Todd Jensen writes...

I was recently rereading Roger Lancelyn Green's retelling of the Arthurian cycle (it was the January 2009 book for an Arthurian book club that I recently joined), and found this passage at the end of the section on the Quest for the Holy Grail:

"But when the last battle had been fought and the realm of Logres was no more, Percivale's kingdom made still a little light in the darkness of a Britain conquered and laid waste by the barbarians." (p. 248 of the old Puffin Books edition I bought as a boy).

Was this passage the inspiration (or at least, *an* inspiration) for your idea of Percival/Duval founding the Illuminati?

TiniTinyTony writes...

Questions concerning Avalon Parts 1 - 3:

1) Will we see the adventures of Tom in any of the Gargoyles Spinoffs or main comic?
2) Will there be any repercussions for waking up King Arthur "early" and will we see those repercussions in the comics? If so, which comic?
3) Who's face is represented on the front of the Avalon boats?
4) Who's face is represented at the watery gateway to Avalon, where Magus turned the Weird Sisters into owls?
5) Do all 36 Avalon Gargoyles survive the Archmage's assault?
6) Any chance the magic in the sleeping hill will one day revive Magus or is he dead and gone forever?

Todd Jensen writes...

While the notion of mists surrounding the skiff on its journeys from and to Avalon during the World Tour was something that the story needed anyway, to give the proper sense of mystery about travelling to Oberon's isle and back again, I've sometimes wondered whether that concept was also intended as a visual reference to the title of Marion Zimmer Bradley's "The Mists of Avalon". Do you know if the name of her book was an influence there (obviously not the book itself, since Bradley's Avalon is very different from the Avalon of "Gargoyles")?

Vaevictis Asmadi writes...

I asked a question about Pendragon before, but didn't really get into why I asked it. Although I have a lifelong love of mythology, I'd never been interested in Arthurian legends before. I had read The Sword and the Stone in high school, but not the rest of T.H. White's book. However, since getting into Gargoyles I've become interested in Arthurian legend and have read a lot, mostly online. I recently managed to borrow a copy of R.L. Green's book and liked it. I agree with you that his version of Gawain is a very likable character. Making him Percival's father was a strange idea to me, though. I'm currently working my way through the rest of The Once And Future King.

Looking through the archives, it seems like you might not be aware of how close some of your interpretations come to very early pre-Malory versions of the Arthurian legends. For example, according to what I have read, Excalibur was originally considered to be the Sword in the Stone, and they were not considered two separate swords until the 1230s. Also, your choice to make Morgan le Fay a changeling is particularly fitting because although she is usually described as Arthur's sister, she is also often an inhabitant of Avalon and in her first appearance, she is one of the noble ladies of Avalon or even its queen.

Man, I'm forgetting my actual question. I do have one. Um...

Oh yeah. A long time ago, somebody (probably Todd) asked you about the lions and other creatures in Malory. Have you heard of the story of Owain (Yvain/Uwain/Owein) and the Lion? I don't know whether Malory included that story, but a version of it is in R.L. Green's book, although Green gives the adventure to Percival instead of Owain.

Vaevictis Asmadi writes...

I don't believe these questions have been asked before.

1. How does Duval remember King Arthur's reign, what is his current (as of 1996) opinion of King Arthur and his reign?

2. As of Issue #4 of the SLG Comic, does Duval know that King Arthur has been awakened?

Todd Jensen writes...

I was hesitant about making this comment for a while, since I was afraid that it might be read as an idea. But I finally decided (especially since it only uses information directly from "A Lighthouse in the Sea of Time") that it was probably safe.

You mentioned in your ramble on "A Lighthouse in the Sea of Time" that the significance of the inscription on the chest containing Merlin's Scrolls, "The seeker of knowledge has nothing to fear; the destroyer everything" was that the chest was magically warded so that anybody intending to destroy the Scrolls in the manner of Hakon burning pages from the Grimorium Arcanorum would apparently have met an unpleasant fate (and that it was a good thing for Morwood-Smythe and Duane that they were seekers of knowledge). But I found myself seeing another significance to those words beside that.

Macbeth's purpose in stealing the Scrolls was to use the magic that he believed was in them for his own purposes, apparently as part of his hunt for Demona. Goliath clearly feared that others would be after Merlin's magic for the same reason (such as Xanatos - and indeed, we've seen at least two other magic-workers in the series who would have no doubt been eager to exploit the spells that Merlin's Scrolls were thought to contain for their own dark ends). I believe that you could term anyone seeking to put the Scrolls to such use a "destroyer".

