no name writes...

Can halflings with a Gargoyle and a Third Race parent have children with humans - or human/Third Race halflings with Gargoyles?

Masterdramon writes...

Hey Greg! Hope that you're doing well, and that the holiday season is treating/did treat (depending on when you read this) your family happily.

What follows is a paper I recently submitted to my Contemporary Political Theory class at Pomona College, interrelating several of the concepts from the book we discussed that week ("You Are Not a Gadget" by Jaron Lanier) with the notion of namelessness in traditional gargoyle culture.

My professor (unfamiliar with the show, but very intrigued when I explained it to her) really got a kick out of the piece, and I earned a more-or-less "A-" equivalent for it. But as long as I've got it sitting around, I figured you might enjoy giving it a read as well.

[NOTE: You may want to review this post you made on Ask Greg in 2004 beforehand, as it is cited frequently: http://www.s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?rid=387].

Now, without further ado, the essay. It has been edited from the submitted version only by rearranging paragraph breaks...

The 1994 animated television series Gargoyles posits a highly intelligent species which dominated the Earth prior to human genesis and ascendance.

These gargoyles possess a unique culture which predates humanity's by a significant period, but the first on-screen depiction of the gargoyle species takes place in the 10th century, after millions of years of convergent evolution between the two cultures.

Indeed, the pilot episodes depict the essential death of one lingering component of gargoyle culture, at least for the series protagonists: that gargoyles lack personal names. This idea is first discussed in a conversation between two gargoyles and a human boy:

TOM: I'm Tom. What's your name?
GARGOYLE #1: Except for Goliath, we don't have names.
TOM: How do you tell each other apart?
GARGOYLE #1: We look different.
TOM: But what do you call each other?
GARGOYLE #2: (shrugs) Friend.

For context, "Goliath" is the leader of the clan of gargoyles to which the protagonists belong, and their liaison to the humans with whom they share an uneasy alliance; those humans felt incapable of dealing with a nameless entity, and Goliath did not bother to reject the name they selected for him.

Still, he does not use the name in communicating with his own clan until a betrayal by their human allies and a magical curse cause the protagonists to sleep as statues and then reawaken in 20th century Manhattan.

Here they meet and befriend Elisa Maza, a police detective who is both confused by and - for reasons she has trouble articulating - uncomfortable with this traditional lack of names. The following exchange takes place between Elisa and the clan's elderly mentor:

ELISA: Are you coming on the tour…uh, what do I call you, anyway?
GARGOYLE: Must you humans name everything? Nothing's real to you till you've named it, given it limits!
ELISA: It's not like that! It's just that…well, uh…things need names.
GARGOYLE: Does the sky need a name? Does the river?
ELISA: The river's called the Hudson.
GARGOYLE: (sighs) Fine, lass…then I will be 'the Hudson' as well.
ELISA: Great! Hudson it is.

From that point onward, that particular gargoyle is known as Hudson, and only Hudson.

The younger gargoyles who survived the centuries follow suit; the two who conversed with Tom become Lexington and Brooklyn, for example. And Goliath more-or-less fully accepts the moniker afforded him by the Dark Age humans.

As Gargoyles creator Greg Weisman points out, "naming is clearly addictive," and once they are established the convenience they offer makes doing away with them virtually impossible. Thus, for the Manhattan Clan of gargoyles, namelessness largely remains a thing of the past for the remainder of the series.

In "You Are Not a Gadget," Jaron Lanier describes the phenomenon experienced by these gargoyles using the term "lock-in."

As Lanier puts it, "lock-in…removes design options based on what is easiest to program, what is politically feasible, what is fashionable, or what is created by chance." Furthermore, the process "also reduces or narrows the ideas it immortalizes, by cutting away the unfathomable penumbra of meaning."

Despite originally referring to programming language, this is a perfect description of the process that "Hudson" has been subjected to in the previous scene.

Names are a method of defining identity, which necessarily must involve "giving it limits." But in traditional gargoyle culture, identity has greater meaning than that; it is amorphous, and changes with the circumstances.

The gargoyle who first made a compact with the humans at Castle Wyvern is the same gargoyle who mated three times and produced three progeny; he is the same gargoyle who fought the evil Archmage and received a wound that blinded him in one eye; he is the same gargoyle who slept for centuries and once awakened, found himself fascinated with the television show "Celebrity Hockey."

Does one name - Hudson - really encapsulate all of these aspects of his identity?

