A Station Eight Fan Web Site
First of all, I want to thank you for a show that had me hooked from the very first preview. I loved it when it first aired in the mid-nineties, and I think I appreciate it even more now. So....thank you!
I was wondering when you think the guys came to think of Elisa as a part of their clan. I know that it was at least by the time of "The Cage". I realize that that their trust and affection grew along and along, so it probably wasn't, say, the "seventh" time they saved each other's necks that it was official, but do you think that it was something that had to be discussed? Was there an announcment or did it even need to be said?
I think that by "Her Brother's Keeper" Goliath was already viewing Elisa as part of the clan. Ironically, her role in moving them to the clock tower, a move he strenuously objected to, helped cement her position. His willingness to have Elisa reveal the truth about them to her brother demonstrates that he viewed her -- and thus by extension Derek -- as family.
But I think the final turning point was "The Mirror" and seeing her as a Gargoyle.
But as you noted, the whole thing was a progression. So I'd be open to other interpretations. It's a very good question and I'd be interested in hearing other points of view on the subject.
A question about the gargoyles' time living with the humans in Castle Wyvern between 971 and 994. In "Awakening" at the beginning, all the humans living in the castle, except for the Captain of the Guard (and Tom, but he wasn't a regular inhabitant) were, from what we can tell, hostile towards the gargoyles.
Now, since gargoyles and humans had been living side by side for 23 years, I found myself wondering a little about this. I know that prejudice can often take a very long time to overcome, but I still find it a matter of mild concern that after living with gargoyles for 23 years, with ample opportunity during all that time to see what they were really like, the humans would still be so hostile towards them. (Katharine did get conditioned to fear gargoyles due to Prince Malcolm's foolish use of them as bogeymen when she was a child, of course, so her attitude is believable.)
Of course, I suppose that it would require the entire "Dark Ages" series all the way down to the Wyvern Massacre to give a real answer to this question, but I did think that I'd comment on it. (And if after 23 years of sharing their home with the gargoyles, nearly all the humans still disliked them, I can see how it is that Demona is so cynical and pessimistic about peace between the two species. On the other hand, since Katharine and the Magus did abandon their old attitudes after the massacre and even dedicated the rest of their lives to looking after the orphaned eggs, there is hope.)
There's always hope. I think the prejudice was subtle and on-going, because nothing had ever been done about it.
Most humans in the castle weren't looking to slaughter the Gargoyles or even kick them out. But they took the Gargoyles' defense of the cliffside for granted... enough years had passed that the camaradery of the great battles they shared had been -- not forgotten -- but dampened.
And the leader sets the tone, and for the reasons you listed above, Katharine was not sympathetic to or fond of the Gargoyles. So those Lords looking to curry favor would tend to being dismissive. I also think that the Gargoyles still represented a mental wildcard to the humans. A great force in their midst that they couldn't fully control. It was disturbing. And then there are the archers, who do their jobs well, but who may have had chips on their shoulders because they weren't sufficient to guard the castle... and because their own boss seemed to respect the Gargs more than his own men.
The idea was little things contributing to on-going tension ... and a leader who was part of the problem, not part of the solution.
In your August 1, 2003, response to F7 Addict regarding the dates and names of the various full moons, you asked about information regarding the origins of these names. As an amateur astronomer, I may be able to help. Various cultures, such as Europeans and various Native American tribes, named all the full and new moons of the year. Specifically, the Harvest and Hunter Moon titles come from Europe and colonial America. The names came from the behavior of the full moon at that time of the year. Normally, the moon rises an average of 50 minutes later each night (and up to 80 minutes later each night in the spring). The geometry of the moon's orbit in September and October means it rises only about 30 minutes later each night (in the Northern Hemispere), and this extra light was helpful for farmers at harvest time (especially in the days before motorized farm machinery and electric lights). The full moon in October also provided early-evening light and coincided with the fall hunting season, so it was called the Hunters Moon.
Incidentally, the definition generally accepted by astronomers is that the Harvest Moon is the full moon nearest the September Equinox, and Hunters Moon is the next one after that.
