JESS writes...

This is a general comment not a question, sorry.
matt writes about bronx not being able to feel pride ...
if he's comparing bronx to a dog, i know for a fact some dogs have a sense of humour, and can get jelous - so why not pride ??
also bronx seems to show considerable intelligence in the series, and to understand, pretty much, what is being said.
( cue "why not pride" question again!)
OK here's one for you, greg - does he?

matt writes...

at the end of "hound of Ulster" Goliath says that Bronx has a right to be proud of himself. now, i like Bronx and i think he is smarter and at times more emotional than your average dog but he is still an animal and i don't quite see how he can feel pride. maybe love, and fear, and loyalty, but pride???

matt writes...

in your analysis of "the mirror" (or somewhere) you mentioned that you wondered what the humans of New York thought when they suddenly relized they were not wearing shoes. last night, as i watched the episode i noticed that only one human was shown without shoes at the end of the episode. i don't think he was wearing shoes to begin with, here's why: the animators would probably pay closest attention to Elisa's changes back and forth cuz she was the main human character. when she became a gargoyle she no longer had shoes (or a jacket for that matter) and when she changed back she did. i think therefore that when Puck changed everyone back they would be as they were before, as Elisa was. that one guy probably was at home or something without shoes on when he was changed to a gargoyle than left his house and happened to be in the street when changed back. i realize i just rambled on about something completely pointless, but it was an observation that i had to share with everyone at "ask Greg".

Aris Katsaris writes...

Random thoughts about Vows:

I think it was around this episode that I decided I really loved the series. Or perhaps it was "The Mirror". One way or another this ep solidified the feeling...

There's an interesting thing about the greek dubbing. When the series was first shown in all the episodes the word "Illuminati" was spoken translated with the (archaic) Greek "Pefotismenoi"-"Enlightened Ones".

This created a very nice subtlety when the Norman ambassador greets Xanatos. He didn't say the obvious "a fellow Illuminatus" (in fact I was quite surprised -and disappointed- when I learned that's what was spoken in the original ep). He said "an Enlightened comrade." I really, *really* loved that line. Both the viewers and Xanatos knew what he was referring to. But the bystanders would get no special meaning by this, other than that the ambassador was praising Xanatos...

Something more about the translation was that it was strangely constructed in the speeches of the 10th century humans- adjectives after the nouns, a rhythm in their speech: Almost as if they were speaking poetry. Probably meant to make a distinction between their speech and the modern-day one... Was there anything analogous in the original?

<<Was anyone expecting Fox and X to really get married? And once they were, did you think you'd see them have a kid by season's end?>>

Once they'd gotten engaged, I did expect them to get married - but the child certainly stunned me. I think my mouth was hanging open at the end of "Outfoxed".

And I certainly didn't expect how that arc would go - that it'd cause Xanatos's redemption. What I had thought immediately after Outfoxed was "Poor kid! He's going to be experimented upon.". I knew that Xanatos had feelings for Fox, but I didn't know that he'd also have feelings for his son...

VF writes...

I've not read anything here before about this theory, so I hope I don't shock anybody. But have you ever thought about the evidence in the series that - gulp - there is a bit of a subconscious attraction between Elisa and Xanatos? Were you deliberate in creating this underlying current? Again, the intricacies of the characters and the stories are why this show appeals to me so much. Not that either Elisa or Xanatos would ever admit to such a thing, let alone act upon it. In fact, if I read Elisa's characterization right, she'd probably kill me for even suggesting such a thing.

But consider that Xanatos - although looking at Elisa as an adversary - will say things like "the charming Detective Maza" and "I love a woman with delicate wrists," etc. And, really, isn't he just a little too interested in her life? I have no doubt of his love and attraction for Fox, but Elisa is very similar to Fox - only working on the side of selflessness vs. selfishness. Xanatos seems to like strong women who can hold their own. And when he claims the feud against the gargoyles is over in "Hunter's Moon," his voice is almost - gulp again - tender when he says to Elisa, "He's waiting for you."

