Masterdramon writes...

Hey Greg! Hope that you're doing well, and that the holiday season is treating/did treat (depending on when you read this) your family happily.

What follows is a paper I recently submitted to my Contemporary Political Theory class at Pomona College, interrelating several of the concepts from the book we discussed that week ("You Are Not a Gadget" by Jaron Lanier) with the notion of namelessness in traditional gargoyle culture.

My professor (unfamiliar with the show, but very intrigued when I explained it to her) really got a kick out of the piece, and I earned a more-or-less "A-" equivalent for it. But as long as I've got it sitting around, I figured you might enjoy giving it a read as well.

[NOTE: You may want to review this post you made on Ask Greg in 2004 beforehand, as it is cited frequently: http://www.s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?rid=387].

Now, without further ado, the essay. It has been edited from the submitted version only by rearranging paragraph breaks...

The 1994 animated television series Gargoyles posits a highly intelligent species which dominated the Earth prior to human genesis and ascendance.

These gargoyles possess a unique culture which predates humanity's by a significant period, but the first on-screen depiction of the gargoyle species takes place in the 10th century, after millions of years of convergent evolution between the two cultures.

Indeed, the pilot episodes depict the essential death of one lingering component of gargoyle culture, at least for the series protagonists: that gargoyles lack personal names. This idea is first discussed in a conversation between two gargoyles and a human boy:

TOM: I'm Tom. What's your name?
GARGOYLE #1: Except for Goliath, we don't have names.
TOM: How do you tell each other apart?
GARGOYLE #1: We look different.
TOM: But what do you call each other?
GARGOYLE #2: (shrugs) Friend.

For context, "Goliath" is the leader of the clan of gargoyles to which the protagonists belong, and their liaison to the humans with whom they share an uneasy alliance; those humans felt incapable of dealing with a nameless entity, and Goliath did not bother to reject the name they selected for him.

Still, he does not use the name in communicating with his own clan until a betrayal by their human allies and a magical curse cause the protagonists to sleep as statues and then reawaken in 20th century Manhattan.

Here they meet and befriend Elisa Maza, a police detective who is both confused by and - for reasons she has trouble articulating - uncomfortable with this traditional lack of names. The following exchange takes place between Elisa and the clan's elderly mentor:

ELISA: Are you coming on the tour…uh, what do I call you, anyway?
GARGOYLE: Must you humans name everything? Nothing's real to you till you've named it, given it limits!
ELISA: It's not like that! It's just that…well, uh…things need names.
GARGOYLE: Does the sky need a name? Does the river?
ELISA: The river's called the Hudson.
GARGOYLE: (sighs) Fine, lass…then I will be 'the Hudson' as well.
ELISA: Great! Hudson it is.

From that point onward, that particular gargoyle is known as Hudson, and only Hudson.

The younger gargoyles who survived the centuries follow suit; the two who conversed with Tom become Lexington and Brooklyn, for example. And Goliath more-or-less fully accepts the moniker afforded him by the Dark Age humans.

As Gargoyles creator Greg Weisman points out, "naming is clearly addictive," and once they are established the convenience they offer makes doing away with them virtually impossible. Thus, for the Manhattan Clan of gargoyles, namelessness largely remains a thing of the past for the remainder of the series.

In "You Are Not a Gadget," Jaron Lanier describes the phenomenon experienced by these gargoyles using the term "lock-in."

As Lanier puts it, "lock-in…removes design options based on what is easiest to program, what is politically feasible, what is fashionable, or what is created by chance." Furthermore, the process "also reduces or narrows the ideas it immortalizes, by cutting away the unfathomable penumbra of meaning."

Despite originally referring to programming language, this is a perfect description of the process that "Hudson" has been subjected to in the previous scene.

Names are a method of defining identity, which necessarily must involve "giving it limits." But in traditional gargoyle culture, identity has greater meaning than that; it is amorphous, and changes with the circumstances.

The gargoyle who first made a compact with the humans at Castle Wyvern is the same gargoyle who mated three times and produced three progeny; he is the same gargoyle who fought the evil Archmage and received a wound that blinded him in one eye; he is the same gargoyle who slept for centuries and once awakened, found himself fascinated with the television show "Celebrity Hockey."

