt!!

I hate to ask a billion questions like this but....

You have said that gargoyle evolution predates mammalian evolution so Gargoyle evolved before man. So given the seemingly headstart in evolution how could they just let man rule the world.

Why does it seem that given the rough lives of gargoyles, which they had no better that early man; did they not invest themselves in art, music, and architecture. When even some of the earliest men developed tools, made art, evidence of instruments presumed by archeologists as perhaps made for music. They began religous elements as burying the dead and trying to preserve the elderly. (Evidence of this espicially advanced in Homo neanderthalis, of which old men have been found with multiple injuries{perhaps gargoyle induced} indicating his being taken care of by the neanderthal family even at the high risk way of life that the neanderthal lead). What accounts for early man's eagerness to "learn-adapt-evolve" where gargoyles seemed content just to use or mimik man's achievements?

Greg responds...

1. Not necessarily. I don't think early man could kill a gargoyle. That took practice.

2. I think fear -- not necessarily superstition, but old-fashioned, this thing is bigger and stronger than I am fear -- would have been there.

3. And Mammoths were something of a match for man, certainly they were dangerous prey. And they weren't nearly as intelligent as a gargoyle.

4. Since, my theory is that Gargoyles pre-date modern man, the answer is, all of them, I believe.

5. I don't have dates for this, but I'm not sure that gargoyles ever truly adopted the spear. Yes, it hurt. But they had better defenses (and offensive strategies) given their physical natures than to adopt spears.

6. Note - I don' mind a billion questions. Just wish you'd NUMBER them, for easier reference. (EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION!)

7. Well, they didn't just let men rule the world. They were largely asleep when man began to take over. Gargs tended to trump everything that came before, including man. But a man with tools, ultimately trumped the Gargs.

8. Who said they didn't? Who's to say that some of those artifacts you speak of weren't gargoylean. And were just attributed to man by human archaeologists who know no better.

9. No, not burying the dead, because gargs have their own tradition, the Wind Ceremony, ashes to ashes or dust to dust.

10. Again, you're assuming facts not in evidence. The fact that they didn't use clothes or weapons or have sophisticated shelters, none of which they physically required, is hardly proof that all they did was use or mimic man's achievements. The first time you meet the gargoyles, in 994, the species is, sadly, already in decline. What you know doesn't speak to what there was or might have been once upon a time.

Response recorded on June 16, 2003

Bookmark Link

Justin writes...

Greg,

I have questions about "full" clans.

1) Now a full clan in definition is a group with common family ties in some form. So would clans ever reach a setup where not every gargoyle knows the gargoyle? I.E a clan with say 500,000 members?

2) Will the Manhattan clan ever exceed a population of a 1 million? or more?

3) If three is yes than will some eventually move into the city and leave the castle?

thanks

Greg responds...

1. Not likely. Clans tend to split after their membership gets up into the range of about eighty.

2. Again, not likely.

3. You know I've only planned as far as the early 23rd Century. The numbers of living gargoyles worldwide don't approach what you're asking about. So I can't answer what would happen if or even whether we'd ever get up to numbers that high.

Response recorded on June 11, 2003

Bookmark Link

Jared Jones writes...

Hello. I am a big Gargoyles fan and I was wondering something, what would/does happen if a Gargoyle is no good at fighting enemies or protecting a castle or home? Or if a Gargoyle didn't want to fight. Thanks for your time.

Greg responds...

He or she would do other things. As all our characters do other things in addition to protecting and fighting. There might be some stigma attached. Hopefully, not too much.

Of course the gargoyles have many enemies, who might not care whether or not a gargoyle was inclined to fight. So it behooves all gargs to learn some basics in self-defense. Humans too, probably.

Response recorded on June 11, 2003

Bookmark Link

F7 Addict writes...

I finally got to see Bushido. I must compliment you on the effect caused by facing opposite the sun. I never realized just how used to their position relative to the sun I was. The backdrop when they turn to stone threw me. Sweet!

Greg responds...

Thanks, although I'm not sure you're right on target. They were facing into the building as opposed to facing out toward potential danger. Since they were still all around the building, at least a quarter of them were still facing the sun.

Response recorded on June 06, 2003

Bookmark Link

Benjamin Gilbert writes...

"A gargoyle can no more stop protecting the castle than breathing the air."

You've said (or implied) that Castle Wyvern was built while Hudson was the clan leader. So protecting the castle can't have been a deep-seated, traditional, imperative practice for the Wyvern clan. Sure, there was the normal gargoyle territorial instinct, but there wasn't a _castle_ to protect.

1. Did Hudson (or another clan elder?) invent that saying out of whole cloth? If so, why? Why did he feel the need to word this saying _so strongly_ for a practice less than a generation old, and repeat it to the hatchlings until they were sick of it? (Certainly the Trio seem to have heard it enough.)

2. If not, where did the saying come from, and why did Hudson latch onto it as strongly as he seems to have?

Greg responds...

1. I think that it was a slight adjustment of the original phrase, which may have been something like "A gargoyle can no more stop protecting the rookery than breathing the air." (I believe, by the way, that the "Rookery" used to refer to the gargs' entire home, not just the cave with the eggs.) Or maybe "A gargoyle can no more stop protecting the clan than breathing the air." Or something like that. Did Hudson make the necessary change? Probably.

Response recorded on June 02, 2003

Bookmark Link

matt writes...

do gargoyles have any special terms or names for the years or the parts of the year that they mate, lay eggs, or eggs hatch?

Greg responds...

Gargoyles aren't too big on naming things. But, yeah, probably.

Response recorded on May 19, 2003

Bookmark Link

Cha-cha writes...

1.Where there any other clans in Scotland around 994?
2.Was(and is it)uncommon for a gargoyle to mate outside the clan?
2a. If not, would that gargoyle belong to both clans or have to choose just one?

Greg responds...

1. Where were they or were there any? The answer to the latter is yes. Though even by 994, the Garg population in Scotland had already been decimated.

2. Well, I wouldn't say it was common back then, but no, I wouldn't say uncommon either. That's not meant to be evasive, just nuancy. It happens often enough so that no one would think it truly odd. But it's not like it was happening all the time.