For Elisa's part in this - well, sure it's absurd to be attracted to a man who's turned your brother into a mutate. So I'll again caution that I'm meaning this on a very, very subconscious level. But you can't convince me there isn't some very passionate love/hate heat passing between these two in "Eye of the Beholder" when Xanatos prepares to take off in pursuit of Fox-as-werefox and Goliath, and Elisa jumps up and grabs her arms around him, looks him in the eye and very emphatically says, "I trust you about as far as I can throw you, Xanatos." And then he puts his arm around her waist and they're off because he doesn't have time to argue with her. It's almost as if you don't know if she wants to strangle him or kiss him. Similarly, look at the intensity of love/hate Demona has for Goliath. I also think you could argue that another reason why Fox attacks Elisa (who, to the werefox, appears to transform into Fox) is out of a tinge of jealousy. (You did say that episode was very romantically charged.) Also, Xanatos is a strong, attractive, intelligent ... human male (!) who, like Elisa, seems to have a bit of a nocturnal nature and has a seemingly predestined interest in and connection to the gargoyles. If he weren't so self-serving and nasty and wouldn't alter the physical chemistries of her relatives ... and if she hadn't met Goliath ... , heck, she could really go for a guy like him.

So, enough sacrilege out of me. I'd love to get your take on this. And thanks.

DrFaust writes...

Re: Working time paradoxes.

I must confess, I've always liked "changing the past" time travel stories. I was indoctrinated by "Back to the Future" at a young age. <shrug>

Unfortunately, I have yet to find a book with Heinlein's "All You Zombies." All the libraries around seem to focus on his monumental novels that hammer home the same points over and over. (Annoying nit I feel obligated to mention: all his characters have the same vocabulary and speech mannerisms. Drives me nuts.)

So, er, about the paradox thingy. Wish I had more to comment on it. There is a certain sense of balance and rightness to a self-fulfilling paradox. Makes for a neater and cleaner story. The first time I came across it was a short story by someone I can't remember called "Up By His Bootstraps" (or something similar). The idea blew me away.

It's almost a kind of aethestic, I think. While there is the appeal of a neat paradox, some people like the messy timeloops. Take Lawrence Miles' Faction Paradox ("Alien Bodies" and "Interference"). One of their forms of punishment is for a member to kill his or her's younger self.

Of course, Simon Bucher-Jones suggested in "Ghost Devices" that a self-cancelling paradox would loop over and over, variating slightly each time until some sequence of events occurred that allowed the universe to go on. Sort of like that mythical first time around that Vashkoda suggested.

Aesthetically pleasing as it may be, I always thought this kind of history was somewhat depressing. How do you *know* it was free will? If there never was a first time, and you've always been doing a particular action, then there's nothing to you say you could change. Which you can't.

Anyhoo, just a thought or two buried in all that.

"...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing..."

Jason Barnett writes...

I just read your thoughts on the X-men movie and the books' continuity. About Rogue, she actually first appeared in Avengers Annual 10 and apparently had several appearences in Dazzler, so she was with the Brotherhood for a little while at least. And as for the Ms. Marvel powers, they weren't that vague, super strength, invulnerability, flight. I always felt they were necessary to make a potentially interesting character viable. Half the time when she absorbed somebody their mind took her over so she was against the X-men, so she had to have something she could do to benefit the team.

demona writes...

greg could u give me some sits where i might find other gargoyle fans?

kevy writes...

Criky! I've just been looking at the archives and all I can say is thank you Greg! We fans are ruthless and relentless.

Blaise writes...

VOWS

First off, I hope you had a happy Thanksgiving!

Now, on to the episode.
The Pheonix Gate--I never dreamt of its power until Demona put it to use. I never even knew GARGOYLES would deal with time travel, but I was quite pleasantly surprised when it did.
On the subject of time travel, I really do prefer the way you guys used it. The "what's-happened-already-happened-time-is-immutable" method. You are right, it is far more satisfying for me (and in some cases, more fun as well).

Petros Xanatos is quite a guy. Usually, in animated shows with villains, they make the parents of said villain just as bad as their offspring, or turn them into comedy relief. It's refreashing that in this series, the parents don't approve of the more shady activities pursued by their children. Also, I think the way Morgan Shepherd (I know I misspelled that) reads each line is wonderful. And, like you, I think the "Mr. Big-Shot Time-Traveler" line and "American Penny" tag are wonderful moments.

In the initial airings, I did like seeing that Goliath bled from the mouth at the beginning. He wasn't quite so invulnerable after all. Unfortunately, they don't seem to show him bleeding in that opening fight anymore.
They also toned down Young Demona's over-enthusiastic greeting of Young Goliath the first time around. The second showing of the scene is exaclty as it should be, but the first time (when it's Goliath's flashback/dream) she no longer flies into his arms like before. I don't really understand why either of these alterations were made (or maybe I don't want to understand).

