A Station Eight Fan Web Site
: Displaying all 37 records. :
<<Well, let's start with the "buffet"/game-playing writing style. I think it's awful. >>
<<Having said that, I have this friend, a garg fan who's now a pretty darn successful writer. When I read her first book, I felt that the first half of it was written in that way. As if rolls of the dice determined who each character was, what he or she could do and what happenned to them.
When I asked her about it, she confessed (if that's the word) that I was dead on. The first half of the book was her almost literally setting to prose a game of D&D that she had played.
I don't recommend doing that, but look at the result. The second half of the novel, inspired as it was by the first half, was wonderful. And she's moved forward with these characters into other books as well. >>
When I indicated that I thought this game-players writing style could be exploited profitably, I wasn't really thinking of more mature, conventional writing emerging from it. Although, that obviouly works too. I was thinking, if you were writing something, for instance, where there was a consistent theme of game-playing, then maybe you could exploit it as a device. I'm thinking of game-playing themes more along the lines of George Perec than dungeons and dragons. So maybe there would be subtle games embedded in the text. But at the same time, maybe there could be a section of the book, or a certain character, which you treat in the game-players writing style. Sort of in the way you could mimic the writing style of the Victorians. I have given no serious thought to what properties make game-player writing read the way it does. But it _is_ recognizable. You've identified it, yourself.
<<But your second question is more serious. Does this process in fact impair the reader/audience. Forget that some of these guys will never be great writers, will this make them bad readers?
I don't know. But my guess is that it's the same (or similar) percentage of people who would have been bad readers in the first place. The good ones will transcend. The others won't. That's my hypothesis.>>
I suppose so. It's just that I keep on detecting subtle trends in the way people in our culture think about things. And I worry this game-players thing will worsen. It's like that business of an incomplete idea of "sentience" invading popular culture. It seems ridiculous to speculate that the idea migrated into the culture from star trek, but if you observe carefully, you can see it. I think people in our culture, are less and less informed by critical thinking today.
Ten years ago, for instance, I don't think I saw game-player writing anywhere. Now, even before this conversation I had, in which we began to put a name to this thing, it seems pervasive. I think the novelty has become the institution. Consider that twenty years ago, aspiring authors could not have seen this in literature. Today, I have waking nightmares that the kid who would have been the next Paul Auster is going to become intellectually deranged when he picks up a dungeons/dragons book for the first time and gets the idea that "this must be how people write."
I'm probably thinking of something along the lines of memes here. Ideas enter the culture and become dominant over time. Usually, stupid ideas. They begin to define the way that people think about things and even the way they value things. It doesn't just erode our intellects. It can erode sensible ethics. Consider this...
I saw an episode of star trek recently, and it really alarmed me. The premise was that the characters travel to a planet where the human population reproduces exclusively by cloning. For some ridiculous reason they could no longer continue cloning themselves, so they ask the characters to donate genetic material so their culture can survive. The characters hostility to the idea is so irrational that I wouldn't know how to describe it. And when the clone people sneak away some of their genetic material to make clones of them anyway, a demonstration of some of the most demented rationalization of science fiction occurs.
The characters go to the lab where their clones have already developed into full grown reproductions of themselves, and use their death rays to obliterate them. And I should be clear that these were not blastocysts in test tubes. These were obviously fully grown and autonomous people. And this is all treated by the authors as though it were the most natural thing in the world. It's simply understood that being cloned "diminishes you" as a human being, and that their absurd indignation was somehow righteous. Precisely how this diminishes a person is never elaborated upon, and I'm sure that the authors never even thought about it. They assume, with remarkable vacuousness, that the cloned people in the lab do not possess any type of intrinsic worth. I know that star trek authors have never picked up a science text, but the poverty of ethical thinking here, compelled me to think they had never read a book or had a thought about anything.
Of course, it's just a silly TV show. Right?
