A Station Eight Fan Web Site
Ask Greg Archives
Gargoyle Customs
Archive Index
: « First : « 25 : Displaying #145 - #169 of 294 records. : 25 » : Last » :
Posts Per Page: 1 : 10 : 25 : 50 : 100 : All :
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
Sloth writes...
Why is it that in "Enter Macbeth" Goliath dosen't want to lose his castle and Hudson is pointing out that it's just a place of stone and wood. Then later in "Reawakining", Hudson is the one who is worried about the clocktower too much but Goliath is saying it's just where they sleep. I know it seems like a small thing, but I'd still like it clarified.
Thanks
Greg responds...
Hudson was being practical in "Enter". Goliath wasn't being realistic.
In "Reawakening" the issue is different. The Clock Tower is now their home. Hudson is using a tenth century definition of home. Goliath, by this time, has adapted somewhat to the notion that what they must protect isn't simply their new castle (i.e. the clock tower) but rather their new CASTLE, i.e. Manhattan.
Two totally different points were being made in those two episodes. Unfortunately, I don't know if I've made that clear. If not, let me know and I'll try again.
matt writes...
you said that the cross-generational love between Yama and Sora isn't the norm, but isn't unheard of, so:
1. are there gargoyles (esspecially among the Ishimura clan) that are against relationships between non-rookery siblings?
2. have Yama or Sora ever wondered if perhaps they are biologically closely related, like brother/sister, uncle/niece? are they ever insecure about having a non-traditional relationship?
3. will they still be able to have 3 children if they want to? obviously, Sora being younger should be able to concieve 3 times, but are male gargoyles able to fertilize an egg at any time in their life? if they have 3 eggs, Yama will be a generation older than most the other fathers in the clan...
Greg responds...
1. It's not that much of a taboo. Certainly not when the individuals are only one generation apart.
2. This isn't really an issue. As I've stated before, gargoyles have scent markers that unconsciously discourage them from an unhealthy incestuous relationship.
3. It should work out, depending on how long Yama's away from the clan.
matt writes...
ok, from what you've told us, Angela and Broadway will raise their children in human fashion, being their children's only parents, but you've also said that Lex and other gargs of certain ages will be the parents of their children? how will their children be raised, from a biological standpoint or a rookery standpoint or in a combination of these ways?
Greg responds...
Yes.
Justin writes...
Greg,
Hey here are some questions
1) Will Broadway and Angela's kids know that those two are there biological parents?
2) Will Broadway be more of a traditionalist in the sense that he would want the clan to raise the children, or will he want to raise his children as his own? I would think Angela want want to do the a latter.
3)Will Broadway and Angela see eye to eye on the parenting proccess?
Thanx
Greg responds...
1. Not necessarily. Artus is more likely to know than Gwen or Lance. Only because there are fewer garg parents in the castle early on.
2. Both Broadway and Angela will lean toward the Gargoyle Way. I understand why you think Angela would favor the human approach, but I think you're misinterpreting things. Keep in mind how she was raised. Three parents. Many siblings. There's a certain fascination with biology which I think is "human" and natural. But ultimately, I think love for the "eggs" would win out with her. How can she possibly love one "egg" more than another, just because she laid one.
3. On everything? Doubt it. Generally? Yes.
matt writes...
do baby gargs need to have diaper changes?
this question is a feeble attempt to find out if/how gargs go to the bathroom, sorry, couldn't resist!
Greg responds...
I'm going to remain consistent and leave bathroom functions as a private matter.
matt writes...
ok, Sapphire, now you are starting to freak me out a little... the second i read that last post of yours i felt like someone WAS watching me... *shiver* why can't you just leave me alone! i'm not sure what i did to you, but was it really so hurtful and destructive?
anyway... i was wondering about the word "gargoyle" in the gargoyle universe. in our universe the word comes from the noise water makes when flowing off stone gargoyles, which served as rain spouts, but i was wondering if that is the explanation in the garg universe. i don't think humans in the garg universe chiseled gargs into our buildings until after we discovered living gargoyles, right? what i'm asking really is did gargoyles come up with the term "gargoyle" or did humans (as always) give them the name? and when was this term given to the gargoyles?
Greg responds...
The etimology of the word gargoyle goes back a long way. It evolved at least in part from an Atlantean word. That's all I want to say at this time. But hold tight. More will be revealed at the Gathering 2002 in Virginia Beach.
matt writes...
will the Manhatten clan keep wearing their loincloths and old scottish-wear forever or will they adapt more modern-like clothing? i realize that most modern clothes arn't designed for wings and tails, but you know what i mean, i hope... like shorts or jeans with a hole for the tail or something like that...
Greg responds...
Generally, the answer is no.
Corrine Blaquen writes...
Every now and then in the series, we hear a gargoyle use the oath "By the Dragon!" For some reason, I'd always assumed that this referred to the dragon constellation, Draco. I don't know why; it was just my first thought. Is it at all correct? If not, what is this "Dragon" they refer to?
Greg responds...
not saying at this time...
But mostly, at this point, it's just an expression.
: « First : « 25 : Displaying #145 - #169 of 294 records. : 25 » : Last » :