However, I MUCH prefer the REAL ending of VOWS (the flashback to the castle). When I first saw it, I felt "Okay, NOW this makes a lot more sense." So there is one person right here who likes the real ending.

In later viewings of this episode, I did pick up on Hudson's rather cryptic way of saying things, and liked it.
I'm also one of those people who think that Young Demona's visit to 994 may have played a part in her later machinations against the humans of Wyvern. She never knew WHICH humans were involved in the massacre, nor WHEN the massacre took place. Who knows how that may have eaten away at her?
And she could have avoided it if she had followed Goliath's advice. But she never did.

I was surprised that the Illuminati actually turned out to be real. And it made me happy.

The Archmage--well, I like the guy. And his revelation of the three talismans that would grant "the ultimate magical power" whetted my appetite for the day when we would see someone make that combination.

I wasn't surprised that Xanatos got married (I mean, he got engaged in the last episode, what's the next step?), but I was glad to see it happen. As for having a kid...best wait until we get to OUTFOXED.

Okay, this baby's getting a little thick, but that's only because you really did cram so much stuff into this episode.

Todd Jensen writes...

I was just looking over the two recently reprinted memos on all the variant names for the gargoyles. The part that really astonishes me the most about it is how many names were being suggested for the cast aside from the ones that they eventually wound up with. It seems so obvious to me now (although, of course, this is from the perspective of hindsight) that "Goliath" is the appropriate name for the "Gargoyle-Master" that I honestly can't imagine him being called anything else at all. (Ditto with the rest of the cast).

(Of course, I've come across this phenomenon in other "behind-the-scenes" cases; Tolkien, for example, originally considered naming the protagonist of "The Lord of the Rings" Bingo, but fortunately later on realized how inappropriately silly it would be and changed the character's name to Frodo).

Elisa Ann Goliath writes...

Hi! It's me again! Just wanted to ramble a little bit about E&G's relationship. (And a comment or two would be nice:)
Lately I've been thinking a lot about marital relationships. (You know, what makes a good one. My parents recently had their 41st anniversary, I guess that's why I'm thinking about it.) Now, I'm only 16, and I don't presume to know everything about marriage, but I think I can safely say I have a more realistic view of marriage than most of my peers.
In the series, as a HUGE fan of the E&G relationship, of course my main concern is for E&G to get "married", but really if you think about it, they already have a relationship that is.... I don't know, kind of marriage-like. In the Bible, men are commanded by God to love their wives as Christ loved the church (be willing to die for) and women are to submit to their husbands (like it are not, feminist ladies, it works best this way). With Elisa and Goliath, Goliath loves Elisa with all the tenderness of his heart, is willing to die for her, and he values her and her opinions, and is therefore always asking for her input and for her help. Also, since he loves her, he is not demanding or arbitrary, making it easy for her to submit. She, of course, loves him as much if not more than he loves her, is willing to die for him, and is usually ready to submit when he makes a final decision on something, whether or not it is what she suggested. As a proud, independent woman this cannot always be easy, but she makes the sacrifice because she loves him and because she knows that he is only doing what he thinks is best.
Well, I've just been wanting to get that down on record.
Thanks! TTFN!

Aris Katsaris writes...

More on fate and time-travel... :-)

I don't know if The Mighty Thor is Christian or not but if he is, then the following example from the bible may help explain the way that *I* view the whole fate/choice thing... Jesus several times reveals knowledge of the future. He says that St.Peter's going to deny him three times before dawn, that Judas is going to betray him, that the people are going to crucify him.

At the same time each of these choices belong to the people who made them: Free will is an important part of most Christian denominations. Peter *chose* to deny him, Judas *chose* to betray him, and the people *chose* to crucify him. Sure, God knew as he's supposed to know everything. But that He knew which choices they were going to make, doesn't mean that it wasn't *their* choices.

Personally, I don't believe in Christianity, nor do I believe that time-travel (either working-paradox or non-working paradox) will ever become possible... But I generally find it strange if one can accept the former's and isn't able to conceive the latter's strange blend of free-will and foreknowledge...

Entity writes...