And yet, it's conspicuous that the range public debate about bioethics is defined by these concepts. I'm not talking about the range of debate in the literature of science or philosophy. That remains very isolated from the public forums where most people in our culture consider these issues. In popular magazines and network news journalism, the dominant logic is that a person is rendered somehow, "lesser" by having been cloned. The idea has been in ascendancy for a decade despite the depth of it's ignorance. The people who define and limit public discourse about it have certainly never thought about it critically. Their positions frequently contradict themselves and more frequenly rely on popular myths and emotional appeals to people's superstitions.
And it gets worse. Something far more sinister has emerged from popular, misinformed dialogue about cloning. In popular disputes about it (I heard the notion resurface on CNN about a month ago) the question of "what kind of rights would a clone have" is routinely brandished about as though it were an intelligent thought. To practicing ethicists and scientists, this notion probably would not have even entered the dialogue if it had not been thrust upon them by popular culture. That the question is being asked at all assumes, uncritically, that there is something meaningfully distinguishable about a cloned person which would compel us to assign a different worth to them. A worth, lesser than a person who came into the world by conventional means.
I have a suspicion, that the people most vocally shrieking about the moral dilemmas of cloning, are actually theologically threatened by it. I have no evidence of this. But a few inferences they have made, have got me thinking that their theological picture of "personhood" follows a very rigid prescription, and their indignation may originate with some inept idea that a clone would not have a soul.
"Soul" becomes a good parallel to "sentient life." One is from religion and one is from science fiction, but both of them are shortcuts people use instead of actually thinking about the internal properties that imbue something with intrinsic moral worth.
I hope it's apparent why I think this is important. Magical thinking can be dangerous. The worth of a being can't reasonably be described in these terms. If the distinction between ruling class and underclass or the difference between pets and meat is being determined by distinguishing one as sentient or soul-containing, then we have not really distinguished anything. We're just making things up. We might as well assign moral worth based upon who has stars on their bellies.
I don't remember what Goliath's reaction to Thailog was precisely. I remember that he was alarmed by the prospect of there being another version of himself. How would you describe his feelings about the issue. I suspect since he would have no concept of cloning technology, his perception of it would be unique.
Goliath's initial reaction was horror and anger. Not at the clone per se, but at Xanatos for having stolen something -- Goliath's uniqueness as an individual, at least. I think that's a legitimate fear (not a rational, ethical response). And certainly, there's no ethical justification for Xanatos' actions.
But as Elisa shortly points out, it's too late to simply be pissed at Xanatos. The clone, Thailog, exists. He's alive. As much a Gargoyle as Goliath is. In a very real way, he is Goliath's son. Goliath quickly agrees. (Of course, by this time, he's already pissed off Thailog -- a victim of nurture as opposed to nature -- and there will be no reconciliation.)
Look, let's take the Star Trek episode you described. I've seen it, though it's been years, so I'm going to have to rely on your version of it.
I think it's completely legitimate to have reservations about loaning your genetic material so that they can make clones of you. It's legitimate to be generous too, but you must acknowledge that it must be a personal decision.
A friend once hinted that she'd like me to donate sperm so that she could have a baby. I truly believe that this person would make a great parent, but it's just not in me to help in this way. Mostly because I know how I feel about my own kids. And the knowledge that there was another child of mine out there and not part of my life would drive me nuts.
So I buy into Riker, et al, rejecting the request from the Clone-Society. It MUST be a personal choice. Also, medically -- by the rules they set up/made up -- the point was made that cloning would always be a stopgap solution. So there's a certain pointlessness to participating. But whatever. You MUST have the right to say no. Goliath should be able to say no to Xanatos.... "Thanks, David, but I don't really want a clone of me out there, particularly since I don't trust your parenting skills."
Now of course, what I believe your really objecting to is Riker and company killing living viable beings... and of course Elisa, Goliath and I would totally agree with you. If the clones are completed, the clones are completed. That's that. They're alive. TOO LATE!!!!
Now, there's another Riker episode where he discovers that he has a clone -- in fact it becomes unclear which is the clone and which is the real Riker (i.e. the guy we've known all these years, or the guy that's been trapped on a distant planet for years). Both wind up surviving, which I thought was novel. The "clone" later became somewhat Xanatosian, which I also appreciated.