In-and-of-itself, all it signifies is that the place Hudson awoke in was modern-day New York (a cut line from the episode's script even has Elisa commenting, "Good thing we weren't facing Queens," emphasizing with humor how off-hand and esoteric the choice was).

That name was "locked-in" as the full and entire representation of the character from that point onward, solely because it was politically feasible (it makes dealing with Elisa and later human allies far more expedient), it was fashionable (every other intelligent being in 1994 New York has a name, so why not the gargoyles?), and it was created by chance (quite literally in this case, as the "Queens" quote illustrates).

And the result is that the very meaning of his identity is narrowed. He is no longer capable of being someone at a particular moment, and someone else in the next.

He is always Hudson.

There is an even greater story here, however, which Weisman's later musings have helped to illuminate. As he once observed, "Gargoyles don't seem to have a native language. They acquire human language, perhaps much the same way that they acquire names…And language, in many ways, is just sophisticated naming."

This is a compelling point. As he later notes, a different and arguably much more persuasive response that Elisa could have offered is that the river is called "the river."

Languages are systems for describing objects, concepts, actions, etc. using strict and uniform definitions, confining them to names that society calls words.

But does a name like "the sky" really fully encapsulate the meaning inherent within the depths that humans observe from below? Does it even begin to provoke a holistic understanding of its astronomical, religious, chemical, or poetic contexts?

And even more to the point, what of metaphysical concepts like "justice"? Can a single clear definition even exist for such a weighty and nebulous notion - and if not, does sticking the name "justice" to it not necessarily limit it?

Lanier certainly appears to believe so. As he conceives it, the system of symbology under which all current human languages operate is itself a lock-in; at best, a "middleman" between intent and "directly creating shared experience" that he wants to work to cut out.

His method for doing so is improvements on virtual reality, until researchers develop "the ability to morph at will, as fast as we can think."

Lanier envisions a world where the rather simplistic words "I'm hungry" will not be the only way to communicate the sensation which has brought them on - instead, he sees potential in the power of virtual reality technology to place us in the bodies of others, as a way to intimate the sensation itself.

Humanity would no longer have to be limited to extracting some piece of the concept it calls "hunger," giving it that name, and using it as code so that others who know the symbology of the English language will understand some approximation of that concept.

The concept would simply be understood, and communication would be a straightforward matter of imparting that understanding.

But perhaps there is an even better solution than this - although one that is, unfortunately, largely forgotten.

Presented with the puzzle that gargoyles are highly gregarious and intelligent by nature and yet appear to lack any notion of their own language, Weisman has mused that perhaps, long before human language evolved and became the locked-in method for communication, the gargoyle species possessed "mild psychic abilities that left them with no need to create language."

While emphasizing that he was only asserting a possibility, the communication he imagines - where it was not "words that they intuited (or transmitted or read or whatever) but emotions, maybe images or sensations" - sounds exceedingly similar to what Lanier hopes to achieve through virtual reality.

Such communication would be consistent with what audience knows about pre-human gargoyle culture, where definition and identity are situational as opposed to consistently codified.

But if that is the case, it leads to a rather lamentable conclusion. As Weisman puts it, "perhaps the very language skills that gargoyles learned from the human race dampened their psychic intuitiveness;" in other words, lock-in of a very particular method of communication (symbology) "locked-out" another method that presented communicative possibilities human technology can currently only dream of.

The initial insistence on not using personal names, then, can be considered a lingering hold-out of a bygone era where every concept was considered unlimited, and every sensation intimated in their full depth.

In dealing with nascent human cultures, gargoyles must have gradually accepted the limiting of concepts like "sky" or "river" because this made interspecies congress significantly more efficient, but they resisted the longest on the limiting of the very depths of the self.

But with the permanent instatement of "Hudson" and the rest, there does not appear to be room to return to the possibilities an unlimited identity presents. Human language has killed them.

Of course, both the gargoyle race and their culture are fantastical constructions, but that does not necessarily mean that humans cannot learn from their fictional example.

While humans do not seem to share these "mild psychic abilities" (although there are some who would vehemently disagree with that statement) that Weisman hypothesizes, that there are methods of sensation and communication which precede language skills is clearly documented.

As with gargoyles, members of the species Homo sapiens did exist well before the development of the earliest known language, and while current understanding of those early cultures is limited at best, there is also a much more immediate example to turn to.