Does one name - Hudson - really encapsulate all of these aspects of his identity?

In-and-of-itself, all it signifies is that the place Hudson awoke in was modern-day New York (a cut line from the episode's script even has Elisa commenting, "Good thing we weren't facing Queens," emphasizing with humor how off-hand and esoteric the choice was).

That name was "locked-in" as the full and entire representation of the character from that point onward, solely because it was politically feasible (it makes dealing with Elisa and later human allies far more expedient), it was fashionable (every other intelligent being in 1994 New York has a name, so why not the gargoyles?), and it was created by chance (quite literally in this case, as the "Queens" quote illustrates).

And the result is that the very meaning of his identity is narrowed. He is no longer capable of being someone at a particular moment, and someone else in the next.

He is always Hudson.

There is an even greater story here, however, which Weisman's later musings have helped to illuminate. As he once observed, "Gargoyles don't seem to have a native language. They acquire human language, perhaps much the same way that they acquire names…And language, in many ways, is just sophisticated naming."

This is a compelling point. As he later notes, a different and arguably much more persuasive response that Elisa could have offered is that the river is called "the river."

Languages are systems for describing objects, concepts, actions, etc. using strict and uniform definitions, confining them to names that society calls words.

But does a name like "the sky" really fully encapsulate the meaning inherent within the depths that humans observe from below? Does it even begin to provoke a holistic understanding of its astronomical, religious, chemical, or poetic contexts?

And even more to the point, what of metaphysical concepts like "justice"? Can a single clear definition even exist for such a weighty and nebulous notion - and if not, does sticking the name "justice" to it not necessarily limit it?

Lanier certainly appears to believe so. As he conceives it, the system of symbology under which all current human languages operate is itself a lock-in; at best, a "middleman" between intent and "directly creating shared experience" that he wants to work to cut out.

His method for doing so is improvements on virtual reality, until researchers develop "the ability to morph at will, as fast as we can think."

Lanier envisions a world where the rather simplistic words "I'm hungry" will not be the only way to communicate the sensation which has brought them on - instead, he sees potential in the power of virtual reality technology to place us in the bodies of others, as a way to intimate the sensation itself.

Humanity would no longer have to be limited to extracting some piece of the concept it calls "hunger," giving it that name, and using it as code so that others who know the symbology of the English language will understand some approximation of that concept.

The concept would simply be understood, and communication would be a straightforward matter of imparting that understanding.

But perhaps there is an even better solution than this - although one that is, unfortunately, largely forgotten.

Presented with the puzzle that gargoyles are highly gregarious and intelligent by nature and yet appear to lack any notion of their own language, Weisman has mused that perhaps, long before human language evolved and became the locked-in method for communication, the gargoyle species possessed "mild psychic abilities that left them with no need to create language."

While emphasizing that he was only asserting a possibility, the communication he imagines - where it was not "words that they intuited (or transmitted or read or whatever) but emotions, maybe images or sensations" - sounds exceedingly similar to what Lanier hopes to achieve through virtual reality.

Such communication would be consistent with what audience knows about pre-human gargoyle culture, where definition and identity are situational as opposed to consistently codified.

But if that is the case, it leads to a rather lamentable conclusion. As Weisman puts it, "perhaps the very language skills that gargoyles learned from the human race dampened their psychic intuitiveness;" in other words, lock-in of a very particular method of communication (symbology) "locked-out" another method that presented communicative possibilities human technology can currently only dream of.

The initial insistence on not using personal names, then, can be considered a lingering hold-out of a bygone era where every concept was considered unlimited, and every sensation intimated in their full depth.

In dealing with nascent human cultures, gargoyles must have gradually accepted the limiting of concepts like "sky" or "river" because this made interspecies congress significantly more efficient, but they resisted the longest on the limiting of the very depths of the self.

But with the permanent instatement of "Hudson" and the rest, there does not appear to be room to return to the possibilities an unlimited identity presents. Human language has killed them.

Of course, both the gargoyle race and their culture are fantastical constructions, but that does not necessarily mean that humans cannot learn from their fictional example.