But to take your argument to something more general than cloning... I mean you need to keep in mind that when cloning is used in SF (or at least good SF) it's just a metaphor. Clones are regarded as second class citizens because the history of humanity is rife with second class citizens based on criteria equally as dopey.
Now, agreed some SF doesn't get it.
And, agreed, now that actual cloning is becoming closer to actual reality, people may be adopting the jargon of SF because -- what else do they have?
But lazy thinkers have ALWAYS existed. On bad days I certainly think the world is going to hell in a handbasket, but if I'm being more honest, I can't exactly look back on the world and go : "HEY, NO PROGRESS!" There's been a lot of progress. We'll never wipe out ethics-free humans. Ethically, well, we're just not allowed to.
The memes you discuss may be a problem. But they're just replacing old memes that are even more devastating because they're WAY TOO REAL.
It's another old Sci-Fi notion... In a very real way, wouldn't it be great if the ALIENS did attack. Because then FINALLY, humanity would realize how little differentiates black from white, male from female, gay from straight, etc., ad nauseum. Of course, that would immediately present us with the new racial challenge of learning to "just get along" with the aliens. But wouldn't it be nice for just a moment to get past the pettiness that we own ourselves?
Or something like that.
Hello Mr. Weisman.
<<So sometimes, it does get annoying. But mostly I enjoy doing this. (I do think that doing a little a day has been a much better system than trying to do big batches of questions all at once. I get less annoyed when not burdened with the cumulative effects of annoyance.) Do I wish this could be more of a forum for ideas and discussion? Well, yeah, duh. I've invited that in the past, and, P., I always enjoy reading and responding to your posts.>>
<<I hope that 18 months later you're still checking ASK GREG and reading this. I hope that you'll compose your response and hold on to it, submitting it when we finally get things back up and running. But even if you're not, even if you're long gone, thanks for raising some interesting issues.>>
All this sort of diminishes some of my apprehensions about submitting things to this forum. Most of the time I have assumed it's a huge hassle for you.
<<(Although what you quoted at the head of your post:
<<You idiot! Did you not read the no ideas clause on the main askgreg page or are you just pretending to be stupid!>>
is a bit lost on me out of context. I can't believe I wrote the first quote.) >>
You didn't write it. I'm sorry. That must have seemed strange to you. When I submitted this post (all those many years ago) there were two posts in the list directly before mine. The first was from someone who I don't think had ever posted a message here before. I don't remember his name or what he wrote, but I do remember that he was speculating about something you did in the show. His post seemed pretty benign to me. He was just curious about something.
The second post was from...some anonymous idiot. He was the one asking the curious guy if he was "pretending to be stupid." I got the impression he was trying to demonstrate his superior knowledge of "gargoyles forum culture." I found his invective incredibly offensive. Apparently so did your mr. Gorebash, because he deleted his post after I responded. That's why you didn't see it.
I think the guy rematerialized shortly afterwards, as Master Debator, who had never posted before and most likely never will again. I almost regret you decided not to dignify his contest for "king of the garg fans" with a reaction, as I'm sure your reaction could have been very amusing.
<<So a lot comes down to the intent of the questioner, and you can usually tell, if not in a single post then in the range of posts that that person submits. If I get 16 posts in a row asking something like, "Who is Maggie's father?" followed by "Who is Claw's father?" followed by "Who is Fang's father?" or if I get requests for laundry lists of things, "Name all the ancient heroes who have encountered Oberon," then you can bet that the questioner was looking for a question to ask, as opposed to trying to deepen his or her understanding of the show or character.>>
<<And again, I think you can often (though not always) tell by the question itself if that's what the questioner is seeking. A deeper understanding about some aspect of the show.>>
I understand. I think part of the reason that I responded to the anonymous character in the way I did was because I had gotten the idea in my head that it was the same anonymous character that is persistently demanding that you elaborate on the most trivial minutia. From my perspective, it seemed like someone had just asked where fox got her tattoo six times in a row, then had the unmitigated gaul to call someone else an idiot for asking an innocent question.