2a. Ultimately, the gargoyle can't physically live in two places at once, so he or she or rather they (the couple) would have to chose, but that doesn't mean both or either wouldn't be welcomed at the other location.

Response recorded on April 21, 2003

Bookmark Link

Daphne writes...

you said that eventually the Gargoyles would attend night classes at colleges. would high schools or younger hold night courses for young gargoyles, or would they be generally homeschooled? and how would the schools adapt for the difference in aging rate?

Greg responds...

I won't pretend I've thought out all these details. Any change would be gradual at best. Homeschooling would predominate at first, certainly. Age would fundamentally have little to do with aptitude, I would think. But that might be controversial. It would be fun to explore, given the opportunity.

Response recorded on April 21, 2003

Bookmark Link

Dragon7 writes...

Dear Mr. Weisman I find your posts on gargoyle physiology and culture very fascinating. Having recently read some of your earlier answers to the newly identified Loch Ness Clan a question came to my mind as to how this clan raised and cared for its offspring. It is widely known that gargoyles in the other clans in the gargoyles universe lay eggs is this also true of the Lochness Clan and if so do they put their eggs into caves until hatching as the Wyvern Clan did in generations past?

Greg responds...

Yep.

Response recorded on April 15, 2003

Bookmark Link

Vashkoda writes...

I've never bother to question any of the following, and I still pretty much accept it as "just the way things are", but I figured I'd still ask about it just in case it led to any interesting revelations:

1) Why *do* gargoyles assume threatening poses while they sleep? You've mentioned that gargoyles have a similarity to scarecrows. Also, one explanation for building gargoyles on medieval churches was to scare away demons. But what's the "Gargoyles-Universe" explanation? Is it really that effective in scaring away predators (and what kind of animal would attack something made of stone, anyways?). Even scarecrows lose their effectiveness over time, once birds get used to them.

2) In Japan, where the clan said that they face inward as a sign of trust to the humans, they still strike frightening poses. Is this "pose-behavior" therefore something instinctual?

3) Similarly, why did the trio, Hudson and Bronx assume threatening poses as the Magus's sleep spell took place? I'm not sure the gargoyles even understood what was happening, or identified the Magus as a threat (Lex says, "What's he talking about?" and Hudson asks, "What's all this?" just before the spell). As they see the magic swirling around them, I think they get suspicious, but it still seems odd for them to assume attack poses at that moment (I would have expected them to be confused or afraid, but not violent, especially if they haven't had time to understand what's going on). I was wondering whether the fact that they were becoming stone had triggered their instinctual pose-behavior, or were they indeed getting ready to attack the Magus?

Greg responds...

1. Partially, it's just tradition. Keep potential enemies away. A reminder to any potential attacker of what they might face.

2. Possibly. You're in a state of relative vulnerability. The pose might lend some sense-of peace-of-mind.

3. That's possible too, although I always assumed that they were on the verge of leaping into action at the attack when they got caught in it.

Response recorded on April 11, 2003

Bookmark Link

Chapter XXXV: "Avalon, Part Two"

Time to Ramble...

"PART TWO"
Director: Dennis Woodyard
Writer: Lydia Marano
Story Editor: Brynne Chandler Reaves

I guess you guys were used to longer multi-parters from us, so you probably didn't think this was the last part when you saw Part Two come up after the title. I tried something different at the end though. Instead of writing "To be continued" I had them put down "To be concluded". It seemed (at least in my head) to increase tension to know that the next part would be the last.

I've been told by people that out of context, this episode is incomprehensible. I hope it's not quite that bad, but I will say that unlike the rest of our eps, I felt that multi-parter eps don't quite need to stand alone in the same way.

Still with all the time travel stuff, it's very complex. I remember Lydia having to come into my office after her first draft and needing me to diagram the time travel for her. The loop that the Archmage takes. I love it. But I guess it's not that easy to follow.

Anyway, this ep was designed to be the second part of a tryptich. This is the one where we focus on our villains and bring them all up to date, just as in part one, we focused on our heroes. All gearing to a MAJOR BATTLE coming in Part Three.

THE EGGS

Picking up where Part One left off, Elisa looks at Angela, Gabriel and Boudicca and says: "These are the eggs?" I love her tone there.

Guardian: "Sorry, I always call them that." It was a cheat to buy us, at least with some percentage of our audience, the shock value of expecting eggs and finding fully grown gargs and beasts instead. Still, I believe that a guy like Tom, dubbed "Guardian of the Eggs" would continue to use that term to refer to his kids, even after they are grown.

Goliath is initially shocked that the gargs have names. Angela says the standard human response: "How else would we tell each other apart?" This was done intentionally to both cover the issue of non-garg naming (which I still think is neat, but which is often a massive pain) and to indicate that these are gargs raised by humans.

BEACH FIGHT

So I'm in my office one day, after the script to "Avalon, Part Two" has gone final. And Supervising Producer Frank Paur and Producer/Director Dennis Woodyard come in. Frank hates the script. Dennis is calmer, but he seems to clearly agree with Frank, more or less.

I'm annoyed because it's VERY late in the game for them to be giving me these kind of notes. Things get heated between me and Frank.

I yell something like: "Well, what do you want me to do?!!!"

And he yells something like: "We need some action! Like a fight on the Beach with the Archmage!!"

And I start to object for about a second. Then I go, "Oh, yeah. A fight on the beach with the Archmage. That'd be cool. Would that fix it?"

"Uh. Yeah."

And that was it. Our fights were always like that. We always only wanted to make it better. He'd get worked up, but the solution wound up being simple and when push came to shove (we never actually pushed and shoved by the way) we agreed on nearly everything.

It was also good to have Dennis' calming influence. Frank and I would go momentarily nutty and Dennis would always maintain.

So anyway, after the fact we added the memorable fight on the beach. Now I can't imagine the episode without it. It forced us to trim down some the Archmages travels (cause we were already long) but it definitely improved the episode.

I think, not sure, but I think I wrote that fight because it came so late in the game. It's also possible, I might have taken it back to Brynne and/or Lydia to write. I really don't remember anymore.

Either way, there are some great lines:

Goliath: "Don't be too insulted!" I love how he goes nuts here. We really get a reminder of his warrior-ness.