But it turns out that the Scrolls are of no value to a "destroyer" in that sense, but only to the "seeker of knowledge" - for what they contain is not Merlin's spells but his memoirs about his life and his tutoring the young King Arthur. Such information seemed useless to Macbeth, but a "seeker of knowledge" would indeed have found them invaluable - an eye-witness account of King Arthur's times, written by Merlin himself! So indeed, in a different sense than you mentioned in the ramble, the search for the Scrolls of Merlin would only be rewarding to the "seeker of knowledge" and not to the "destroyer".

Anonymous writes...

I've got a few oppinions/questions about Oberon. Many fans seem to veiw him as a 'bad guy'. I really don't see him as such. Yeah, he's immature,(the kind of person you don't know wether to laugh at or stranggle at times) but he's a KING. In his mind, he's supposed to get what he wants. For the most part, I often dissagree with his judgement, but I try to look at it from his point of veiw too.
For example, his punishments for the Banshee and Puck (expecialy for Puck) made many fans unhappy with him. I agree, they were harsh.... very harsh. However, I have to remember his feelings of superiority as a lord and the way HE sees it.
I interpreted his POV when punishing the Banshee and Puck to think himself pretty fair. Girl yells a lot, make her shut up. Servant doesn't want to come back to Avalon, fine, banish him. Servant wants to play mortal, fine, take away his powers. Heck, maybe he was event thinking ahead. If he ever desides to change his mind, a harsh punishment might have been better. He could always chalk it it up to being merciful or to have been 'teaching them a lesson'. Or, the subject is so releaved about having the punishment lifted they don't take the time to wonder WHY Oberon changed his mind. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, if you will. That way, Oberon saves face. I supose I should get to the questions now.

1. During the series, will Oberon be given the chance to mature?
2. How does the poor guy keep order in his kingdom? When almost all you subjects are magical, that must be tough. Makes you wonder how he finds time to sleep...
3. You've said Oberon loves his children, does that include Merlin?

Makhasu writes...

Why did Macbeth want the Scrolls of Merlin? That was never answered in the episode Lighthouse in a Sea of Time.

Makhasu writes...

Macbeth said to King Arthur that he was too long a king to serve another. Does this mean that he's never served or worked for anyone post-1057?

Raye writes...

Hello again,

I was rewatching 'Lighthouses in the Sea of Time' and noticed that down in the dig-site the archaeologists (Lydia and Arthur, right?) passed a harp that seemed to play music and shine at their passing. Later I noticed that on the seal of the Scrolls of Merlin there was a symbol that seemed to be in the shape of this harp. So...

1. Was the harp pictured on the seal, or was it just a fluke?

2. What *was* this harp?

3. Who put the harp down there in the cavern?

4. Did this harp belong to Merlin?

Thanks you for any reply. I'm really enjoying rewatching all these episodes on DVD (episodes aired in New Zealand with several scenes cut to fit them into a smaller time period, so it's been great seeing all the extra snippets!)

dph writes...

Was Merlin's conception/birth intentional on the part of Oberon? What I mean is did Oberon deliberately seek out to have a son who was half mortal in the case of Merlin?

Todd Jensen writes...

I thought that I'd better rephrase my Questing Beast comment/question, since I realized that I didn't state it too carefully. What my query was about, properly, was about the Beast still being alive in the present-day of the Gargoyles Universe. As I'd mentioned before, I'd assumed until you mentioned it that it wasn't, since it wasn't on the Arthurian Survivors list, so I'd assumed that it was deceased, like Lancelot, Guinevere, Gawain, Mordred, etc.

So is the Questing Beast's absence from the Arthurian Survivors list simply a case of it not counting as an "Arthurian character" in the same way as Arthur, Merlin, Percival, Blanchefleur, etc. - being rather an animal (though certainly a very remarkable animal)? That's what I'm assuming, but I just wanted to be certain about that.

Richard Von Heinz writes...