Newborns spend a few years before they learn to define the world around them in the code of words - the sun is an experience to them long before the strictly defined, limiting name of "the sun" is ever applied to it.

The depths of what could be learned from observing children raised without learning language skills, interpreting sensations and intimating them to others via methods of their own device, are boundless; of course, the enormous ethical travesty presented by such experiments means they are not a viable avenue for inquiry.

So instead, humans turn to fiction - attempting to realize through others what that they have long since lost, and yearn to find again.

Greg Weisman has often described gargoyle culture, and pre-human gargoyle culture specifically, as something of a wish fulfillment for him. "I'm such a human," he laments with a written-out sigh, "But I aspire to gargoylosity."

Well, if the virtual reality morphing that so excites Jaron Lanier can indeed allow humans to experience sensation as a pre-human gargoyle (or a pre-language human, or a baby, or even a cephalopod) did/does - if it has the potential to turn the clock back as well as forward, and show what it is like for things simply to be, without the cumbersome and restrictive middleman of naming them - then perhaps that is an aspiration that more humans should share.

Rikki writes...

I've browsed through the archives and didn't come across a question like this but apologize if I did miss something simliar to this question that has been previously answered.

Do gargoyles ever mate just for the sake of being intimate with their mate and receiving pleasure or do they usually just mate when it comes time for reproduction?

Derek writes...

I have a question about Gargoyle genetics and cloning. Apologies if this makes your head hurt, it's made mine hurt.
In Marvel comics, when they cloned X-23 they used just Wolverine's X chromosomes as the Y sample was damaged and a male clone wasn't viable.

I was looking up reptiles, as Gargoyles as I understand it are closer to reptiles than mammals. In reptile genetics it's the females(ZW) that have two different chromosomes not males(ZZ). So if Sevarius had a sample of say Angela, but only the Z was viable would he'd still be able to create a male clone of her, right? Females clones for Gargoyles would be the trickier of the two?

Anonymous writes...

Are gargoyles classified as mammals?

Anthrokid writes...

What happens to a gargoyle's body in the daytime when it dies a natural death (not being smashed up during the day)? Does the body still turn to stone in the daytime and just remain that way? Or nothing happens, meaning there would have been evidence to gargoyle bodies.

Mel Cel writes...

Hi there! First and foremost, thanks so much for creating this show (and everyone else who worked on it). It was the main trigger that set me down the path of the animation industry. Loving it!
Q1: Are the gargoyles truly natives to planet earth?
Q2: What have they evolved from, and do they have their own version of 'Adam & Eve'?
Q3: (Continuation of Q2) Did their race's stone sleep originated from there on? how and why (spell/curse)?
Q4: How do female gargoyles retain their ability to nurse their young, considering that their young would only hatch a decade later?

Comet writes...

Sorry if this has already been asked. I searched the archives but didn't find what I was looking for.
Gargoyles can dream in stone sleep, but what happens if they have a nightmare that would a human cause to wake up? Gargoyles can't normally wake up outside of their biological rhythm, as far as I know.

Anonymous writes...

Do gargoyles age at the same rate as humans?

Vaevictis Asmadi writes...

Well, I can't claim to be a biology major, though I've studied it in an amateur way. But I would like to respond to Caitlin's post about stone sleep.

In most ways, gargoyles' metabolisms probably slow down a lot while in stone sleep. But I think Caitlin missed/forgot about one thing: they can't be 100% inactive, because their healing kicks into overdrive during the day. So some process, which uses up nutrients to build new tissue, must continue during sleep. Since they heal so quickly during the day, this process might use up a good chunk of the energy that would run the regular metabolism during the day.

Personally, I just assume that the blood still flows and they still breathe, however slowly, while they sleep. It was a Disney cartoon, so it's not like the stone rubble could bleed rivers of red during the Wyvern Massacre!

Caitlin writes...

Ok, this is not so much question as it is theory, but follow me for a bit if you like.