Vows -

Melissa wrote about how she thought Elisa overreacted to Xanatos' invitation to Goliath and came off too jealous in her attempts to dissuade Goliath from attending the wedding. I'd just like to say that I was satisfied by Elisa's reaction. I mean, look at the setup: The main villain invites the main hero to his wedding. If this were any other show, it would be pure corn. Elisa was the voice of reason, the voice that reassured me that this episode was not going to degenerate into an episode of G.I. Joe or Ninja Turtles. So, thank you for giving Elisa's role in the episode its due, considering how densely-packed it was. It made the difference between sophistication and corn for me.

Todd Jensen writes...

One thought of my own about the "fate/free will" argument. Somebody cited Demona in "Vows" as an example of this, arguing that because her future self who visits her in 975 is evil, Demona's doomed to become evil herself regardless of what she does.

Actually, my own thoughts on this was that the seeds of Demona's future character are already present even before Demona-1995 meets her. After all, she's already working for the Archmage, and stealing for him, suggesting that she'd started down that path already.

Aris Katsaris writes...

Time travel yet again!

Vashkoda> Ah, I think I get better now what you are talking about... I think I had a couple similar ideas when (pre-Gargoyles) I was trying to explain to myself the "working-paradox" of the Star Trek episode Time's Arrow. It's the episode where Data's head is discovered (among other things) in an archaeological dig, which leads Enterprise back in time to discover what happened, which causes Data to lose his head, etc, etc. I had then thought that perhaps once upon a meta-time (or "cycle" of time) , the Enterprise went for a different reasons in the past, there Data lost his head, etc. That's similar to your "missing origin" scenario, I think, right?

But the thing is that the butterfly effect still tears this down. In a sense there can be *no* small adjustments in the timestream, because there's no scientific distinction between "small" or "great" - the tiniest change in the combination of my parent's genes (a literally microscopical change) creates a individual which looks more like my brother, rather than like me. I really feel that a universe which has Xanatos in poor clothing go back in 975 couldn't possibly create a Napoleon (or Xanatos himself) the same way that a universe with Xanatos going back with rich clothing would... *Any* change means *huge* change...

(The Earth without Data's head buried in it couldn't have realistically spawned the same Picard/Riker/Data/Enterprise as the Earth *with* Data's head... Therefore the former idea of a "missing origin" must be disproven...)

Tim writes...

Vows-Loved this episode, it had Demona, Xanatos, characterization galore, intricate plot, everything that makes Gargoyles above and beyond other animated series. Favorite lines was Xanatos's "But you won't. Because you didn't. Time travel's funny that way." That is SO Xanatos! And Young Demona and Goliath's conversation gives me a lump in my throat, just because it is so tragic what ultimately happens. As to what was going on in her head when she flew down to the beach before the Massacre, I would say Panic. Full-fledged Panic. Heh, that's another beautiful scene. And the last scene in Vows when Goliath and Demona float off into the distance with those heart-strumming music chords playing is just wonderful and sad at the same time. A nail in the coffin, as you said.

Phil writes...

Continuing the recent discussion on the immutability of time and Mighty Thor's question about fate/predestination vs free will.

As an amateur writer I can relate to being the creator of a universe. When your characters are well developed, they do seem to have minds of their own. There are things they'll do and things they won't do. As "god," you can force them to do what you want, but then they're not the same person. You have to manipulate events so that choices they make are logical and in-character.

As I'm sure you've said, Greg, time is only immutable if you know about it. You can't change things that have happened, you can only work around them. And you can only fulfill things you didn't know about before.

The way I see it, our challenge as writers/creators is to arrange time/fate so that "independent" characters are "free" to make the choices we want them to make. It's often very difficult, but the result is so fulfilling when everything seems to work out naturally.

Thanks for reading my ramble, Greg. This is just my point of view. I'm interested to learn if and how yours differs.

SEM writes...

This is just a little follow-up to Faieq's question about Katherine and Tom not having children. Faieq assumed a fertility issue which Greg admitted not knowing for sure of either did or not.

There are methods of birth control that date back to the ancient Egyptians that involve acorns (given the variance of fan age involvement on the boards I won't go into much detail unless asked). Anyway, assuming acorns were accessible to Katherine that kind option would have been there.

But as Greg pointed out, Katherine and Tom probably wouldn't lean toward using any methods. And he's the expert.

Just got Toon Disney last night and am so thrilled to finally be able to catch up on ALL the GARGOYLES episodes I've missed!
Just putting the information out there for consideration.

Knoxville writes...

Hi Mr. Weisman,
This is only my second time posting here but I was wondering (you will probalby think I'm nutso or something)if you have ever found yourself saying that it would be wonderful to be a actual gargoyle like Goliath and the clan. I know I have, alot recently actually.
Thanks,
Knoxville

Jon writes...