1-You've previously stated that in your version of Arthurian Lore that Morgana was really a member of the third race who for some reason was actually traded for the real child Duke Gorlois and Igraine and raised by them. So given the strange circumstances surrounding your version of Morgana, would she still be antagonistic towards the reawakened Arthur Pendragon, if by chance they met, considering that the people that Uther Pendragon wronged weren't her real biological parents and that Arthur has been gone and asleep on Avalon for more than a thousand years or would she stilll bear a grudge towards him even though Arthur's knights and kingdom are all but vanished.

2-On a related note to the first question why was Nimue, the person who supposedly trapped Merlin, made the actual biological child of Gorlois and Igraine when there wasn't any connection between her or Gorlois and Igraine in the actual legends. Was this whole plot twist set up in order to explain why Morgana had supernatural powers while Arthur was an ordinary mortal?

Blaise writes...

PENDRAGON

I have to admit, when this first aired, I was more than a little surprised to see Arthur showing up again (or at least, so soon after AVALON). Likewise with Griff. And it was even more surprising that you guys teamed them up like this. Surprising and delightful.

I was also pleased to see the return of Macbeth (for the last time in the regular series). I have to admit, at first I was a little disappointed that Macbeth was the antagonist, simply because after CITY OF STONE and SANCTUARY he had become such a tragic and sympathetic figure, you wanted to root FOR him, not against him. Also, I'm not sure, but I think a lot more of Macbeth's reverance for Arthur could have been shown. In fact, when he and Arthur are crossing swords (well, sword and mace) he says, "You will kneel to me" in an almost spiteful way. Of course, in the end, Mac shows himself to actually be a bigger man than Arthur when it comes to admiting defeat--he does so instantly, unlike Arthur who had to be coached (and I had never thought about the similarity to those who had challenged Arthur's legitimacy back in the legends).

Anyway, back to London. I agree with your reasonings for not giving Arthur a sword (though, personally, I would have preferred a double-bladed axe to a mace, but that's just me). I just love Arthur's surprise at a locked church--says a lot about how times have changed.
BTW, you said that one of Arthur's trips was to the Guggenheim in NYC--New York City, yes? I must say, I find that a bit surprising. Since he didn't run into the clan, I can only guess that it must've taken place during the day. And if I were him, I would have been more than a little cheesed-off that my path looped on me like that ("Aww, I just LEFT here!").

The Stone was a surprise, but cool (and I love Frank Welker's voice). If the Stone's speaking didn't surprise Arthur, though, I wonder what Arthur was reacting to when he gasped and lept back into Griff. He might have felt someone else in the room, I guess.
As for Griff's design, for the most part it's okay in this ep, except for where he recites the poem (nice poem, BTW). At this point, he loses his neck. It just looks like there's this huge LUMP in the middle of his shoulders that has a beak, eyes and a mohawk.

At any rate, I really like Arthur's portrayl (sp?) here. A lot of times in popular culture, it seems, he's turned into this infallible, wonderfully wise, Paladin-like character. While that is definitely a side of his personality, I like that it's only a side--Arthur is a human, and as such, imperfect. He's not terribly humble, he perfers acting to thinking (like you said), and continually refuses to accept the possibility that he may NOT be destined for Excalibur again. Actually, this makes him easier to identify with.

One bit I like: As Macbeth is performing the summon spell, Banquo yells over the wind and rain, "HE AIN'T PAYIN' US ENOUGH FOR THIS!" In hindsight, it's like a bit of foreshadowing for him and Fleance leaving Macbeth's service (and joining up with Castaway).

Arthur immediately recognizes Macbeth (no fond memories there), and Macbeth, of course, has no memory. I like how that doesn't really phase him, though.

The gargoyles expertly handle Macbeth and his goons (it's great how they disarmed them all in less than 5 seconds). Brooklyn displays his leadership of the clan when he opts to stay and collect "some answers" rather than pursue Macbeth.

And then the clan gets a big ol' 1-2-3 punch. 1) There's a gargoyle standing right in front of them--when they thought they were the last all this time. 2) King Arthur is there as well--THE King Arthur. 3) Both the gargoyle and King Arthur have seen their missing leader and friend, Goliath. It's a heck of a lot of information to take in, and that (coupled with their trying to find Excalibur and deal with Macbeth) kind of numbs them to the ramifications of Griff's very existence for the moment. Or, at least, that's my guess. I would have loved to hear them wonder whether or not Griff was the only other one.