While humans do not seem to share these "mild psychic abilities" (although there are some who would vehemently disagree with that statement) that Weisman hypothesizes, that there are methods of sensation and communication which precede language skills is clearly documented.

As with gargoyles, members of the species Homo sapiens did exist well before the development of the earliest known language, and while current understanding of those early cultures is limited at best, there is also a much more immediate example to turn to.

Newborns spend a few years before they learn to define the world around them in the code of words - the sun is an experience to them long before the strictly defined, limiting name of "the sun" is ever applied to it.

The depths of what could be learned from observing children raised without learning language skills, interpreting sensations and intimating them to others via methods of their own device, are boundless; of course, the enormous ethical travesty presented by such experiments means they are not a viable avenue for inquiry.

So instead, humans turn to fiction - attempting to realize through others what that they have long since lost, and yearn to find again.

Greg Weisman has often described gargoyle culture, and pre-human gargoyle culture specifically, as something of a wish fulfillment for him. "I'm such a human," he laments with a written-out sigh, "But I aspire to gargoylosity."

Well, if the virtual reality morphing that so excites Jaron Lanier can indeed allow humans to experience sensation as a pre-human gargoyle (or a pre-language human, or a baby, or even a cephalopod) did/does - if it has the potential to turn the clock back as well as forward, and show what it is like for things simply to be, without the cumbersome and restrictive middleman of naming them - then perhaps that is an aspiration that more humans should share.

Tyler Reznik writes...

Hello once again, Mr. Weisman.
Fully expecting it to be months before you get to this question, but patience is a virtue, so...
1) Is the Brain gay? I suspect that you may not answer this one, but nothing ventured, nothing gained, so I thought I'd ask.
2) How did the Brain become a disembodied... well, brain?
3) Two previous posts had you give Wonder Woman's age as 90, then 85. Was the difference because you'd already started working on the post-timeskip timeline?
4) For your production bible, do you assign real names to characters who traditionally lack them (Bane, the Joker, the Brain, etc.)?
5) How does the Light recruit supervillains to work for them (apart from the League of Shadows and the member's own forces)?
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions, and thank you for Gargoyles, a series I greatly enjoyed when I was younger (I've had the misfortune of not seeing an episode in several years). It meant a great deal to me, and helped inspire my interest in storytelling and Shakespeare (the former more than the latter, but Gargoyles introduced me to the Bard's work). It is very much appreciated, and I will remember Gargoyles for a very long time indeed. Have a good day, sir.

J&M writes...

Heya Greg! I know your focus has been on Young Justice lately (as it should be) but hopefully you won’t mind kicking it a little old-school and reading fans gush about Gargoyles. This is more of a ramble than a question but hopefully you won’t mind.

I have a good friend that lives in another state that is fairly arduous driving distance away so we only see each other in person every couple months. Naturally one of our main ways of staying in touch is talking via IM. And one thing we do is choose shows one of us has never seen (mostly her, but occasionally me) and watch episodes at the same time we talk to each other, so we’re watching ‘together’ even if we’re not actually together. We actually have a standing list of things we want to go through this way. And a short while ago my friend chose to start Gargoyles. We blew through all five parts of Awakening in one session and I thought you might get a kick out of seeing some choice bits of our conversation. (And yes my friend did give permission for me to share this with you.) There’s going to be more of what she has to say than me because I feel like reading me responding to her reactions with, “Why yes that IS awesome and part of the reason I love this show” would get old after awhile. The ‘choice bits’ are still pretty long, but hopefully you won’t mind too terribly.

Quick background. We are both of the female persuasion. I’m 24 and have a B.A. in English and am going back to school in the fall for a Library Science degree. She’s 20 and a Creative Writing major at a University that feels there is very clear divide between ’literature’ and ’entertainment’ and that all genre fiction falls into the latter category by default.

Needless to say, since both of us are fans of Fantasy, Science Fiction, and Animation…we disagree with that. A lot.

I’m going slightly out of order, starting with her reaction to seeing the theme song before getting into the actual episode stuff. I’ll use [] to indicate me making a comment or an edit after the fact. ‘J’ indicates my comments. ‘M’ is my friend.