Archmage: "Don't crow too loudly, after all, what have you accomplished: you beat up a beach." You beat up a beach. That's one of my favorite lines in the whole series.

Archmage: "At dawn you all will die. Get used to it!"

Tom: "Let's get out of here before the very air attacks us!"

The fight itself is pretty cool too. I like how Bronx and Boudicca immediately team up. I like the symbolic nature of the Archmage growing wings, turning to stone and then shattering. I think that was a board-artist's addition. I don't remember seeing that in the script. (And I'm too lazy to stand up and check right now.)

At the end of the fight, my five year old son Benny asked: "Why can't they glide to the castle?" I had to explain the flight rules.

ANGELA & GABRIEL

Elisa slides up to Goliath: "Angela sort of looks like Demona, except her coloring is different. Exactly whose daughter is she?" Again, I love Salli's reading here. That need to know. The jealousy. The feeling for Goliath -- who dodges the question by saying that all children belong to the clan.

But of course Elisa knows. Knows something that I believe never occured to her before. Sure, she knew that Goliath and Demona had been mates, lovers. But she didn't let her mind traverse to the next logical step. Parents. Together. Goliath and Demona.

And of course, the audience knows it too, I hope. It was never meant to be a secret to anyone but Angela who her biological parents are. These lines also served to point that out.

On the other hand, we didn't make a big deal of Gabe's bio-parentage. But I wanted it to be semi-clear that his folks were Othello and Desdemona (Coldstone and Coldfire). Anyone get that at first viewing?

REUNIONS

Everyone returns to Oberon's Palace. There are many injured and Gabe is apologetic. As Leader, he feels responsible. But there was 'never any need to hone our combat skills' before this.

Tom & Katharine are reunited. Elisa, the cop, picks up on the human dynamics, the relationships, immediately. She sees the Magus' reaction to their reunion.

I also really like the exchange between the Princess and Goliath.

K: "This is more than I could have hoped for."
G: "What you've done for the eggs is more than I could have dreamed of"

SLEEPING KING

We kept dropping hints. He's mentioned by the Magus, but the conversation moves quickly on.

Later, the Weird Sisters mentioned him. The Archmage is surprised to hear he's not a myth, causing Seline to say her famous: "All things are true." line. The Archmages promise to kill the king later.

And Elisa brings the guy up at the end. This policy was me trying to play fair and make his awakening in Part Three not seem artificial. But also not to allow the guy to distract from the matter at hand.

Of course, most of THIS crowd must have known the s-king was a ref to KING ARTHUR. Particularly when the Hollow Hill ref was thrown in too. But did anyone not know on first viewing?

LOOSE ENDS

This was an episode for tying up Loose Ends in a big way. Solving some mysteries.

Why did the Weird Sisters do what they did? (At least objectively.)

Why were Demona and Macbeth working together in "High Noon"? (Elisa: "They hate each other." Guardian: "I saw no sign of that.")

And how did the Archmage survive?

Tom unwittingly hints at the truth when he says that the Archmage seemed to be able to be in two places at once.

Now let's reveal...

WEIRD SISTERS

Wow! Did we get negative feedback from fans when we played the Sisters as villains here. Of course, I always had it in my head that the Sisters had three aspects. Grace, Vengeance and Fate. Sometimes one aspect is ascendent, but there is always a touch of all three in anything they do. But after the Sisters' Fateful appearances in "City of Stone", many fans rebelled at the notion that the objective reason they did all those things was for simple petty vengeance here in "Avalon". Oh, well.

[When Benny saw the Sisters for the first time, he said "Weird Sisters" with an interesting tone of awe. They're his favorites. But he didn't comment on them being bad guys here.]

The sisters have some nice lines...

L: "What is time to an immortal."
Phoebe: "This is true." (in ref to what cannot be broken can be bent).

ARCHMAGESES

Okay, this was just fun for me. In many ways the origin of much of this was the flat out talent of David Warner. He brought such life to the underwritten (and clichéd) part of the Archmage in "Long Way to Morning" that I just knew I'd have to bring him back. Many of the events of "Vows", "City of Stone", "High Noon" etc. were all geared toward bringing him back as a real THREAT!!

Yet with all this, I didn't want to forget the character's roots. We tried to set a balance between his clichés and his new power.

Think about it. The Archmage+ (as we called him in the script), had only been plussed for about a day. Still he's full of arrogance. His power hasn't raised him above that hybris nor above the thirst for vengeance nor above gloating or above impatience. That's his flaw, but also the fun, I think.

And of course, David. Wow.

Praise for Salli Richardson as Elisa. For Kath Soucie as Princess Katharine and all three Weird Sisters. For Frank Welker as Bronx and Boudicca.

But this Archmage stuff here is a tour de force, I think. David just went through, playing both characters. Both versions of himself. Keep in mind, he hadn't been privy to all that the writers had planned. He had come in for his small parts in both "Long Way" and "Vows". Now suddenly, he's this guy(s). Amazing.

"Do you know what to do?"
"I should. I watched you do it."

"Show some dignity."

"I could put you back where I found you."
"No, no." (I love that no, no. So tiny and fearful.)

"Not where. When."

"If you don't know, don't guess."

"The book must remain in play."

"Try to keep up."

"We're not doing her any favors."

"The rules that cannot be broken can surely be bent."

"Nine hundred and seventy-five YEARS??!!"

"I hadn't thought that far in advance."

"What am I supposed to do, eat it?!"

"Now I understand."

"As it did. As it must. As it always will!"

All great fun.

FLAWS

All these episodes were being produced simultaneously. All in various stages of production. So inconsistencies were bound to happen.

The Egg boats are messed up here. Demona's model in her flashback. Etc.

And storywise, what's the deal with Macbeth? I can see why the Archmage wants to include his former apprentice Demona in his plans. He felt betrayed by her, and is glad not to be doing her any favors by enslaving her.

But Macbeth?

Okay, it's not a true flaw. Macbeth is included because the 'plan of the Archmage' -- birthed whole from the timestream without the Archmage ever actually coming up with it independently (though he takes credit) -- included Macbeth.

It is the provence of Luna, not Seline, at work.