One nit, here: The poem says "Ebon glass in emerald frame." And they (correctly) figure it's the lake, but the lake is just a dark blue. Ebon should be black. Oh, well.

Finally, we meet the Lady of the Lake. A fun little note, here: a few months ago, I turned some of my friends onto GARGOYLES, and sometimes they had interesting observations. One of them was along the lines of, "The Lady of the Lake would HAVE to be a Child of Oberon to have a body like THAT in the Dark Ages."

I like how Macbeth plugs in his crystal ball, and uses a monitor screen as his "scrying pool." Ah, the conveniences of modern technology.

Can't add much to what you've already said about the Water Djinn sequence, mostly because I find myself agreeing with you. Still, you guys only had 22 minutes or so to work with.

I got a kick out of the whole "Brooklyn" exchange. There are some inconveniences to being named after a location.

Like Todd, I was a bit surprised that Banquo (and Fleance as well, it seems) know about Macbeth's true identity. Mac must have a LOT of confidence in them.

At about this point, the Trio and Hudson largely take a backseat to the main action--Arthur and Griff vying with Macbeth for the sword. That's not to say that they don't have some good fight moments with Banquo and Fleance.

While it was never readily apparent that Banquo and Fleance were wearing power-suits, that knowledge does help explain a couple things I'd always wondered about: 1) How Banquo didn't lose his legs when Hudson hit them with what looked like the sword's cutting-edge, and 2) How Banquo wasn't crushed under the weight of both the tree AND Broadway.
Actually, Fleance seemed to be the more competent of the two in this battle--almost single-handedly taking out all four gargs. And she's got a tough hover-bike, one that crashes, but can still be used as stairs later on.

Griff encourages Arthur to continue fighting for Excalibur--yup, our king's found his first uber-loyal supporter.

The dragon...I am a BIG dragon buff, and I was indescribably pleased to see one in GARGOYLES, even if it was technically made of stone. The "vents" on the neck were an interesting and unique touch. And of course the whole "fight-and-flight" sequence was fun. The Trio and Hudson seemed to have the roughest time of it, being knocked back at the first, and then dodging fireballs while flying around the dragon's head, (Hudson whacking it with his sword...which right now reminds me of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" where Lancelot whacks the French castle with his sword before retreating).

One thing that never ceases to amaze me is Griff's way of freeing Arthur--making the dragon drop him and then grabbing him by the *corner of his cape* as he starts to fall! Arthur never even blanched. Then again, this is the same guy who a few seconds later plunges his had into the magical fire to retrieve Excalibur. I loved that part, BTW.

Poor Macbeth looks so sad when he drops the remnants of the false sword. I like that Arthur asks Macbeth to join him. As I recall, that was something he often did in the old legends: make a friend and knight out of a former foe. Of course I also recall reading somewhere that Excalibur could burst into blue flame or some such thing, so what do I know?

Arthur pretty much states what his next quest is (find that old fart, Merlin), and then does something I didn't quite expect...he knights Griff. I have to admit, maybe it's a bit prejudiced on my part, but I never contemplated the idea of a gargoyle-knight. I like it though.

I didn't get the idea that this was a sort of "backdoor pilot" to a spin-off, but once I found out, it made perfect sense. If this ep was any indication, it was already shaping up to be a fine show.

There's my ramble, and tomorrow I start replying to EYE OF THE STORM.

Harvester of Eyes writes...

I have a question concerning half-breeds. Perhaps you've answered it, but I've perused most of the questions concerning the third race, Oberon's children, and Fox. Anyway, if Merlin is the offspring of Oberon and a mortal human, does that make him immortal? Arthur seems intent on finding him at the end of the episode "Pendragon." Would this also mean that Fox, being the offspring of a similar union, is immortal? Does whether or not the immortal parent is male or female have any bearing on this?

Todd Jensen writes...

Thanks for the "Pendragon" ramble, Greg.

This is, of course, an episode that I'm very fond of because of my being an Arthurian buff. I've been therefore eagerly awaiting your ramble on it for a long time, and I'm glad that the wait is finally over.

I hadn't expected Arthur and Griff to team up before this episode, but I very much liked the concept. I still think that it's a pity that the "Pendragon" spin-off never got made to show us their adventures. (It's still my personal favorite of the projected spin-offs in the Master Plan.)

