Emmlei writes...

This is in reply to my questions you answered. You wondered if I'd read the intro to 'Ask Greg,' I did, but I'd completely forgotten that part of it :P. I didn't realize it until a couple weeks later. So let me rephrase the 'Tempest' question.
1. Which characters were you going to have introduced into the active part of the series? Which would be relagated to flashbacks?
2. What are your takes on at least Caliban and Ariel?
3. What type of relation to the regular characters would the 'Tempest' characters have? ie, would it be immeadiate allies-type, gradual respect-type (like Macbeth's), or would they be enemies?

Greg "Xanatos" Bishansky writes...

Greg, thanks for the ramble about taking your kids to see "A Midsummer Night's Dream". Nice to see you passing Shakespeare on to the next generation. Though Erin and Ben are not the only ones you're teaching/taught it to.

I have yet to see "A Midsummer Night's Dream" (though I saw the movie) performed, but I saw "Titus" last summer, and as you know "A Winter's Tale" with Keith David recently. I loved both of them and look forward to seeing more. Though originally (before "Gargoyles"), I thought of Shakespeare the way your average teenager thinks of it... as boring old books.

Through "Gargoyles" I learned to love and appreciate the Immortal Bard and his works. I planned to tell you this at the Gathering, but at the last minute I could not make it. I'll see you again next year though.

Not just Shakespeare, you inspired me to pick up a book.

Todd Jensen writes...

I read (and very much enjoyed) your ramble about taking your kids to see "A Midsummer Night's Dream". I recall attending a performance of that play some years ago (I believe that it was early 1994), which I very much enjoyed. One particular feature of it (which seems almost like a forerunner of "Gargoyles" - which hadn't yet come out when I saw it) was that Philostrate, Theseus's "Master of Ceremonies", was played by a woman, who did the character with a style best described as a "female Owen" - very capable, efficient, and formal. (Makes one wonder if Vogel was Puck's only inspiration :)

(Another Shakespearean performance that I've seen, done by the same company, was a sort of "double feature" of "Hamlet" and Tom Stoppard's "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead", which did the two plays on alternate nights, but with the same cast and even the same stage business for those scenes from "Hamlet" that showed up in the Stoppard play - which made seeing the latter all the more an interesting experience after having seen "Hamlet" only a little earlier).

Ambrosia writes...

*Chuckles*
I just read your account of taking your kids to see A Midsummer Night's Dream. You are such a cool dad.
When you said that before you went, you tried to tell them the plotline of the play so they'd know what to expect, it reminded me of a public speaking class I just took over the summer at my JC. The last and most valuable (point-wise) speech was the "entertaining speech" and I figured that the plot from Midsummer had always entertained me and made me laugh... not to mention it would take about 1-5 minutes to explain in a condensed version.

The result? I lost five points with the explanation "consider your audience."

"My audience" was a roomful of intelleigent, 18-40something college students!!! I don't think any of them followed it. Too many names and too complicated, I was told.
But, enough of my whining. I think it's great that Erin and Benny are starting so early with Shakespeare.

Laura 'ad astra' Ackerman writes...

In answer to a series of question I asked about Oberon and Titania's children (together and otherwise) and the events of Midsummer Night's Dream you mentioned "the pedophile theory" and said, "(platonic or otherwise) [it] still may fit the play best. Haven't worked out whether it applies to the Garg Universe." I must admit to ignorance, what theory?

Strangely enough I never really enjoyed reading Midsummer. Usually I like reading Shakespeare as much as watching, but I just couldn't get into it when last I tried. As a result I can't stand by my inability if seeing anything fitting that description in the play. In seeing the play the boy barely did anything but be handed around and look cute, but performances are already interpretations with choices. Are you saying there is a theory that Oberon wanted the kid for reasons other than being annoyed Titania was ignoring him, or that Titania was interested in the kid in ways other than adopting a dead friend's (or was it worshiper?- I don't remember well enough) child. I don't remember having that sort of theory come up outside of Hamlet. {In Hamlet I can see that there might be elements, but usually find it overplayed. Then again, I am a prude and often wear rose tinted glasses.}

I had also commented on Oberon's amusement at discovering Fox's existence. I would have expected him to be jealous, and wondered if he was exhibiting some maturity in recognition of his own track record. You said that Oberon wouldn't have been jealous because he was divorced from Titania at the time. Since when has Oberon been strictly logical or mature? Until that moment I wouldn't have put it past him to begrudge the fact that the woman he divorced had remarried and had a child with someone else despite any children he had hanging about. When we first meet Oberon, the way he responded to Titania's offer of remarriage seemed to me as if he had been quite anxious for that to happen. It almost seemed to me he had offered before and been turned down. I don't mean that he went begging her, just that he had made gestures of reconciliation and she turned him down in no uncertain terms making clear she was his subject, not love. Mostly it signaled to me that the big blue jerk had some genuine feelings for Titania, and was emotionally invested in her being his wife again. Was my reading completely off? And why was Oberon so amused?