J
Oh and THEME SONG OF EPICNESS
M
Preeeeetty
J
Awesome visuals are awesome
M
Hey wait a minute
I've totally heard this before
J
The interwebs loves Gargoyles
M
I've never seen the visuals to the theme song though
Heeeeee
J
So you probably have
M
As the interwebs should
J
I KNOW RIGHT!!??
M
IT'S EPIC

[Start of Episode 1]

J
What do you know about Gargoyles already?
M
There are charries named Puck and Oberon
That's all I know

[First battle between Vikings and Gargoyles]

M
Ooooh that was really good animation
J
1994
Damn straight
[Meaning that it‘s still impressive now, and considering that it‘s from 1994, is even more-so]

[The Banquet]

M
Hi hot lady
Hi fabulous Pegasus-like man

[Pegasus is a villain from season 1 of Yu-Gi-Oh with long white hair and a…distinctive personality]

M
Hey
I know your voice
Hi Jeff Bennet?

[Re Demona and Goliath‘s conversation with the Captain of the Guard after leaving the Banquet]

M
Redhead needs a haircut
I really like their relationship though so far
It seems rooted in a mutual respect
M
WHY AREN'T RELATIONSHIPS IN TV LIKE THIS ANYMORE
YES
M
THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO
M
THANK YOU GREG WEISMAN
M
THIS IS HOW RELATIONSHIPS IN TV SHOULD WORK

[Goliath and Hudson falling into the Vikings trap]
M
Hi horsies!
Oooooh
Uh oh
Raaawwwwr
Ohhhhh
I see
They turn to stone in the sun
J
Yep.
And at night they're awake
M
That was a good bit of exposition
I just got back from seeing Puss in Boots yesterday and while it was good there was a *ton* of unnecessary exposition in dialogue
Ummmmmm

[The start of the Wyvern Massacre with the Hakon and the Captain arguing over smashing the Gargoyles]

M
Oh dear
Oh dear
Hello high [conflict]
NO
DON'T DO IT
DON'T
NO
YOU DIDN'T!
NO!
M
Holy [censored]
I feel bad
And I don't even know who that guy is
That gargoyle rather
[J] why didn't I watch this show as a kid?

[Episode 2]

M
I love the Magus
J
Can I marry Keith David's voice?
M
NO
GET IN LINE

M
Maaaguuuus
I love you already
J
"He's going to slay her!"
J
Like Buffy
M
Heeeeee
Wait is she really dead?
GO MAGUS!
J
*is behind you*
M
"You are the betrayer?"
"All of my kind are dead"
M
"YOU LYING SCUM!"
Uh o
DON'T
FALL OFF
NO
Oh okay
Awwww Goliath
Uh oh
"What sorcery is this?"
M
Can I marry the Magus?
J
Get in line :P
M
Oooooh nice twist

[1994]

M
Pretty grass
Hello long time in the future?
long time passed*
Who is this guy and when can I [censored] him?
And his tech guy?
J
Xanatos is dark hair and beard
Blonde glasses is Owen
And again get in line :P
M
Heeeeeeeeee
DAMN
J
"Pay a man enough and he'll walk barefoot into hell."
M
He has a HELICOPTER
M
I want him
He just needs to shave and clip the ponytail
J
I think the goatee and ponytail are sexy. So clearly I love him more than you do and should have him.
M
Heeeeeeeeeeeeee
I'll take his tech guy happily
J
Yeah you can't have him either :P
M
Awwwwww
No fair
J says
You're about eighteen years too late :P
M
Heeeeeee
M
WAIT
Do we get to see the Magus anymore?
J
I can't tell you :P
No spoilers remember
M
Heeeeeee
Because if I don't I will cry
M
This may be an off guess but are any of the present-charries descended from the past-charries?
But you can't answer that either
J
No spoilers LOL
This is fuuuun
M
:P
Seeing all my wild guesses

M
Ooooh
I love Xan
J
I know you do.
M
This show has been really good about engaging right from the pilot
So far it hasn't really been talk-heavy

[Episode 3]

M
Owen is totally Magus
J
I think they're both voiced by Jeff Bennet
M
They're totally related in some way

J
Elisa is quipping a la Buffy before Buffy
M
But Goliiath wil save her
I love the Gargoyles
It's a nice deviation from what you'd expect
J
How so?
M
They're very respectful
M
And not all grrrrr
They have morals and principles they go by and they're fairly peaceful