I enjoy "Gargoyles" very much, and consider myself fortunate to have most of the episodes on tape. I am looking forward to the DVD release. Thanks for creating a show in which the characters grow as a result of the consequences of their actions, and with such complexity of plot.
You're welcome. And thanks for the info...
Hi Greg. Someone just wrote to you about the Hunter's Moon, telling you it was a full moon in October. That's half-true, depending on whether you follow the Native American system or the more general definition of the Hunter's Moon. The latter says that the Hunter's Moon is the full moon following the Harvest Moon, which itself is the closest full moon to the autumn equinox. This year, the harvest moon will be on Sep 10th, preceeding the equinox, and so the hunter's moon will be the following full moon, October 10th. The names derive from them being the brightest nights of the year, which allows a farmer to harvest crops late into the night, and one month later, to hunt through his recently razed fields for rabbits, birds, and other small animals.
Thanks for the info... Do the two systems ever coincide? Sometimes? Usually?
Please answer me something thats been going on between me and a friend... what is Thailog's colouring? I'm certain its blue because ive got all the episodes but so does my friend and she says he's purple. Pleaseeeee settle this matter?!
I'm color blind and blue/purple is my biggest issue. But there are tons of fans who could answer this question for you.
The Mirror is one of my favorite episodes... what would Puck have said to the audience if the lines were left in the script?? thanks a lot
I'm afraid I don't remember anymore. And i only have the final draft script.
One last question, if you don't mind. I'll keep it brief. Did you ever give any thought to bringing the Gargoyles, or any of its spin-offs, back as a novel series? Frankly, it seems like the easiest way to do it, and if the books sell well, it would be easier to convince the good people at Disney that there's a market for the Gargoyles.
Sigh. Yes. Novels. I'd love to. Need a publisher.
If he were to see it (provided he hasn't seen it already), what would King Arthur think of the film Monty Python and the Holy Grail?
I don't know... but I like it.
Hello, again. I have a question/observation concerning Oberon. I have noticed an unfortunate trend among fans of the series (particularly in fanfiction, although I understand you don't read such material) to present Oberon in an unfavorable light. Even The Gargoyles Saga, which normally boasts excellent characterization, consistently depicts Oberon in a manner which I feel is grossly unfair. I liked Oberon. I thought that he was stern, but fair, and was also very concerned with the proper use of power. Granted, he possessed character flaws. But he banished his Children from Avalon, forcing them to live amongst mortals, because he felt that they didn't have proper respect for the rights of mortals. His Law is also shown in an unfair light. Most fans seem to like to show him as an uncaring, distant figure, who could care less if the bulk of humanity simply died off. I interpret his Law differently, though. Perhaps its simply because I am an inveterate comic book fan, and the topic has been frequently used in comic books. But I believe that Oberon forbids direct magical intervention, even to help mortals, because he understands that mortals must stand on their own. He understands that, if he were to direct his Children to use their powers to shelter and care for mortals, we would come to rely on them for everything, even the problems that we could solve on our own. Our potential would be stunted. We would eventually become little better than pets for the Children of Oberon. Obviously, he doesn't mind non-magical intervention. Puck interferes a great deal, but as Owen, without magic. Grandmother has seemingly guided and advised mortals for centuries. Many of the Children (including Oberon himself) have sired or beared Half-Fae children with mortals. His emphasis seems to be on ensuring that mortals don't become reliant on the Children of Oberon, that we feed our own poor, treat our own sick and wounded, fight our own battles. In short, that we make our own mistakes and stand on our own two feet. Was I off the mark?
No. But you're comparing your interpretation to the interpretations of other fans -- interpretations that I have not seen.
In general terms -- very general terms -- I agree with you. But Oberon is also dangerous and powerful and subject to interpreting his OWN laws his own way. I don't think of him in a negative light. But I also don't think he's entirely benign either.
Good day. I just have a quick question concerning the character of Katana, Brooklyn's mate. Would she have actually utilized a katana, or was her name meant to be a metaphor (as in: She struck with the fury of a katana)?