Emmlei writes...

I was thinking recently about Demona and the Canmores/Hunters, and it dawned on me that it's a lot like the Montagues and Caputlets of 'Romeo and Juliet'. Both involve two 'families' battling each other over a past greivance, one whose cause unfortunately became lost in the past (for Gargoyles, it's some kid getting slashed in the face, and we never learn the cause in 'R&J'). In both, the drive for revenge becomes the driving force for keeping the feud going. It's kind of tragic that in both stories, something as low as vengence causes so much pain on both sides. So, was that intentional or did I just come across one of those universal themes?

Emmlei writes...

Hi, Greg. First off, gotta say how much I love Gargoyles. That done, what enjoy the most about it is how you managed to weave in so much history, myth and Shakespeare into the overall plot. Especially the Shakespeare. (I've kinda picked up the habit of naming the birds of prey at the center from the show :P )
So number 1) Were you planning to do anything with "The Tempest"? It seems like a natural next step, what with Prospero, Caliban, Ariel, the mention of the witch Sycorax, etc.
2) Did you guys do any research on the _real_ Macbeth? I heard somewhere that he might have been real.
3) What about the Changeling from "A Midsummer Night"?
4) And lastly, the bandwagon question: are you ever gonna tell us what Titania said to Fox?

Todd Jensen writes...

In one of your most recent answers, you discussed briefly a few of the villains whom you'd planned to show in "Timedancer" if you'd made it. One of them was a certain "Calaban". Is this the same (more or less) as Caliban from "The Tempest"?

Punchinello writes...

Hello.
I see you are making progress with your backlog of questions. This question is kind of an ammendment to another question of mine.

A couple of months ago I asked if your idea for Owen was influenced by an archetype I referred to as being "a supernatural charachter indentured to a human master." I made reference to djinn being bound within oak or silver. Now, I dont recall if I was thinking this at the time, but...

I had just recently viewed "Prospero's Books" by Peter Greenaway again. There is a rather disturbing scene therin, of Ariel, bound in his "cloven pine." Spitting out splinters of wood and carring on. It's all rather ghastly. I had, in the past, made the observation that Ariel could be an other example of this archetype. I think, however, that I needed the emphasis Greenaway placed on certain elements to make some connections apparent to me. Of some peripheral interest is the fact that ariel is another spirit bound in a tree, but of greater interest is the stress placed on the characters servitude to Prospero. It was not much of a stretch to *read Owen* into the character.

OF GREATER INTEREST was how easy it became to read Xanatos into Prospero. I was struck by several things in this vein. The first being the parallel between the two men's status as "mortal's" who had aquired great power through supernatural means; particularly through the service of a captive spirit. (I realize the term "captive" does not really describe Owen's situation.) Further, Xanatos' collection of supernatural artifacts (The Eye, the Grimorrim, even the Gargoyles) could be a reflection of Prospero's robes and staff. The artifacts which empower him.

I also considered (perhaps on the heels of watching an adaptation that placed such emphasis on Pospero's Books) that the Grimorrim might be a volume Xanatos "valued above his dukedom."

I wonder also if a reading of Xanatos as *the exiled duke* would be too far off. Milan is in rather close proximity to Greece. I believe you placed Petros Xanatos as a native, there. While Xanatos may not have been physically exiled from his place of birth, it could be argued that his distance from his father and their conflicted relationship could be read as a kind of exile.

Now, I realize you have your reasons for not wanting to confirm or deny ideas that you had for the show, but were not able to elaborate on before it's cancellation. I read the anecdote about the guy who thought you had stolen his idea. (Wasn't he asking about the characters from "The Tempest," actually?) At this point, however, I think you have rather concretely established that Shakespeare plays a rather prominent and consistent theme in "Gargoyles." I cant imagine that anyone would not be inclined to believe that you were going for this reading from the beginning.

Maybe I'm completely wrong about all of this, but I'm sure it will elicit some interesting commentary from you.