I so wish I could just catch up. It's so hard to raise this forum up to its potential when I'm two years behind responding to a post that's responding to a post that's two years even further back.
Hopefully, we'll have the opportunity to repair the system sometime soon. But in the meantime, I just keep plugging away. And I hope you (all of you) stick around too.
just wondering... i havent seen all of TGC, so if this comes up in the show & i missed it... well, ops but
1)anyway, after hunters moon, what hapens 2 robyn canmore? does she keep tracking "the Demon" or what.
2) does jon canmore/castaway blame elesa at all for what hapened 2 jason
1. No, she's arrested and forced to join the "Bad Guys".
2. He's not fond of her.
Why did they end gargoyles? I mean, in the late show,after they save the train and everone see their point of of view and then LOVE them. But why did they conution on from their?
Please e-mail the anwer's...I don't know how or when to get back here to see my anwer.
I'm just going to refer you to the archives. I'm not going to e-mail you. That's not what this forum is for. And I'm not going to answer a question that I've answered over and over again, particularly for someone who basically had no intention of checking back even assuming she would still check back two years later.
What does the moon look like when it is viewed on Avalon? By that I mean does it wax and wane more often when viewed from Avalon because of the 1 hour for 1 day rule? Can you see the waxing and waning of the moon on Avalon in one night because of the time acceleration outside Avalon?
That's a real good question... one that I haven't given a lick of thought too. (See, I'm happy to admit it when I don't know something.)
What do all of you think?
So, if I'm getting you right the Hunter's Moon (a.k.a. the Blood Moon) is the first full moon of October. (Or the only full moon of October, most years.) Right?
Thanks. That's very helpful and useful. I'm writing this down.
So a couple more questions...
Do you know the origin(s) behind these names? And if so, what are they?
And what is a Wyrt?
recorded on 08-01-03
The lore of the names of the moon are posted at various sites around the net. Here's a few:
Not sure about the origins though. And "wyrt" is an Old English term for "wort", a generic word for "a plant" I believe.
At the end of the episode "the mirror", before Puck got all ticked and did the whole human by day thing, did he seem to sort of loosen up to Demona a bit to you? I thought he started to kinda like her near the end. What do you think greg?
I think that he had had a good time, and so was genuinely feeling a bit more charitable toward her. And one might argue that his "gift" -- as much as she initially was horrified by it -- was still helpful.
I was just looking through the archives again, and noticed a question about what Goliath's favorite books were. You mentioned that "Great Expectations" was one that came to mind.
This actually amused me a little, for there was one aspect of the book that reminded me a lot of "Gargoyles", in the way that Dickens connected the two convicts whom Pip has to help hide at the beginning of the book with the Miss Havisham and Estella part of the story (warning to those who haven't read the book: spoilers follow): it later on turns out that Magwitch (one of those two convicts) was Estella's father and that the other convict (whose name I forget) was the man who left her standing at the altar. That element of interconnectedness definitely struck me as something straight out of "Gargoyles" in terms of the way that everything turned out to be linked to everything else eventually.
I don't know if you had that in mind when you mentioned the book in your answer, but it did make me see its inclusion as appropriate.
I think of the Gargoyles Universe (and genre fiction in general) as being very Dickensian. Certainly nothing is more Dickensian than Darth Vader being Luke's father, and Leia being Luke's sister (a revelation that still disappoints me).
That connectivity that you mention is a cornerstone of most cohesive Universes. And the Gargoyles Universe in particular.
Another influential book along those lines, is HOWARD'S END by E.M. Forster.
where i can find gargoles picture? (i'm french sorry for my english) :-)
Your English seems fine, but I don't have any pictures for you. Check in the comment room.
Hi I was wondering even though you don't read fan fic what your opinion on the idea is?
You mean the general idea of people writing fanfic?
As I've said MANY times before, I have mixed feelings. It's very gratifying that people are that into the characters and series to want to create their own. But I'm also a bit territorial, so I also find it disconcerting.