But still, I'd have liked to have been able to figure out some connection between the Archmage and Macbeth so that he wouldn't question the boy's inclusion. Thankfully, the Archmage+ is so arrogant, he takes credit and thus never questions. It occurs to me now, that I could have made a connection between Mac and his ancestors, all related to Katharine and Malcolm. Oh, well.

CAPTIONS

These became fun for me. Adding Captions indicating place and time is one of the very last steps in production. So I'm in there for the "On-Line" with Jeff Arthur, our post-production supervisor, and I'm just indulging...

Sure we start with...

"Scotland, 984 A.D."

But pretty soon we're at "YESTERDAY" and "SIX HOURS AGO" and "ONE MINUTE AGO" and finally "NOW".

It still makes me smile.

POWERING UP

So the Archmage gets the eye. Power. But he's still an idiot. He needs wisdom. He eats the book, which I always thought was really creepy and cool. Now he understands. Now we truly have two Archmage+es. But they can't coexist forever. Aside from how complicated that would be to choreograph, and aside from the fact that the timestream needs the younger of the two to fulfill his role....

They also couldn't coexist because both are too arrogant.

So we repeat the scene of departure to close the circle and tack on: "Finally. I thought he'd never leave."

BATTLE FLASHBACK

We get to see a new clan awake from stone. I hoped that was fun.

Ophelia appears (pre-injury). She looked way cool. For all those people who thought that Gabe and Angie were a couple, take a look at the way Gabe is holding Ophelia and looking at her after she's injured.

LAYING PIPE

In addition to the Sleeping King, we were also laying pipe for our whole fourth tier WORLD TOUR. Tom says: "Avalon dropped me in your laps." He credits Avalon with sending him to Goliath.

The Magus declares that he is without magic and useless. Katharine rebels at that: "Don't say it, and don't think it!" She loves him. Just not the way he wanted her to love him.

Bronx and Boudicca want to go with Goliath.

Elisa asks about the Sleeping King...

And Goliath, Angela and Gabriel take off on a stealth attack.

And we immediately see that the Archmage knows they're coming.

Uh oh.

As the Archmage says... "[We've layed all the damn pipe we could possibly need and more], Now the fun really begins!"

To be concluded...

And that's my ramble. Where's yours?


Bookmark Link

Creamy writes...

Yeah I knowm, stupid questions but...

1)When Gargoyles hatch are they infant or toodlers?
2)When first hatched can they crawl right off?
3)At about what time(month)of the year do they hatch?
4)You said that gargoyles nurse. So do the females take turns nursing all the hatchlings or just one?
5)For how long?
6)What age do gargyles usually learn to glide?
7)What did gargoyles do with hatchlings that were deformed or were found to have a mental retardation later on in life?

Greg responds...

1. Right when they hatch? Closer to infants.

2. No.

3. Generally, around Spring Solstice.

4. It's communal.

5. I'm not sure.

6. I'm not sure of this either. Something I wanted to explore in the future.

7. The clan takes care of its own.

Response recorded on January 15, 2002

Bookmark Link

Aris Katsaris writes...

How old do you think a hatchling would need to be before the Manhattan clan allowed him/her to take part in the patrols around the city? Would 13-year old Nashville (of the older conception) take part in patrols? The 9-year old one of the current conception?

Greg responds...

I don't know. Honestly. I think that gargoyles (traditionally) as in most quote-unquote primitive societies expected children to take on adult responsibilites at an earlier age than we generally do these days. But I haven't thought that out.

Of course, the interesting thing about Nashville is the notion of permission. You have a kid who's spent literally his entire life as a virtual temporal fugitive, it's going to be a little difficult to get him to just sit at the castle once he's in the relative safety of a static environment surrounded by an extended family of protectors.

That tension interests me. But I won't pretend to have worked out the details yet.

Response recorded on January 14, 2002

Bookmark Link

The Cat writes...

Hi Greg,

Last one from me, for awhile anyway.
Ok, these are about disabilities. I'm disabled and I was wondering about this because it seemed to me that the only gargoyles that had anything wrong with them (such as blindness or missing a limb) aquired it in battle.

1. Are any gargoyls born with problems that cause a disability?(Like, I have heart problems and they caused me to have a stroke when I was 4 years old which caused the right side of my body not to work properly.)
2. Are any gargoyles born blind, mute, deaf or missing any limbs?
3. If yes, what does the rest of the clan do with them?
4. If no, why not?

Ok, I'm being chased off the computer. I better run. Bye.

Greg responds...

1. I don't know. I won't rule it out, but I have their healing factor to figure in. It's also possible that some eggs just don't hatch. But I'd have to think and do more research.

2. Same answer. I'm not sure at this point.

3. The clan takes care of its own in any case.

4. The answer, if the answer is no, would have something to do with the healing factor which begins to work even in the egg. But again, I haven't considered this yet, honestly.

Response recorded on November 29, 2001

Bookmark Link

The Cat writes...

Hi Greg,

The Cat, again.
Ok, these questions are about language.

1. Do gargoyles have their own language?
2. If no, then how come the Guatamala and Japanese Clans could understand Goliath, Angela and Elisa when they were on the "World Tour"?
3. If yes, what would it be called? Don't you dare say English, that is a Human language!
4. How come the Guatamala Clan and the Japanese Clan could speak perfect English? It takes a bit of time to translate Spanish into English and vica versa. Same with Japanese.
5. Languages under go many changes. In just a generation the words that one used to mean "Nice!" Have gone from "Groovy!" to "Cool!" So, how could Elisa understand Goliath since the English language had gone through many changes in 1,000 years and most likely Goliath and his clan spoke Celtic, Gaelic or Anglo-Saxxon, not English?

Ok, Bye.

Greg responds...

1. No.

2. On some level we were cheating. But basically, we were assuming that English is fairly global at this point.

3. See above.

4. I wanted to make more use of foreign languages in these and at least a couple other episodes. Do a bit of stuff with subtitles. But my bosses rejected the idea.

5. This was another cheat, largely. I'm told, Michael Reaves has a theory to explain this using a magic spell. But I've not heard it first hand.

Response recorded on November 29, 2001

Bookmark Link

The Cat writes...

Hi Greg,

Ya said post every question separately for each topic, so that is what I'm doing.