M
Heeeee hundreds of spells
On a floppy
M
My 1TB talisman can kick its ass
M
I really really like this show so far
M
AND IS THAT THE REDHEAD LADY?
I saw poof
I'm so confused
M
But it's *really* hard for me to get into most shows and I'm into this one
Honestly I didn't think I would.
J
Am I not awesome at showing you things you'd like?
M
I mean I didn’t think I'd hate it
Heeeeeee
You aaare

M
Detective lady is wearing mom jeans
M
I really like that concept
J
Which concept?
M
Of not having names for things
M
And they utilize a large cast very well by having a few characters around at a time and having their different reactions ot the same world
M
We get expositoon that way and viewers aren't bogged down or feel the need to spread their interest too thin
Just "oh hey going on a NY adventure"

[When the Trio fight off the gang after saving Brendan and Margot]

M
Oooh interesting
That the guys react with fear initially and then charge
This show is really well-crafted
M
I mean you could just classify this as 'low-brow kids' entertainment' but it's really more than that
It's a beautiful work of art and storytelling that's fun and fanciful
J
Exactly.
J
There's so much work put into it and it shows.
M
And it has layered, deep conflict
Oh yes
J
IMO it's art
M
It's wonderful
Yes.
Exactly.
Very good, show!
Tranqs take a while to take effect

M
But yeah [censored] 'high art.' This is art
J
It's got all the complexity of a Shakespearean drama. It just happens to be animated and feature fantastic elements.
M
Oh yeah. I agree 100%

[Episode 4]

M
This show handles exposition beautifully
J
It does
Seriously Greg Weisman is the MASTER of set-up and payoff.
M
It really works.
M
THIS IS WHAT I SHOULD BE LEARNING IN FICTION CLASS
DARNIT

[Re Elisa hiding from the goons]

M
Uhhhhho oh
Way to make the tension rise
That's beautiful
M
THAT'S HOW YOU DO PACING FICTION CLASS
M
I rather like the music for this show too
M
I'm still kind of enamored by the whole show
It does action sequences very well too
M
Greg Weisman is incredibly talented and I bet my fiction prof would hate his guts
J
Oh yeah. The physicality is great. Not overdone and very realistic.

[Re Demona and Goliath‘s reunion]
M
That's an evil smile
I don't like that
Awwww wing hug
M
That's so BEAUTIFUL
SEEE LITERARY FICTION?
SEE WHAT YOU CAN DO?
M
SEE THAT THIS IS NOT BULL[CRAP]?
J
I totally wrote a paper for a Shakespeare course that involved Gargoyles. I got an A in that class. :)
M
You are amazing

J
They said KILL
M
THEY DID
J
Whooooo!

[Episode 5]

J
Do not mess with old guys and dogs
Especially if they're Gargoyles
M
Hee
J
And hi G-rated version of Lethal Weapon line
M
TRAAAIN
M
And that is why you back up your files

[Re the Blimp being on fire and falling]

J
And that would not be a scene post 9-11
M
No it would not
J
I think there'd be a lot less stuff blowing up in general
M
Yeah

[Again re Demona and Goliath]
M
THIS NEEDS TO BE THE MODEL FOR FICTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS
GOD WHY IS THIS SO AMAZING
M
Awwwww Goliiiiath

J
Look at Lexington his laptop
M
Heeeeeeee
J
That has like 250 MB memory LOL
J
Hi Demona
You want to marry her too yes?
M
No
J
Really?
M
I don't like her hair :P
*is shallow*
J
Aside from the hair :P
M
Yes
J
I kneeeeeew it
You villain sluuuuut
M
I aaaaaaam
I can't heeeelp it
J
Heh Chinese food
J says
HEEeeeeGiants
GO GIANTS!
M says
That's a funny way to spell Patriots Jess

[This was soon after the Super-Bowl. She‘s based in New England and I’m from New York.]