It works out well, then, I think, that I don't read the stuff. But keep up the good work!
I just received this very helpful missive from Greg Bishansky:
I just saw the latest question in Ask Greg about the stone Xanatos model
sheet, sounds to me like she may have been refering to the stone model of
Xanatos that Puck creates in "The Gathering Part Two" when we finally learn
MYSTERY SOLVED! Thanks, Greg!!
In the art room at the Gathering, While looking at the some od the photos Disney most graciously lent us, I found myself discussing one of the photos to two other people (I have no idea who..). You see, among the character prototypes (or whatever the heck you call 'em, thats the word that comes to mind right now) there was one of a stone Xanatos. This was od some surprize and confustion. Why? Because Xanatos never turned to stone! Practically everyone else did in City of Stone, but he didn't (and I don't reacall any other epsiode where a non-gargoyle was turned to stone). What gives? Did he turn to stone in the original plannings for that episode or something?
I'm afraid I don't recall what you're referring to. And I don't recall ever having a plan to turn Xanatos to stone -- either in City of Stone or in any other episode.
Dear Greg , I have a few questions I was wondering about 1 . What Happened to Coyote 1.0's coyote head and body ?
2. Had Xanatos had Coyote armor that he wore ?
3. How come Coyote's head mcame back in Greif . Goliath destroyed Coyote's head to pieces in Upgrade ?
.P.S. - I will be really sad if you don't answer my questions right away .
1. The body was basically destroyed and went down with the ship. The head was incorporated into Coyote 2.0 and was eventually smashed by Goliath, as I recall.
2. I don't think so.
3. It wasn't the actual head it was a vid-image of the head.
P.S. Sorry, I made you sad, but you must have seen the queue. I didn't even see your question until today.
Who was Hudson's Mate?
I'm not going into details about her at this time.
dO WE EVER SEE ANY OF THE lOCH nESS cLAN?
Do we or will we?
Hi would you mind e-mailing answers to my questions to firstname.lastname@example.org
Yes. Thanks for asking. (But I am curious... what questions?)
Hello, Gargoyles is one of my favorite shows and Deliaih is
one of my favorite characters. I was wondering why in "The Reckoning" Thailog named Elisa's and Demona's clone to be named Deliaih? Does the name have a special meaning? I also
hope that someday you will also mention more about the Thailog/Deliaih reunion.
Well, aside from the obvious biblical reference to a dangerous femme fatale, the name just SOUNDS to me like a combo of Demona and Elisa...
See. I don't know how you missed it. ;)
As to the planned Thailog/Delilah "reunion" I'll just say that I have one planned. That's all I feel like revealing at this time.
I noticed In the mirror that when Elisa turned away from the mirror her image stayed still was this part of the mirrors magic or just an animation mix up?
1) Your rendering of the Illuminati society has grounds in fiction... from where did you take your ideas about the society?
2) and isnt it a little weird that many stories in fiction include an "all-knowing" group that controls the worls from behind the scenes (for example Tomb Raider and Honey I shrunk the Kid's The TV show, starring Peter Scolari).. DO you think there's some sort of real world society similar to the Illuminati, kinda like in the Simpson's Stonecutter's Episode?? cause i think the society does exist..
1. We had numerous sources, and we made a lot up.
2. If there is one Society running the world, they're doing a very poor job. I mean what would be there ultimate goal that one could interpolate from the current condition of the planet?
Hey I'm a big fan of the show, it's been so long since the last time I saw it. I would really like to know if there is anyway I can get my hands on all the 78 shows of VHS. I tried looking on ebay but most are just recorded copies and poor quality. I really want to get the whole series though. If you can get back to me email me at email@example.com
I'm sorry, but if I e-mailed one person, I'd have to e-mail everyone and that wouldn't do much for this forum. In addition, I have no way of getting you the eps on VHS. So I wouldn't have been of any help there.
But you can get the first season on DVD.
Just a question regarding Mace Malone's dental plan.
Are the dentists/orthodentists members of the Illuminati?