Although you don't mention it, there's an echo here of the first Arthur-related episode in "Gargoyles", "A Lighthouse in the Sea of Time", with Macbeth again as the antagonist and Banquo and Fleance as his assistants. And again Macbeth is going after an Arthurian artifact.

A couple of bits about Macbeth in this episode still stand out to me. One is the fact that Banquo and Fleance know that he's *the* Macbeth; that got my attention at once. The other is that Macbeth, after drawing the fake-Excalibur from the statue, describes himself as "Macbeth, son of Findlaech". I very much enjoyed the little reference to his father, who thus gains a certain posthumous presence in the series long after "City of Stone Part One" (I find myself also recalling his cameo in "Avalon Part Two", when the Archmages are spying on Macbeth in 1020). Even when characters are dead, they're not forgotten.

I was initially a bit taken aback by the Stone of Destiny being the stone from the Sword in the Stone legend, since the Stone of Destiny was in either Ireland or Scotland at the time rather than in London (where the Sword in the Stone was set up), but I've since grown to accept it. It certainly makes sense; I've read a couple of commentaries on the Sword in the Stone legend which connected it to the Stone of Destiny, so equating them is certainly feasible. (I hadn't even considered the possibility of the Stone actually speaking those words to the assembled British nobles and knights until you mentioned it, I might add.)

I very much like the concept of Arthur's role being somewhere beyond Britain, even if it does take a different course from the traditional legends about his future return. (Arthur becoming ruler of Britain again would have made the Gargoyles Universe too different from the real world, of course, which gives an additional good reason to go in the direction that you chose.)

I hadn't even noted the parallel between Macbeth and King Pellinor, but I really like it. Thanks for sharing it with us. (I always was fond of Pellinor, from the time that I first met him in T. H. White's "The Sword in the Stone".) I certainly get a kick out of Arthur and Macbeth as allies - two of the most famous legendary kings of all time, if with dramatically different reputations. A real crossover concept, in fact.

Maybe the one weak point about the Gargoyles take on Arthur is that he seems a little too influenced by T. H. White - in the sense that he doesn't seem "uniquely Gargoyles Universe" enough. Other characters from traditional legend who cropped up in "Gargoyles" in major roles did so in a way that felt true to their originals, and yet in such a way that you could still, when meeting them, say "This is the Gargoyles Universe version of the character" at once. Macbeth was definitely this way, as is Puck, and so are the Weird Sisters, Oberon, and Titania. But Arthur feels maybe a bit too "conventional Arthur" in his appearances. Although I assume that, if you'd gotten to make the "Pendragon" spin-off, you'd have found ways of making him stand out a bit more from other writers' take on Arthur.

The bit about the fake Excalibur (which Arthur recognizes at once to be a fake) reminds me of a story in Malory where Morgan le Fay stole Excalibur from Arthur and replaced it with a worthless duplicate, while then giving the real Excalibur to one of her knights whom she then manipulated into attacking Arthur - obviously Arthur isn't going to be taken in by the lookalike ploy this time around.

And I certainly liked the concept of a different take on "the sword in the stone".

I can't help wondering a little what Leo and Una must have thought about Griff going off with Arthur so soon after he'd rejoined them, though I doubt that it was quite as bad this time around. For one thing, I get the impression that a major point behind it was that they didn't know for certain what had happened to Griff in "M.I.A.", and whether he was dead or not, which wouldn't happen this time around (since I recall that you mentioned that Griff called them up from New York long-distance). Also, there was the "buried guilt" issue over the fact that they knew, deep down inside, that they should have gone with him - and since now, after "M.I.A.", they've returned to being protectors, that isn't an issue any longer either.

At the end, I was eager to see Arthur and Griff go on their quest for Merlin, and thought it a pity that that story wasn't continued. (This will touch slightly on "Sentinel", but I'm saving my comments on that for when you ramble on it.) At least we get to see Arthur knighting Griff, which I thought was a great scene. And a fine way to begin a new set of adventures.... (Here's hoping that someday you'll get to tell them.)

Joey writes...

How did Elisa know how to wake up Sleeping King Arthur in Avalon part 3?

Gipdac writes...

I believe you've said Arthur had some adventures before the events of "Pendragon", so, I was wondering…
1. When did Goliath & Co. arrive in London and meet Una and Leo (in "M.I.A.")?
2. When did Arthur arrive in London and first meet Griff (in "Pendragon")?
3. What day in 1920 did Goliath travel back to first meet Griff ("M.I.A.")?

gipdac writes...