Greg,

Like a lot of people, I'm sure, I haven't posted much to this forum, but have followed it avidly for as long as it's been running. I first wanted to thank Gorebash, Todd, and, most of all, yourself, for taking the time to keep this Ask Greg site up and going. It is just awesome that the fans that have received so much pleasure from Gargoyles (including myself) can communicate and share ideas with the creator of the show. It's particularly refreshing to see how much thought, effort, and soul (for lack of a better word) you have commited to Gargoyles; it's obviously not simply a product that you created for your job, you really believe in it and love it, which somehow affirms our own strong feelings for the show.

I started watching Gargoyles about mid-way through its first run. I was a graduate student (I guess you were WAY off your target demographic with me! :) ) at the time, and was hooked from the first time I saw it. I believe Long Way to Morning was the first episode I watched, and I taped every episode from then on until I had them all and could re-watch (and re-watch…) them in order. I loved the show for all the reasons that others have mentioned here; the complex characters, the mix of history, legend, and "realism", the continuity, the intelligent dialogue, and the magic that the story wove from episode to episode. But there was an aspect to Gargoyles that appealed to me on a much more personal level. I guess the best way to describe it is that the main characters in the show (specifically, the Manhattan clan and Elisa) exhibited a code of honor/respect/intelligence that I really appreciated, and often find to be lacking in today's world. The interactions of the Gargoyles sort of provided a model, or a reminder of a way of life that is often lost in the cynicism of the modern world. The meaning of Home. The importance of Accountability. The responsibility of Power. Trust. Friendship. Kindness. Loyalty. Humility. And perhaps most of all, Courage.

Somewhere along the lines, the Gargoyles became role models for me, in a strange sort of way. They embodied heroic characteristics, many of which I have listed above, that I guess I continue to try to live up to. As ridiculous as it might sound, I think Gargoyles has helped make me a better person.

Anyway, in closing, it seems like the world is short of great stories, and short on role models, but there are more of both since the airing of Gargoyles. Thank you, Greg.

Vashkoda writes...

Hey Aris. Well, the argument about missing loop origins is moot since Greg says there are none. Now I'm more interested in -why- these loops even exist. But I guess I'll explain more what I was thinking when I brought up the "missing origins".

What I reasoned was that for a certain period of time (lets say the first few hundred cycles of time), time was new and malleable and could be "experimented" with. So if Xanatos got his hands on the Gate in the 1990's and then decided he wanted to go to the 900's, he -could-, and yes, it -would- mess with the timestream, but that obviously would have been his intent if he wanted to send himself the coin so that he could be rich. And yes, that would mean that the Xanatos he once was would never have existed because his actions would change his own history (hence the "non-working paradox"). But lets imagine that this situation happened to hundreds of individuals who tried to alter the timestream, and lets say that for the most part, they cancelled themselves out so that they never happened. But for a -few- individuals, maybe their altered history does -not- prevent their getting the Gate and going back in time as they had originally done (even in real life, some people do get their cake and eat it too). Except of course now, the Xanatos who travels back in time is not the same as the Xanatos who originally went back (this one's richer, for example). So small adjustments are made in the timestream, but nothing as drastic as when Xanatos first appeared in the 900's (now the Prince might notice that Xanatos is dressed nicer than before, but at least Xanatos's appearance itself doesn't trigger anything new). So as time as a whole repeats itself, adjustments are made and wrinkles are ironed out until finally everything -works- and makes sense. Sure, it might take hundreds of cycles, but at some point every predicted event will be accounted for and the timestream, at last, becomes "immutable".

And as for the butterfly-effect, who's to say that there originally was a Macbeth, Napoleon, or Kennedy? Maybe they're all the result of Xanatos or some other traveler going back in time? The way I see it, the present as it is now could just be the final result of all the alterations made in time. So it's not a coincidence at all that Goliath still exists when Xanatos comes back from his trip (for all we know, Goliath still exists only -because- of X's trip).

Aris Katsaris writes...

Vashkoda, you said: <<I had hoped that there indeed was a "missing origin" to the time loops, as the presence of such loops would have made a lot more sense to me. >>

This discussion interests me, so I hope nobody minds if I take part in it:

I've read and seen a *lot* of time-travel stories, and I have to say that the "missing origin" concept of time-loops, the idea that there can be time-travel which *does* change history, seems much more filled with plot-holes than the kind of time-travel we saw in Gargoyles.