Don't know. But it doesn't seem necessary.
Hi, I wanted to ask a couple of questions related to Scottish royal genealogy and Gargoyles.
First, I was wondering about the identity of Prince Malcolm. Having read "Once upon a time, there were three brothers," I see that you make him the youngest son of King Malcolm I. But the sources I have note only two sons - Duff and Kenneth II. Is Prince Malcolm, then, made up? (Duff, I'd note, had a younger son Malcolm who died in 990...)
Second, in "City of Stone", Lulach/Luach is depicted as Macbeth's son, but in actual history, he was Gruoch's son by Gillecomgain (who is the first Hunter, in Gargoyles). Was this change made on purpose, to simplify things, or was it a mistake?
Thanks. (And just wanted to say that these aren't criticisms. I remember when I first watched Gargoyles how impressed I was by the effort that was made to actually depict a recognizable version of Scottish early Medieval history - "City of Stone" was what really drew me in to the show in the first place. I'd seen it a few times before that, and then I remember coming home from school and saying "a cartoon show with a revisionist version of the story of Macbeth? What's going on?" And after that I was hooked.)
1. Yes, Malcolm and his daughter Katharine are fictional characters that we added to the Gargoyles' Universe.
2. It wasn't a mistake. Our research indicated that Macbeth adopted Lulach/Luach. I have posited that perhaps the reason he did that was because he was in fact the boy's father... conceived before Macbeth & Gruoch were actually married.
Glad you liked it.
*No question, just answering Greg's August 2003 question*
1. Is Hunter's Moon a specific day or week of the year?
2. If so could you give us the date(s)?
In 1996, Hunter's Moon was on Saturday, October 26th. I doubt it's on the same night every year, since we operate on a solar, rather than a lunar calender. Anyone else know how this works?
recorded on 01-15-02
F7 Addict writes...
The Name of the moons are based on 12 lunar cycles per year, first is Jan or Wolf; 2 Feb or Storm; 3 Chaste; 4 Seed; 5 Hare; 6 Lover's; 7 Mead; 8 Wyrt; 9 Harvest; 10 Oct Blood or Hunter's moon; 11 Snow; 12 Oak. And on the odd chance of two full moons in a month, the second is called the blue moon.
So, if I'm getting you right the Hunter's Moon (a.k.a. the Blood Moon) is the first full moon of October. (Or the only full moon of October, most years.) Right?
Thanks. That's very helpful and useful. I'm writing this down.
So a couple more questions...
Do you know the origin(s) behind these names? And if so, what are they?
And what is a Wyrt?
recorded on 08-01-03
(Sorry for the large amount of text from previous posts and large amount of text to follow - just wanted to keep this in context for when you got a chance to see this whenever :) )
I did not bother looking up this information until you asked. Quite interesting really :)
-- You can read this information in a nicer format by following the "Source" links at the bottom of this post. I am merely copying sections in case those websites are unavailable at the time you have the opportunity to refer to this post --
"Full Moon names date back to Native Americans, of what is now the northern and eastern United States. The tribes kept track of the seasons by giving distinctive names to each recurring full Moon. Their names were applied to the entire month in which each occurred. There was some variation in the Moon names, but in general the same ones were current throughout the Algonquin tribes from New England to Lake Superior. European settlers followed that custom and created some of their own names. Since the lunar month is only 29 days long on the average, the full Moon dates shift from year to year."
Note the sentence that states there has been some variation in the moon names with different tribes, etc. That would explain why the list I am about to post is different in one or two months than the list previously given.
January Wolf Moon (aka Old Moon) "Amid the cold and deep snows of midwinter, the wolf packs howled hungrily outside Indian villages. Thus, the name for January's full Moon. Sometimes it was also referred to as the Old Moon, or the Moon After Yule. Some called it the Full Snow Moon, but most tribes applied that name to the next Moon."
February Snow Moon (aka Hunger Moon) "Since the heaviest snow usually falls during this month, native tribes of the north and east most often called February's full Moon the Full Snow Moon. Some tribes also referred to this Moon as the Full Hunger Moon, since harsh weather conditions in their areas made hunting very difficult."