J
:P
And that's it
Final thoughts?
M
GAHHHHHHHH
THIS IS WHAT ART IS SUPPOSED TO BE
M
THIS IS WHAT ENTERTAINMENT SHOULD STRIVE TO BE
M
SCREW THAT HIGH ART CRAP
J
Exactly. I have taught you well young Padawan.
M
*bows*

Hopefully that put a smile on your face. We will be watching the rest of Gargoyles, and eventually W.I.T.C.H, Spectacular Spidey, and Young Justice.

I did want to ask, would you be interested in reading more of what we say as we watch?

Subsequent conversation snippets will probably be shorter, but I understand you’re very busy and that Ask Greg can get backlogged. I’d only want to continue sending this kind of ramble if it’s something that you would enjoy reading, as a small way to pay you back for the excellent entertainment you provide. I’d never want it to be a chore or something you feel you have to slog through.

So yeah. Hope you enjoyed! Please continue making awesome shows so we can keep watching. :)

Briget writes...

Hi there! This isn't actually a question, but it's the only way I saw of contacting Greg. I just wanted to say thank you for creating Gargoyles and thank you for making such a rich, elaborate show. Your cartoon formed a big chunk of my childhood, and the storytelling introduced me to so many different aspects of the world of fantasy. It was my favorite thing to watch when I was little. I hope this gets passed along and you get to see it. This show just means a lot to me.

Green Lantern's Nightlight writes...

I've mistakenly put typos in my name for my last two questions now & I'm terribly sorry for that especially since you put yourself out to answer all of our questions.

Lurker writes...

As of writing this, it is the 17th anniversary of Gargoyles. Made a comment in the room but wanted to share here:

"Sorry about the double, I saw vinnie took two spots and decided THIS was a countdown I wanted to be a part of. My countdown number is especially fitting, as I was 10 when Gargoyles premiered.

17 years. My God. I remember seeing the preview commercial once or twice. Running home after school, literally running, so I could catch the premier and every episode thereafter. Enough to make me feel a little choked-up. Nearly getting a lump in the back of my throat.

Phoenician> I do believe I will join you in watching one episode of awakening everyday [this week]. It must be providence. I just received my season one back from a friend, to whom I lent my seasons so she could show her son.

She said that at first, he was watching the episodes alone. After a while, she remembered why she liked the show so much and they now watch them together. They are now somewhere in season 2.

It's nearly 1 AM. I believe I will put in the DVD, raise a toast, and enjoy the beginning chapter of a phenomenal series.

In the already spoken words of Vinnie, "And away we go on with the show."
Lurker - [!)]"

Greg, the show is something that has always stuck with me, as it has many others. In case you didnt know ;) I just wanted to thank you for continuing to work on the show, in the sense that you have never given up on it. Thank you for allowing fans to interact with you and ask you various things. Thank you for the contributions to my childhood and all the wonderful memories.

Harlan Phoenix writes...

Less a question, more of a comment. While visiting one of my dearest friends over in Long Island over the summer, one of the things we did together was watch Gargoyles (as part of a little trade of interests-her offering was showing me a documentary on the legacy and fandom of the Rock-a-Fire Explosion series of animatronics, which was fairly interesting and quite enjoyable in its own right). As we've mostly communicated online for our 9 or so year friendship, doing something like this isn't a common thing. Especially considering we've only been in person together for two visits, each lasting about a week.

I'm happy to report that after a viewing of The Mirror, Double Jeopardy, and Eye of the Beholder, she became quite fond of the series and has expressed interesting in indulging further. I was beyond happy that she did, as being able to share Gargoyles with her joins the rest of that week as one of many memories I feel lucky to have.

Thought you'd like to know.

Dan writes...

Not a question, more something you might like: http://nebezial.deviantart.com/art/gargoyles-goliath-3d-fun-200441030?q=sort%3Atime%20gallery%3Anebezial&qo=1

Ozaline writes...

Not a question this time, just a comment I want to apologize I didn't think they'd send you both vesions of my initial questions cause I thought the first one was too leading and the second one was more civil.

I am still watching the series and not making too many judgements yet, my point wasn't to come off like I was attacking I was just wondering why you didn't do some things, you've got a good track record so I'm hoping things turn out.

I apologize if it seemed like I was attacking.

charles.wonsey writes...

also i know since i did not write a question it wont get posted but to the person that sends this to greg please let him get this. its real important to me. thank you again