For example consider your own scenario: That there was once a 975 which *didn't* contain Xanatos as time-traveller. Let's assume that history otherwise goes on as normal and creates a Xanatos which for some reason wants to go back to 975 and change history. Let's assume that he can.

The problem is that if he goes back to 975 he will change history *entirely*. By simply being there for a single second, he will displace certain molecules of air, which (the butterfly-effect) will displace more molecules. After ten years a couple storms will occur which wouldn't have occured, other storms which occur won't. More importantly among the millions of possible gene-combinations for every single child, surely a different one will be made at every conception. *No* individual conceived after Xanatos' arrival in the past will be the same as before his time-travel. By going to the past, Xanatos won't have just erased his own birth from history, he will have erased the births of Macbeth, Napoleon, Lincoln, Kennedy, etc...

The only way to have Xanatos go back to the past, *and* be able to return to an even remotely recognizable world, would be if all the trillions of changes that will take due to his being there are already part of his world's history - aka if there's no "first loop" aka if history is unchangeable... But having someone *both* to be able to change history *and* at the same time change it in such a limited way as to influence only a limited amount of events, is wanting to have your cake and eat it also... Atleast the "unchangeable history" is just illogical for our sequential minds - one could even go metaphysical and say that it's God who put the loops there... The "changeable history" version may be logical, but it's also impossible... :-)

Vashkoda writes...

I had hoped that there indeed was a "missing origin" to the time loops, as the presence of such loops would have made a lot more sense to me. My problem is not with grasping the concept of pardoxes, but with understanding the reasoning behind them. When I thought that there had been an actual origin to the loops, the loops made sense because they were initiated by individuals who had access to the Gate and the desire to alter time. But by telling me that these loops have always existed, I begin to wonder why they exist in the first place. Were they made intentionally, meant to serve a particular purpose, or is the timestream just "flawed" (well, maybe flawed isn't the best word, but the presence of random paradoxes certainly make me question the efficiency of who/whatever created the timestream). If the loops are intentional, it begs the question of who arranged for them to happen, and why. Because of its nature, one can't help but think of a time loop as a means to rectify a mistake or improve one's situation (saving yourself from a fatal fall, making yourself rich, etc). But if you're saying that the characters themselves aren't responsible and that loops were always present in the timestream, then one has to look at it from the timesteam's point of view, and what it has to gain from them. Some characters have greatly benefited from the loops (Griff and Xanatos, for example), so does that mean that the timestream is somehow biased to favor certain individuals? (but you'd still have to wonder why the stream went to the trouble of creating a *paradox* to make Xanatos rich or save Griff's life). Or was the timeline "drafted" with errors, which were then fixed via paradoxes when the timestream was finally created? For example, although Xanatos is a New Yorker from the 20th-21st century, the timestream may have goofed and placed him briefly at a Scottish castle in the late 900's. Then, to explain his presence, the stream sent in the Phoenix Gate and placed him in a situation where he would have access to it (this use for the Gate does in fact fit with your description of it as a kind of "pressure valve" for the Timestream--here, acting to fulfill events that were fated but can't otherwise happen within the normal constraints of time and space).

So is the presence of these time-loops intentional (and if so, who is responsible and why?), or is the timestream just "flawed" (for lack of a better word)?

Donald writes...

You know, of all the types of Time Travel stories there are, the "working paradox", as you put it, is my favorite. However, it does seem that many people, like Vashkoda, have fundamental difficulties grasping the one defining aspect of the concept.

Time is not linear. All of time exists as one unit...there is no beginning and no end. Think of it as a multi-faceted jewel, of which we can only see one facet at a time. The whole jewel is already there, but it is a limit of our perception that makes us think time is linear.

I suppose your love of the working paradox is why you like the first Terminator but not the sequel. I feel the same way. It is probably one of the more famous of the working paradox stories. Another good example is The Philadelphia Experiment, which was more purely focused on the concept.

In case you're wondering, the multi-faceted jewel explanation comes from Alan Moore's Watchmen, which did not really have a time travel element to it, but the roots of the concept were there with the Dr. Manhattan character's ability to perceive all of time within his existence.

Of course, that idea harkens back to poor old Billy Pilgrim in Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five. Of course, that's not really a time travel story either, but it does help explain the concept a bit.

Hope I haven't bored everyone ;-)