March Worm Moon (aka Crow Moon, Crust Moon, Sugar Moon, Sap Moon) "Moon As the temperature begins to warm and the ground begins to thaw, earthworm casts appear, heralding the return of the robins. The more northern tribes knew this Moon as the Full Crow Moon, when the cawing of crows signaled the end of winter; or the Full Crust Moon, because the snow cover becomes crusted from thawing by day and freezing at night. The Full Sap Moon, marking the time of tapping maple trees, is another variation. To the settlers, it was also known as the Lenten Moon, and was considered to be the last full Moon of winter."
April Pink Moon (aka Sprouting Grass Moon, Full Egg Moon, Full Fish Moon)"This name came from the herb moss pink, or wild ground phlox, which is one of the earliest widespread flowers of the spring. Other names for this month's celestial body include the Full Sprouting Grass Moon, the Egg Moon, and among coastal tribes the Full Fish Moon, because this was the time that the shad swam upstream to spawn."
May Flower Moon (aka Corn Planting Moon, Milk Moon) "In most areas, flowers are abundant everywhere during this time. Thus, the name of this Moon. Other names include the Full Corn Planting Moon, or the Milk Moon."
June Strawberry Moon (aka Rose Moon, Hot Moon) "This name was universal to every Algonquin tribe. However, in Europe they called it the Rose Moon. Also because the relatively short season for harvesting strawberries comes each year during the month of June . . . so the full Moon that occurs during that month was christened for the strawberry!"
July Buck Moon (aka Thunder Moon, Hay Moon) "July is normally the month when the new antlers of buck deer push out of their foreheads in coatings of velvety fur. It was also often called the Full Thunder Moon, for the reason that thunderstorms are most frequent during this time. Another name for this month's Moon was the Full Hay Moon."
August Sturgeon Moon (aka Red Moon, Green Corn Moon) "The fishing tribes are given credit for the naming of this Moon, since sturgeon, a large fish of the Great Lakes and other major bodies of water, were most readily caught during this month. A few tribes knew it as the Full Red Moon because, as the Moon rises, it appears reddish through any sultry haze. It was also called the Green Corn Moon or Grain Moon."
September Harvest Moon* (aka Corn Moon, Barley Moon) "This is the full Moon that occurs closest to the autumn equinox. In two years out of three, the Harvest Moon comes in September, but in some years it occurs in October. At the peak of harvest, farmers can work late into the night by the light of this Moon. Usually the full Moon rises an average of 50 minutes later each night, but for the few nights around the Harvest Moon, the Moon seems to rise at nearly the same time each night: just 25 to 30 minutes later across the U.S., and only 10 to 20 minutes later for much of Canada and Europe. Corn, pumpkins, squash, beans, and wild rice the chief Indian staples are now ready for gathering."
*Note: The Harvest Moon is always the full Moon closest to the autumnal equinox. If the Harvest Moon occurs in October, the Sept full Moon is usually called the Corn Moon
October Hunter's Moon (aka Travel Moon, Dying Grass Moon) "With the leaves falling and the deer fattened, it is time to hunt. Since the fields have been reaped, hunters can easily see fox and the animals which have come out to glean."
November Beaver Moon (aka Frost Moon) "This was the time to set beaver traps before the swamps froze, to ensure a supply of warm winter furs. Another interpretation suggests that the name Full Beaver Moon comes from the fact that the beavers are now actively preparing for winter. It is sometimes also referred to as the Frosty Moon."
December Cold Moon (aka Long Nights Moon) "During this month the winter cold fastens its grip, and nights are at their longest and darkest. It is also sometimes called the Moon before Yule. The term Long Night Moon is a doubly appropriate name because the midwinter night is indeed long, and because the Moon is above the horizon for a long time. The midwinter full Moon has a high trajectory across the sky because it is opposite a low Sun."