I have some more questions about the Arthurian characters in the Gargoyles Universe,
1. When was Merlin imprisoned in the Crystal Cave?
2. Who imprisoned Merlin in the Crystal Cave?
3. When did Sir Gawain battle the Green Knight for the first time?
4a. Is Excalibur the Sword from the Stone or are the two separate swords? 4b. When was Excalibur forged? 4c. Where was Excalibur forged? 4d. By whom was Excalibur forged? 4e. How did Excalibur come into the possession of the Lady of the Lake?
5. What year were Sir Percival and Lady Blanchefleur wed?
6. What year were King Arthur and Lady Gwenyvere wed?
7. What year did Lancelot and Gwenyvere run away together?
8. Which spelling do you prefer: Gwenyvere or Guinevere? (I know Angela and Broadway's daughter's name is spelled Gwenyvere, but I wasn't sure if it was the same for the Arthurian queen)
9a. Who are Morgana le Fay’s parents (biological and/or adopted)? 9b. Is Morgana Arthur’s half-sister?
10. When and how did Sir Percival first come in contact with the Holy Grail and Castle Carbonek?
11a. Did Joseph of Arimathea bring the Grail to Britain? 11b. In what year did the Grail first come to Britain?
12. When where the Scroll of Merlin written?

As always, love the show and truly appreciate your dedication to your fans (including me) and their endless borage of questions. Thanks ;-)

gipdac writes...

I have some questions about the birthdays of the Arthurian characters in the Gargoyles Universe,
1a. When was Merlin born? b. What was his mother's name? c. When was she born?
2. When was Nimue born?
3. When was Morgana le Fay born?
4. When was Gwenyvere born?
5. When was Lancelot born?
6. When was Galahad born?
7a. When was Percival born? 7b. What year did he take on the name Duval? 7c. Who are Percival’s parents?
8. When was Blanchefleur born?
9. When was Gawain born?
10. When were the Lady of the Lake and the Green Knight born?
11a. When was Modred born? 11b. Who are his parents?
12. When were Uther Pendragon and Igraine born?
13. When was Ector born?
14. When was Kay born?

Thanks you for all your patience.

Todd Jensen writes...

A question about Elisa awakening King Arthur "early". Now, we know that Elisa awakened Arthur ahead of schedule, based on the information given in "Avalon Part Three" and "Pendragon", and that he was apparently originally supposed to be awakened somewhat later and for a different emergency than the Archmage (although we don't know what it was or how far away in time it would be).

What I'm curious about is: has Elisa thereby altered Arthur's destiny? To explain a little more about what I mean, I suppose that I'd better go into a brief "ramble".

We don't know much about the nature of fate or destiny in the Gargoyles Universe (beyond the fact that the Weird Sisters are linked to it, at least when Luna is the dominant one), but we can tell that it exists in some ways (such as Avalon sending people "where they need to be"). I don't know if it's actually supposed to be possible to "alter destiny" in the Gargoyles Universe, beyond the fact that we know that the past can't be altered (as Goliath and Demona have both learned the hard way), but since Elisa came to the Hollow Hill in her own time rather than in the past, her awakening Arthur obviously wouldn't count as changing history in the same way that somebody going back in time to, say, avert the Wyvern Massacre would. However, since the future is part of the time-stream (and I assume that the only 2198 in the Gargoyles Universe is the one where the Space-Spawn show up and take over the planet and there are no alternate 2198s where that event doesn't take place), it doesn't seem so probable that it can be altered.

On the other hand, we do know that carefully-laid plans that were devised, not by God or destiny or something of a transcendent nature, but by humans or gargoyles or the Oberati, can be changed through the actions of others. Demona and the Captain of the Guard's original plans to betray Castle Wyvern, for example, wound up having different results than those that they were expecting, thanks partly to Goliath's decision to only take Hudson with him, partly to Hakon's decision to smash the gargoyles at the castle in spite of the Captain's protests.

So what my real question is, I suppose, is this; was the original "future time" for Arthur's awakening (in which he will not be awakening after all thanks to Elisa) set by God or Fate or something of that nature, or was it set merely by people (as in, the ones who placed him in the Hollow Hill)? Has Elisa genuinely altered Arthur's future, or only altered his future as it was perceived by those who laid him to sleep on Avalon?