I've been reading through the biology archives and I had some thoughts regarding the stone sleep. Being a Zoology major, I tried to analyze some things, such as one particular factor- bodily functions like metabolism. A fan once asked if the metabolic functions still took place while they were in the stone slumber, and you were unable to answer, not being a biologist. I mean that in no harmful or derogatory way. I am just giving some insight from a biologist's perspective (I hope). I think that we can look at some analogues from real life- bats. I know it's not a perfect analogy, but some bats do go into a state of torpor (semi-hibernation) and some others actually go into a true state of hibernation. During hibernation, body temperature drops and metabolism slows to a near stop. The heart rate may also drop significantly.
Now, given that all of a gargate's tissues become the organic stone-like material, this means that even the blood is stilled, seeing as the muscles of the heart no longer pump. This seems like a hibernation to me. The fact that the tissues are "stone" probably means that the tissues do not need to constantly be fed oxygen or other nutrients via blood, and therefore do not need blood to flow or metabolism to run.
The "stone" state of the cells is also reminiscent of the dormant states of some bacteria. Essentially, the bacteria will create a "shell" when conditions are not right for survival and will become active again once conditions improve (if). The dormant state has no biological functions going on (that is if I remember correctly).

In short, the gargates are completely dormant until they awaken, and therefore are, for all intensive purposes, "stone".
I hope this was insightful/useful. I love thinking about these kinds of things. Feel free to ask me to elaborate or de-mystify anything biological (in this post or otherwise, if you'd like). My email is dbznut@carolina.rr.com

Joe writes...

Greg,
I've looked for the answer to this question and couldn't find it. Maybe you've already answered it but can the Gargoyles see when their eyes are glowing or do they have some extra sense that humans don't have?

Greg Bishansky writes...

And now, here's a question about gargoyles, clones, attraction, and gender traits. I really miss the Blue Mug A Guests, this would have been a perfect question for them.
Male gargoyle clones' eyes glow red, and the female clones' glow white. The complete opposite of natural hatched gargoyles. I was just wondering, how would gargoyles who might attempt to mate with clones deal with this?
The only way I can extrapolate is by picturing human women with gender specific traits that only a man would have, or vice-versa. Most heterosexuals would consider such things to be massive turn-offs, unless they're a bit kinky. I know it's not as extreme as a female with a penis, or a male with a vagina. But I'm trying to extrapolate. Maybe like a beard on a woman, or breasts on a man. Okay, that feels a bit off too.
Now, we didn't see Brooklyn get anywhere with Delilah, he probably never even saw her eyes glow. And considering he was just seeing her as a body, an available female, I wonder just how much of a turn-off that would have been for him if he did make even a little progress.
On the other hand, we have Demona who was with Thailog for at least half a year, and assuming she is 100% heterosexual, I am wondering if that would have unnerved her at all. But, she definitely seemed very physically into him, so maybe she has bisexual tendencies, or she's just really kinky, or maybe she just didn't care one iota. I don't know.
What are your thoughts on this?

anon writes...

I realize this may have been answered before, but would the manhattan clan be tolerant of homosexuality? What about other clans?

Justin writes...

Hello Greg,
Just a musing/ question based on a post of Matt's

<Matt writes...

3. Aside from Hudson, were any of True and "Kermit"'s rookery parents still alive as of 997?
Thanks, Greg!
Greg responds...

3. Potentially.>

My question is this...
Hudson hatched in 878. So as of 997 most of the surviving members of his rookery would be pushing the bio equivalent of 60.

So it stands to reason that the 898 and potentially the 918 rookery generations may also have had eggs lain in 968 resulting in the 978 gen.

Take the Wyvern Cell as our place holder here. We see Second and Sacrifice ( whom we can assume they had there 2nd egg in the 998 rookery as there is a garg on Avalon who looks almost identical to Second)

So again, it stands to reason they wouldn't start breeding on Sacrifice's 2nd heat.
Same I suppose goes for Chomp and Chaw, they most likely had a kid in the 978 and 998 rookeries too.

Just a thought

Anonymous writes...

My sisters and I have recently had a huge Gargoyles marathon and some things I noticed made me wonder about how they sleep. So the Gargoyles turn to stone and at sunset their skin cracks and breaks off. Now I noticed that when they strike poses you can see into their mouths and even that is stone. So at sunset, when they awaken, are they chewing and spitting out Gargoyle flakes or do they slowly thaw from the inside out and crack like a hard boiled egg?

A Gargoyles Fan writes...

First and foremost, I probably should've looked more carefully when asking the previous question, and I'm sorry for that.

I've checked around the archives, and taken a better look, and haven't found an answer for this.

Sevarius stated once that if a Gargoyle didn't go through stone sleep, they would have to eat several cows in order to get the energy they need. Demona doesn't go through stone sleep anymore, so how does she get the energy she needs for when she becomes a gargoyle once more?

Matt writes...

In the time long ago when there were gargoyle clans all over the world, how common was mating between members of different clans? Did gargoyles nearly always choose a mate from their own clan or was inter-clan mating fairly common when multiple clans existed in a general area?