Ok, these questions are on another topic of much controversy. Race. I'm curious about this topic because during my freshman and sophmore years in highschool my classmates were in a racial, I'll say, argument. While, I think, no one was hurt it left me wondering about what gargoyles might do in the same predicament.

So, here are the questions:
1. Are gargoyles prejudice of another gargoyle just because the other has something different than the others, like wings, a beak, ears, etc?
2. Do gargoyles ever think that they are better or worse off because of how they look?
3. If either of these two are incorrect, then why?

Well that's it, Bye.

Greg responds...

1. Because there is so much racial prejudice between gargoyles and humans, the cosmetic differences between various gargoyles seem relatively insignificant. Everything is relative, of course and depends on scale.

2. Sure.

3. See above.

Response recorded on November 29, 2001

Bookmark Link

The Cat writes...

Hey Greg,

Figured I'd nag ya just a little.

Ok, these questions are about religion. I'm curious about this one because I remember (this is still probably going on) when the northern half of Ireland was in turmoil with the southern half just because of religion.

So, here are the questions:

1. Are gargoyles concerned about religion as much as humans are?
2. Do they have their own?
3. Do they ever get into fights with other clans just because their version of the truth doesn't quite corruspond to the others version of the truth or because one clan may believe in one god or goddess while the other clan may believe in more than one god or goddess?

Or:
4. Are gargoyles so much "higher" than humans that they're not that petty and really don't care about whether or not the religion of one clan corrusponds to their's as long as it has something in it about protecting humans and being "good"?

Hope ya got all that. Hope I spelled right. Oh well, you should get the idea of what I mean if I didn't spell any big words right, like corruspond, I don't think I spelled that one right.

Greg responds...

1. Referring to any group of individuals as monolithic in their beliefs is a mistake. But generally speaking the Gargoyles' Faith, so to speak, is both animistic and monotheistic and essentially more laissez faire than most human religions. Codes of conduct and respect and tradition mean quite a bit. But God generally takes care of himself/herself.

2. Sure, to some extent. Check the archives under Gargoyle customs for more information.

3. Interclan warfare would be EXTREMELY rare in that the clans are so spread out even in medieval times.

4. Individual gargoyles may be more 'evolved' than individual humans, but one of the points of the series was that no one species is superior to any other species.

Response recorded on November 29, 2001

Bookmark Link

Mooncat writes...

If Gargoyles are biologically inclined to take a monogamous mate (as well as traditionally) why is it so easy for Thailog to discard Demona?

Can a gargoyle have physical relations with more than one other gargoyle before the "imprint" sets in? Or does the "imprint" set in during the first full physical relationship?

Greg responds...

Opportunistic programming allows Thailog to override certain impulses.

Generally, the latter.

Response recorded on October 10, 2001

Bookmark Link

matt writes...

a couple weeks ago someone asked what gargoyles protected before the other races showed up and you said each other. but since we have the Mayan clan protecting a forest, the Loch Ness clan protecting prehistoric monsters, the London Clan protecting a shop in SOHO, and i'm sure there were other examples, what gargoyles protect has always been extremely varied and never limited to sentient beings.

1. it seems from clan to clan there is a wide range of what to protect. why is that?

2. every species, like the gargoyles, protect their own kind and eggs, etc., but why did gargoyles begin to extend that protection to more than themselves?

Greg responds...

1. Reread your own preamble. Good. Now. Why do you think?

2. Because they care.

Response recorded on September 06, 2001

Bookmark Link

John writes...

Hi Greg,
now, I have something REALLY nice for you:

http://www.imdb.com/Title?0108783#comment

Oh, yes. I've allmost forgotten my question: the Gargoyles in 995 took a new children as a children of the whole clan. Will it be the same in 2198, or will the Gargoyles here raise their kids like we do??

CU, John

Greg responds...

Nice link. Very kind words. Thanks.

Largely, gargs in 2198 return (assuming any ever left) to communal rearing of their children.

Response recorded on September 06, 2001

Bookmark Link

Justin writes...

Hi Greg,

1a) I would like to know whose responsibility is it to train the younger warriors in a clan? 1b)Is it the leader? 1c)The second? 1d)Or some other garg entirely?

2) If the answer is the second then did Hudson's mate train while she was alive? Did Goliath take the job once he was chosen? Did Demona take it after him?

Greg responds...

Ultimately, the leader is responsible. But the whole clan is also responsible. It's possible that some clans at some times might appoint an individual to head up training. But again, that doesn't remove responsibility from either the leader or the clan as a whole.

Response recorded on September 06, 2001

Bookmark Link

matt writes...

1. would two gay or lesbian gargoyles still be considered rookery parents to certain generations of hatchlings?

2. if a gargoyle had no mate, would he/she still be able to be a rookery parent to certain generations if he/she wanted too?

3. if a gargoyle is the biological parent to a hatchling in a rookery, can he/she choose not to be a rookery parent and be accepted by the clan for that choice?

Greg responds...

1. Traditionally, and I'm not saying I approve, the only gargoyles who were considered rookery parents were the ones who actually contributed to the breeding. But there are also uncles and aunts, grandparents, cousins etc. who helped with child-rearing.

2. Again, traditionally, they were still not counted as 'parents' but as members of the clan, they would share responsibility for raising the children. How much of that responsibility was assumed by any individual, depended on that individual's desire and abilities.

3. Uh.... This again would be beyond unusual and not well accepted or understood by the clan. Also it would take a sort of conscious statement on the part of the individual. He or she would have to be making a big point of not wanting to participate. Because given that there's a whole clan there raising each new generation, it would be easy enough to just not do all THAT much with the kids, if you weren't inclined.

Good questions, by the way.

Response recorded on September 06, 2001

Bookmark Link

Lord Sloth writes...

1. Why does Hudson where a full set of clothes when most of the other Wyverin Gargoyals seem content with loin cloths and bra cloths (or whatever they are called).

2. Do you know what thoes "bra cloths" the female Gargoyles wear are really called? I'm not sure why this question interests me. Really.

Greg responds...

1. Sloth, I'm guessing that you're either young or in good shape or both.

2. Is this a quiz?

Response recorded on September 03, 2001

Bookmark Link

Vashkoda writes...