Francois Ferland writes...

Hi Greg! I'm posting for the first time and it feels wierd, since I tried to send questions 4 or 5 years ago and they got deleted. Anyway...

First of all, I'd like to thank you for having been (and still being) such an important part of the Gargoyles franchise. You (and others of course) provided me with easily THE single best animated show ever. A well written series great voice acting, continuous plots, characters that are believable, and a complex universe that manages both to include lots of existing legends and myths while still retaining a distinct identity. I truly think that in terms of all-around quality for a dramatic show, Gargoyles was easily Disney's best effort by far. Reboot is the only other animated show that I've seen that seems to exhibit the same qualities, meaning well-written, clever and quite enjoyable for both kids and adults.

Also, I'm happy to learn that Gathering 2004 will take place in Montreal, meaning I might actually be able to attend! I don't know if you're the one who chose the location, but if you are, thanks on behalf of us Canadians!

Finally, I'd just like to thank you for actually answering the flood of questions we fans send your way. And especially your god-like patience towards people who obviously never took the time to read the FAQ OR archive. I can understand asking about a minor detail that could have been missed, but among the questions being submitted, I know there are some LAZY people I wouldn't mind slapping once or twice in the face...

Anyway, I have a number of questions on different subject, so expect a few one-question posts from me.

This one would fit in a "Writing" category if there is such a thing.

1. Regarding your current master plan (i.e. your ideas for the various spin-offs), it's obvious you've given lots of thoughts to the initial setting of each. The main characters and their immediate goals for example, as well as ideas for early stories as well as a few ideas for on-going plots. A lot of course would be dictated by the characters (and your muse I'm sure) as the shows would go along.

a) Now here's my question: Do you have an idea about the possible endings of some of your spin-offs? I don't want you to tell me anything, just if you have some "Ultimate goals" in mind for all your spin-offs.

Gargoyles itself has always been very open-ended. There never was a single overlying theme to the series, it just kept going on on its own, the plots and characters growing in complexity in a very organic and sometimes unpredictable way. It could potentially keep going on for years and years.

But some of your spin-offs have very specific premises. There ARE stories that are better told if planned from beginning to end as a whole. Others however are better if left to evolve on their own. An aimless story could potentially "find its voice" after a while, leading to an ultimate ending of sorts. Or, the initial premise could be transformed over time, leading the story in a quite different direction.

For example, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Initially, the show is about our heroes trying to restore a people (Bajorans) to a stable society following years of occupation by an enemy race (Cardassians). Yet, after two years, the show introduced a much bigger menace, a race who sought to conquer and control all others (the Dominion). From then on, the show eventually lead to a huge war with the ending signaling the end of the hostility.

a) How do you feel about long stories? About those that are open-ended and those that have some finality set for them? (I hope I'm not being to vague here. I'm really interested in how you feel about this)

And about some specifics spin-offs:

b) Bad Guys: The basic idea is about our main characters seeking redemption. Do you know if they ever find it? And would that be the goal of the show?

c) TimeDancer: Ultimately, the very final ending is, in a way, already known. Brooklyn makes it home a lot older with a family. But do you already have some sketchy idea about how he finally makes it there, like some final adventure dealing with the Phoenix Gate itself, or were you planing on dealing with it once you were forced to, like a series' finale?

c) Gargoyles 2198: This one seems to be mostly about the war against the Space-Spawn but as you often say, "Things aren't that simple". Would the liberation of Earth signal the end of the series, or would you keep the series going with the existing setting once the war is over? After all, there might still be other threats like Coyote-X, the Illuminati, etc.

d) Dark Ages: Since this one could theoretically run up to the beginning of "Awakening", I won't ask if you have an ending in mind.

e) Pendragon: It's obvious now that Merlin, Mr. Duval and Holy Grail would be important part of the story. Do you have an ending in mind for this one, or where you again planing on seeing where the story ultimately took you?

f) New Olympians: This one feels pretty generic, and feels like it could run forever like Gargoyles. The ultimate goal I suppose would be the acceptance of New Olympus by humanity, but judging by the response toward gargoyles, wouldn't likely fit within an entire series, no matter how long it might be. Still, got an ending in mind, even if it's pretty open-ended, like "Hunter's Moon pt.3"?

Thanks a lot for answering.