In other news.... I can not begin to express how much I enjoy Gargoyles. Since becoming aware of your name, I have also seen your name attached to other series that I enjoy. Thank you for the entertainment and enjoyment you have brought to me. My long winded post to answer your question can not compare to how much I have appreciated your work. In short, thank you.
First off, thank you for the context. It is VERY helpful. And thank you for the kind words too.
And thank you for all the very interesting information....
But it does beg a question. You said a few of the names you listed would be different... but let's face it, except for Harvest & Hunter's, ALL the names were different. Some might come across as variants, but most don't.
So I'm still curious about the original names that were posted...
Are the Timedancer, Dark Ages, and other such stories from another site, have anything to do with the orignial show?
Second, I have read several questions that mention future tense stories, are they on TV or where?
Thank you for your time and consideration with putting up with our questions. It is appreciated.
There may be fanfiction sites that have used the tidbits I've revealed, including plans for "TimeDancer", "Gargoyles: The Dark Ages", and "Gargoyles: 2198" (formerly known as "Future Tense"), among other spin-offs. But I've never read any of them.
None of this stuff has appeared on television.
In "City of Stone Part Three", Owen suggests to Xanatos that they look through the Grimorum Arcanorum for a way of reversing Demona's spell upon the city. This didn't seem too odd to me at the time, but after I found out that Owen was really Puck in "The Gathering", I started puzzling over it a little. After all, it seems more than likely that Puck, an inherently magical being, would already be aware of the fact that the spells in the Grimorum could only be used by experienced sorcerers, which Xanatos didn't have on hand, without Xanatos needing to tell him that. So I find that a bit puzzling - unless Puck didn't know as much about the "rules" governing human magic as he did about Oberati magic.
That's all possible. But the situation also clearly called for desperate measures. If there was a solution in the Grimorum, is it really beyond Xanatos' ability to find someone who could put that solution into practice? Well, clearly Xanatos thought there was a better way, so Owen dropped it. But Puck, in his role as Owen, would have been remiss if he hadn't at least listed X's options.
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)?
Salutations. I have a question concerning Robyn "Hunter" Canmore. Specifically, concerning her continued use of the Hunter persona and mask. The proposed Bad Guys show has long been my favorite of the six potential spin-offs, primarily because of my affinity for Dingo (I like to see redemption, I guess its just my religious upbringing). But when I read that Robyn would continue to use the identity and mask of the Hunter, I was initially nonplussed. The Hunter was born in a crucible of hate and anger. The red slash marks always seemed, to me, to be symbolic of the fact that the first Hunter refused to allow his wounds to heal. They may have physically healed, but once he put on the mask, they were suddenly red and (in his mind, at least) fresh. I didn't understand why Robyn, after she'd reformed and given up her family's misguided crusade, would nonetheless continue to wear the mask of the Hunter. But the more I thought about it, the more it made a certain amount of sense. Robyn is not the first Hunter, not by a long shot. Both of her brothers used the identity at one point in their lives, although they have both since abandoned it (though for vastly different reasons). Her Father was the Hunter. Numerous ancestors also wore the mask. By doing good while using the identity of the Hunter, she is, in some way, working to redeem not just herself, but her entire family line since Duncan. That was my interpretation, at least. Was I off the mark?
Not entirely, but you're also forgetting that this isn't all up to Robyn.
Redemption is a BIG theme of this spin-off. And deep down Robyn wants it for both herself, her siblings and her ancestors.
But in the short term -- she's being coerced by the Director. Coerced into participating in the squad. Coerced into maintaining the Hunter identity. How she ultimately comes to terms with all of this, I hope, would be one of the fascinating and complex elements of the series.
Do you plan on doing a new series for Disney or any other channel like Cartoon Network.
Well, I do plan to keep working and earning a living. So... Yep.
Right now, as I've mentioned before, I'm working on the second season of W.I.T.C.H.
The first season (which I was not involved with) is currently airing in ABC Family's Jetix Block and ABC (Broadcast) Saturday Morning. There's some really fun stuff there, so I'd recommend it -- particularly if you want to be prepped for the very cool stuff we have planned for Season Two.