Referring to that Tootsie Roll quote, did you mean "my sympathies" to those who know of it because it would mean that we're old, or were you apologizing to us for using that quote as your answer? Anyways, like Sapphire said, it's not *that* old--in fact, it played when Gargoyles was still part of The Disney Afternoon (I know because it's on one of my tapes, though it's a version with a robot and a dinosaur monster instead of "Mr Owl" and "Mr Turtle").

I know I had a question to insert in here somewhere.... Ah yes:

You also just said, "Tachi will also get some individual rearing, because B&K will be the only parents in range." Maybe I misheard you, but I thought that at the Gathering you said that from your timeline calculations, it turns out that Tachi will still be an egg when Brooklyn returns from his timedancing. So did I misunderstand, or did you do some re-calculating?

Greg responds...

Tachi will be born after they return. But she'll be the only egg to hatch in 1998 and thus the only set of rookery parents will be Brooklyn and Katana. She'll have a lot of rookery aunts and uncles though.

But basically, I was splitting hairs a bit.

Response recorded on September 01, 2001

Bookmark Link

matt writes...

1. in 1996, does the Loch Ness clan use names?

2. does the New Olympus clan?

3. does the Pukhan clan?

4. does the Xanadu clan?

Greg responds...

I have intentionally not made decisions about this at this time.

Response recorded on August 30, 2001

Bookmark Link

Lord Sloth writes...

Do they main 7 Gargoyles only protect Manhattan and not the rest of new york? I know protecting Manhattan alone must be a lot of work, but still, why are they being so selective?

Greg responds...

Times have changed, and they are now more far-ranging. But initially they limited themselves to the island of Manhattan, because that was something that their medieval minds could grasp. An island fortress was just an extension of the community and castle that they were accustomed to protecting.

Response recorded on August 24, 2001

Bookmark Link

Kelly L Creighton/Kya White Sapphire writes...

just another FYI

I was watching discovery, learning about human relationships. a theory says that way back when humans were hunter/gatherers, a pair would mate, and stay together long enough for the offspring to no longer "burden" its parents. then the pair would split, and find new mates, therefore keeping a large range of genetic possibilities.

the theory further stats that modern humans seem to have kept this behavior somewhat, which explains the trouble so many humans have staying with a life mate.

another part of the theory says that humans generally have three marriages: the first for sex, the second for children, the third for comanionship.

so gargoyles combine all three into one. cool. but again, that hurts their genetic diversity :)

Greg responds...

I suppose, but only when you put it that way. If humans are only mating once for kids, then they are no better off.

Response recorded on August 21, 2001

Bookmark Link

Sexy Queer writes...

Do Garagoyle Clans view or declare a Homosexual mating or as some humans do they think thats to werid?

Greg responds...

I swear, I'm not clear what you are asking here.

Response recorded on August 06, 2001

Bookmark Link

Jimmy writes...

If gargoyles evolved before humans and the fay, what did they to protect?

Greg responds...

Each other, as usual, and whatever else was around. Also that long ago, I'm not guaranteeing that GARGOYLES PROTECT was the big slogan.

Response recorded on July 18, 2001

Bookmark Link

Steven L. writes...

Gargoyles mate for life. Does that mean that once two gargoyles show interest in each other, and become intimate, that they've mated, and are officially forevermore monogamous?
If so, what happens if, over the years, the two gargoyles come to drift apart, or realize they have nothing in common? Do they stay together simply because of tradition? I take it there's no gargoyle equivalent of divorce. (Or at least there wasn't until Goliath and Demona kinda set precident).
And in that vein; should a gargoyle have an affair, then what happens if that affair is discovered? Does the unfaithful gargoyle and the one he/she had the affair with get banished from the clan?
Hope this hasn't been asked before.

Greg responds...

Gargoyles mate in both sexual and ritualistic fashion. After that they GENERALLY (and that's the key word) remain monogamous.

They imprint upon each other biologically, and there are strong ties of custom to discourage a split. Affairs, I believe, are quite rare.

But as you noted, sometimes things don't work according to plan. Iago has clearly imprinted on Desdemona, though she is imprinted on Othello and he has imprinted on her.

Goliath and Demona imprinted upon each other, but maybe as a result of a thousand years, that imprinting didn't last. Goliath has clearly imprinted anew on Elisa. (BTW, I'm not sure I'm using the word imprinting correctly. I know it's generally used for babies to imprint on their mothers. But it's the closest thing I can think of.)

So there are issues of both biology and custom that discourage anything like divorce or cheating. But that doesn't mean it NEVER happens.

Response recorded on July 18, 2001

Bookmark Link

Gipdac writes...

Do the members of the Avalon clan celebrate their hatch-days the same way we celebrate our birthdays? I know hatch-days aren't important to Gargoyles, but humans raised them, so.

Greg responds...

They all hatched together over a two or three day period. It's a community celebration.

Response recorded on July 11, 2001

Bookmark Link

Gipdac writes...

1) Will Angela and Broadway raise their kids like humans, by only two parents, or will they be raise like gargoyles, in a collective rookery?
2) If so, will that trend continue into the future?
3) What about Brooklyn and Katana's children will they raise their children collectively or individually?

Greg responds...

1. Like gargs.

2. Generally.

3. Nash will be raised individually, initially, or communally if you consider that his TimeDancing parents represent the complete community of adults. Tachi will also get some individual rearing, because B&K will be the only parents in range. But both kids will get a lot of community parenting from the Manhattan Clan.

Response recorded on July 11, 2001

Bookmark Link

Vashkoda writes...

You've said that gargoyles *could* live up to an old age, but that few survive that long because of the violence of the times.

1a) Were the Wyvern gargoyles constantly under attack in the days before castle Wyvern? b) ...after Castle Wyvern? c) I think you'd mentioned an event we'd never seen where many in the Wyvern clan were murdered, hence explaining their numbers in 994. Can you confirm this, and give us any details on the event?

2a) Are these warriors dying young, or are they dying as they start reaching their 120's or so, and start slowing down? b) Are older gargoyle warriors expected to keep fighting, or at some point are they able to retire? c) Is this expectation what's causing gargoyles not to live up to their 200's?