Thanks Greg!

Anonymous writes...

About gargoyle's senses:

1-Their hearing seems sharper than humans, but just how much? Can they hear as well as a dog does? A cat? (like a gargate, I know, lol, but just to give a general idea :D)

2-Their night sight seem to also be far sharper than humans, for obvious reasons. Can they see as well as a cat does in the dark? Or less or more?

3-Brooklyn sniffs at Elisa, so maybe scent is an important factor for them? Just how acute is their scence of smell?

Thank you!

Anonymous writes...

Brian writes...
If I could pet a gargoyle's wings, what's the closest thing they would feel like?
Greg responds...
Depends on whose wings.

Say...Demona's?

VoLpE writes...

Hi Greg. Hope your 2011 is off to a good start. Gotta question for ya. Are Gargoyles with feathered wings (such as Griff, Zaphiro) susceptible to molting?

Thanks :)

Kyle writes...

Hey Greg, I have a question about the ageing of Gargoyles. Do they age slower or at the same rate as humans?

Laura 'ad astra' Sack writes...

A recent question about the relationship between Hudson and Demona got me thinking...

There was one off note in the question (the rest of the analysis was pretty cool)- Hudson would not have any discomfort at the idea that his rookery children were mated to each other. Given that the chance of multiple births is statistically zero and the strong predilection to marry within ones own rookery there is nearly no chance of biological incest ever happening so there would be no sibling taboo.

I recalled a factotum that caught my attention a few months back- Even the most gung-ho kibutzes in Israel got rid of true communal child raising in the 70's because their children were forming sibling bonds and not marrying. Of the thousands of children raised in the system, about 30 married within their own community and not even one married within his or her age group. (err... I suppose, by definition, two would be the minimum for that....) These children were raised with the intention of being future potential spouses but humans are hardwired not to look at siblings that way, even none biological siblings. A similar problem arises in some endangered animal sanctuaries - I remember a documentary mentioning that if male and female rhinos are housed together they eventually stop mating completely - it may have been anthropomorphizing, but they called it developing a sibling relationship. Obviously there are degenerates and incest does happen, Egyptian royalty was designed with sibling marriage, but we are biologically wired against it even when it is not based on blood and therefore dangerous on a Darwinian level.

It makes sense that Gargates, having evolved as very different species with different circumstances would be fundamentally different at times, but they are so very similar in some ways is it surprising when the differences pop up.

1) Do gargoyles have an incest taboo or does it just not come up?
2) If they do not have it, or, at least no strong one, what do they think of it when it occurs with humans? (I don't mean abuse, rather, for example, if they read about Egyptian kings marrying siblings does it give them pause or it just passes as an oddity.)
3) Are there any other instances that come to mind of there being a basic difference between humans and gargoyles? Not a culturally based one - or if it is culturally, it as outgrowth of their biological reality.

Sorry this last one is so vague. It is hard to think of examples. You once answered that racism puzzles Goliath. It makes sense that a species that seems to have nearly uinlimited skin color possibiilities even within a small and relatively isolated population would think the human skin tone based racism is plain odd. (Granted, gargoyles might have their own version of nonsensicle racism that makes no sense to humans.) I can think of where similar differences would be rooted- they are completely nocturnal, they have wings, the do not share the sleeping experience in any way etc…- but it still seems more the sort of thing that occasionally pops up and surprises you. Maybe...a creature with usable wings would be hardwired against agoraphobia or fear of heights. err. Maybe, not so much, they can still fall if their wings get bound up, so at minimum the concept of falling might lurk somewhere even in their minds.

thanks

Ariell Choy writes...

As humans, we can express ourselves culturally, emotionally and even spiritually through the arts (music, dance, drama, literature, etc). Do gargoyles practice the arts? Do gargoyles even have the capacity to create art? I have always wanted to know since having seen the episode "Kingdom" in which Broadway, Lexington, and Brooklyn return home to the Clock Tower after having attended a rock concert in which Brooklyn proclaims "did you hear that guitarist wail?"

Dax Orbit writes...

I did a little looking around the frequently asked questions list and searched through the archives, so my apologies if I missed this question being answered.

Looking over the clans seen in Gargoyles, I noticed that only the Mutates had any markings. In example, stripes, spots, anything of that caliber. Is it possible for a natural gargoyle to possess these types of markings?

Thanks very much.