Greg responds...

1a. I don't know about constantly. But there were problems.

b. Ditto.

c. I don't recall that. I did mention that the clan colonized a new location before 994.

2a. Both, I suppose. I don't like talking in generalities. (I like being mysterious, of course. That's different.) I tell stories about individuals. Just not here.

2b. The concept of retirement is largely human. Though Hudson did step aside for Goliath.

2c. Possibly.

Response recorded on July 06, 2001

Bookmark Link

Blaine writes...

Okay, so we know gargoyles mate for life, but do they ever date.
1) Like, for example, Gabriel and Angela (I know they aren't a couple, it just an example it could be replace with anyone (Demona/Coldstone, Zafiro/Turquesa, etc.) but what if they had dated for a little and decided they just didn't like each other that way, and then they both go off to find other mates (Ophelia and Broadway). Again, not literally Angela and Gabriel but just for example. Could or would that ever happen? And I realize I thinking really human on this one.
2) And what if your mate dies. Could you remate (that's not a word, but you get the idea). Like Hudson, could (not will, so you wanted be revealing anything) find another mate?
Thank you, I LOVE the show ;-)

Greg responds...

1. You're thinking pretty human. The clan spends a LOT of QUALITY TIME together. There's time to get to know prospective mates without "dating".

2. In theory, it's possible. Goliath lost his mate and is now extremely attached to Elisa. But that's the exception. Not the rule.

Response recorded on July 02, 2001

Bookmark Link

Punchinello writes...

Hello Mr. Weisman.

I don't come here often, but occasionally I'm struck by the urge to quiz you on something. I was browsing the questions you're fielding, and I was struck again by something I notice every time I visit this page. There seems to be some preoccupation here with "the mind of the other." I noticed another poster make reference to your interest in it (although I cannot find any record of your having initiated the discussion).

While the series was still active I saw you invoke this theme frequently whenever you emphasized the cultural shock that the gargoyles experienced in modern America, and I appreciated the fact that you treated our linguistic tendencies to "name everything" as a curious human social construction. It helped to push the idea that these creatures were _not_ human and that we could not understand their natures or their motivations from within the context of human sensibilities. I see there is some similar talk here of the fay, and the notion that their essential nature might be something that is sufficiently far removed from humans so as to be outside our understanding. All of this puts me in mind of the anthropomorphic problem that the SETI administration outlined for dealing with the idea of extraterrestrial intelligence's. Human beings have a tendency to ascribe human values to non human species, and beyond that have considerable difficulty in contextualizing "the mind of the other" without unconsciously resorting to the context of human sensibilities.

Which brings me to the reason for this post; because being a student of the sciences (and probably less attached to my humanity than most people), I have found reason to be extremely critical of some of the aspects of the way the anthropomorphic problem is treated within the natural sciences as it applies to non-human animals. Generally speaking, my problem is that some of the more archaic ethical distinctions that are made between humans and other animals have their foundation in the premise that the ascription of certain mental capacities ( reflection, emotion, etc.) are the ascription of _uniquely human_ qualities. The fact that this premise, itself, is socially constructed rather than informed by data, seems to be lost on at least most _social_ scientists. What is troubling me is that I have begun to observe this kind of thinking migrate into the popular domain through science fiction. I don't really follow sci fi, but I've seen star trek, and I have had occasion to see the half-dozen or so other popular sci fi programs that one can find on television. I see a trend wherein the heroes casual disintegration of a planet is commonly justified with the hazily defined and indistinct ethics of "It did not harbor any sentient life."

This trend is scaring the hell out of me; because the expression "sentient" is not really used within the scientific community, so it does not have any agreed upon definition attached to it and there is no objective data informing the idea of it. The word seems to have infiltrated popular culture, however, where it finds frequent expression. That's what's bothering me. I see a lot of the same hazy ethical reasoning on this board. A number of messages expressing the confusion that humans in your story were subject to when they "mistook the gargoyles for animals rather than sentient beings" and in doing so, justified a campaign to exterminate them.

I would hope that a reasonable group of people would be given pause by the almost casual disregard for life that is being demonstrated with the prioritization of one life over another based upon the presence or non-presence of this seemingly magical endowment. Because if I am reading the intentions of the contributors to this board accurately, then it would appear their position is that if the occupants of that clock tower had been a group of stray dogs or a family of polar bears, then annihilating them with a wire guided missile would have been perfectly reasonable. "It's all right. It didn't harbor any sentient life." I would encourage the fans that come to this site to give some thought to what it is they mean by "sentience." What is the content of this sentience? If it entails that a creature can react to it's environment, anticipate, reflect and emote, then it should be pointed out that what available data exists indicates that this capacity is only about as exclusive a domain as most land based vertebrates.

I guess they shouldn't have disintegrated that planet after all. I hope to encourage others to give this issue the thought that it requires. I am also hoping to elicit some commentary from you, on the matter of how you perceive "the mind of the other." What mental distinctions do you draw between humans and gargates or faeries. I would be interested in hearing you address the notion.

Punchinello

Greg responds...

Thank you for writing. It certainly gets me thinking.

I'm probably as guilty as anyone of overusing, or rather overbilling the issue of "sentience". I think the concept has its uses. But it's probably used as a crutch too often.

Certainly, I don't want to see a family of polar bears, anthropomorphic or otherwise, blown up by a guided missile.

I don't much like the idea of destroying planets. In science fiction or otherwise.

As to this "mind of the other" concept...

Well for starters, I don't believe I did initiate the discussion of it -- unless you're including my constant admonishments to posters here that they are thinking like a human.

The previous post by Demoness and my response are a perfect example. She thinks Oberon is out of line. But she's thinking like a human, and a biased one at that. (I don't mean to pick on you, Demoness.) Oberon has a valid point of view. We may not like it, but it seems justifiable to me.

But the question of the mind of the other, was posted here initially by someone else. ( I can't remember who it was at this moment. ) I only just answered it in the last few days. Since you posted YOUR question, hopefully you've seen my response to that one.

And to reiterate, my response was that I'm still (in our universe) interested in the mind of US. Not the OTHER. But one way to explore that is to put ourselves in the shoes of the OTHER. Finding and describing and bringing the OTHER to life, whether as a Gargoyle or as a Child of Oberon, is for me an exercise in EXTRAPOLATION.

For example: If I was me, BUT I turned to stone every day AND I aged at half the rate I currently do PLUS most of my species had been exterminated 1000 years ago, ETC. -- then WHAT WOULD I BE LIKE?

For me, it's less about investing in species then in individual characters. Each with his or her own UNIQUE LIST of "extrapalatory parameters" (I just made that phrase up.)

It's really no different with a character like Elisa. After all, I'm a white Jewish male from California who has spent his entire adult life working in fiction. Elisa is an African-American/Native-American female from New York who's spent her adult life fighting crime. To understand her, I need to extrapolate.

However, in order to understand individuals of another species, I need to know more about that species. I need to envision the parameters that I will use to fully create their characters. So I've done that. In many ways, to me, gargoyle culture represent a kind of ideal. Not perfection, which doesn't personally interest me. But an ideal. Purpose. Loyalty. Oneness with the world they live in. Etc. I've borrowed things that I admired from multiple cultures and from my imagination, and I've tried to weave it into a coherent whole that fits the biology that I assigned them. These biological limits also create parameters for extrapolating character. Yes, the turning to stone thing. But also the group egg laying on a twenty year cycle. This naturally leads into the group child rearing thing. One is biological. One is cultural. But they are linked by extrapolation.

[Or... and I know this sounds silly but... perhaps they are linked by truth. By the fact that they exist in the Gargoyle Universe. As I've said many times before, sometimes this show flowed so well and easily, that it just seemed like I was tapping into something that existed. (But that's got nothing to do with this discussion, so let's ignore it.)]

And yet, from my point of view, all this is used to further illustrate the human condition. I don't think Oberon does or should think like us. But don't we all know a couple people with a little Oberon in them.

Keith David has said, as recently as seven days ago, that when he grows up he hopes to be like Goliath. And I personally think, that flawed as he is, Goliath is a wonderful role model. So we, as humans, can learn from Gargoyles. And we, as humans, can learn from Margot Yale as well. Maybe as a negative example. Maybe as something more down the road.

Ending Hunter's Moon with Jon Canmore becoming the human equivalent of Demona, was not an accident. They arrived at that point in two very different ways -- each, I hope, well informed by his or her species. (Or well extrapolated.) Nevertheless, the similarities between them are obvious and represent a "lesson" for us all.

All that stuff interests me MUCH, MUCH more than the exercise of creating something fully OTHER, just for the sake of achieving that.

Someday that may not be true. Aliens could land in Washington D.C. tomorrow and then comprehending the OTHER for the sake of understanding the OTHER will become a BIG priority fast. But for the time being, the human race is effectively alone in the universe. And before the aliens land, I'd like us all to get to know ourselves MUCH, MUCH better. In that sense, an Oberon, a Goliath, a Nokkar, are all just tools to that end.

The concept of sentience, comes in again, as I said, as a crutch. A convenient distinction between Bronx and Goliath, for example. Let's say you're from Russia. You don't speak English, and Goliath doesn't speak Russian. Still you have a hope that one or both of you may learn to speak the other's language. Dialogue is possible.

Bronx isn't ever going to speak Russian or English. That's the distinction. For what it's worth. In a moral sense, I'd say it's not worth MUCH at all. In a PRAGMATIC sense, we're not being honest if we don't admit it MEANS a lot.

Now. I don't think sentience is a WALL. Koko the gorilla can communicate in sign language. And I've got to say, I'm not sure that whales and dolphins aren't squealing complex philosophical discussions every day of the week. (Which is confusing because Dolphins have an eight day week, and whales have a thirty-seven day week. But what are you going to do?)

But even including a Bronx or a Cagney has value in the show. How do we respond to them. How do they respond to us? It's fun to do "The Hound of Ulster" and try to understand how an "animal" responds to various stimuli. It's still extrapolation. Now, with Bronx, I can cheat. I can keep him a beast and anthropomorphize him to my heart's content, because that species doesn't truly exist. I can make him as intelligent as I want. My goal there is to simply be consistent. Bronx can't start responding like Scooby Doo one day. You get the idea.

It's still about us understanding us and our place in the world. If in my own small way, I'm helping to open minds, helping to pave a bit of a way for when the aliens DO LAND, then great. But first and foremost, I'm asking us to KNOW OURSELVES.

Anyway, I feel like I'm starting to get repetitive. But this whole thread intrigues me. Feel free to post again with a follow-up. And everyone's welcome to join in.

Response recorded on July 02, 2001

Bookmark Link

matt writes...

are there any other titles and positions in gargoyle clans besides leader and second in command? perhaps like rookery-guard, gargbeast-keeper, shaman, etc.?

Greg responds...

Not universally.

Response recorded on July 01, 2001

Bookmark Link

Demonskrye writes...

Been a while since I asked anything. So here are a few questions related to gargoyle mating and the related customs. (Don't worry. It's pretty G rated.)

1. If a gargoyle does not mate for some reason, is he or she still considered a clan father or mother to the children of his or her rookery siblings?

2. Is there any kind of social pressure on young gargoyles to choose mates?

Thanks for answering.

Greg responds...

1. Depends. Generally not. But there are always "uncles" or "aunts" who act more like parents than the parents.

2. Probably. (I'm not defending this, but I'm sure it exists.)

Response recorded on July 01, 2001

Bookmark Link

matt writes...

you said that Tom, Katherine, and the Magus tried to raise the eggs in the gargoyle way as best they knew from experience and any information the Magus had, etc.
so, Tom knew that gargoyles don't use names, he had that whole conversation with who would become Brook and Lex (btw, i love this scene) so why did they give the eggs names? were they just too human to resist the temptation? did the three humans all agree to give them names or did one or two of them not want to name the gargs?

Greg responds...

Tom may have objected at first, but with us poor humans, I think it's just too hard. I can't see Katharine having that kind of patience. Even the new improved Katharine. And once she and the Magus starting using them, then Tom and the gargoyles themselves aren't far behind.

Response recorded on June 30, 2001


: « First : Displaying #62 - #161 of 294 records. : 100 » : Last » :