Shan writes...

Ian>Um... thank you, I think, for complementing my questions. (I was passing through to see what other questions had been posted as long as I was online and saw your comment).

Greg>I hope my questions better exemplify your preferences, but you and I both know I can be error prone on occasion. I can think of instances both where I was your student and not proofing myself well enough as an interviewer (the latter being the greater embarrassment) where that was the case.

(And I just had to go look up embarrassment. I always have to stop and think about the "r"s and "s"s...)

Todd Jensen writes...

One thing that I thought that I'd mention here today, now that the question queue has gotten started up again, is on Goliath's smashing the Praying Gargoyle and foiling Operation Clean Slate in "Hunter's Moon".

I think that it's obvious to us all that Goliath was taking a big risk there, since if Demona had smashed the vial after that, all the gargoyles would have died alongside all the humans. But I wonder how many of us have noticed something else, that foiling Demona's genocide scheme entirely (as indeed happened here) could be almost as fatal to the gargoyle race. After all, at this point, the existence of gargoyles has been revealed to the world, and the public wasn't too thrilled with that. At the time that Goliath was confronting Demona, St. Damien's Cathedral was surrounded by an angry crowd practically howling for the gargoyles' blood, which was even prepared to charge in vigilante-style if the police didn't do anything. And even afterwards, as we saw in "The Journey", the public attitude towards gargoyles remained hostile; people were eagerly joining the Quarrymen when Castaway set it up, Margot Yale was openly calling for the capture and incarceration of the entire species on television, etc. We know, of course, from your "Gargoyles 2198" announcement that eventually humans do learn to recognize gargoyles' right to exist, and that by 2198, the days of near-universal attempts on humanity's part to hunt down and kill gargoyles are over - but Goliath, obviously, couldn't have known that.

I don't know whether Goliath had time to realize when he smashed the Praying Gargoyle (he took action extremely quickly, after all) that he was thus potentially endangering his species twice over, and that by saving humanity he was potentially dooming his race to brutal massacres (and I'm sure that even if he did know it, he'd have felt that there are just certain things that you have to do that are more important than mere survival and that wiping out one race so that another can survive is wrong - not to mention that he also knew that not all humans were crazed anti-gargoyle zealots), but I still think that that action of his was probably one of the most courageous and altruistic deeds that he performed in the entire series. I just thought that I'd give my thoughts on that here.

Virginia writes...

Are you going to be able to make any kind of art gallery in the near future? I love your work and would be interested to be able to purchase picutres from the gargoyle and Max Steel series. My 3 year old son loves the show too, btw.

Punchinello writes...

Mr. Weisman,

I'm sorry I did not acknowledge your response before now. I only realized that you had addressed my post on sentience a moment ago.

I did not really think that you condoned the obliteration of a family of polar bears (anthropomorphic or otherwise). I was raising the issue because I think I am observing a trend wherein people are only assigning value to a life based upon an inference of anthropomorphism. That is to say, some people are investing their ethical concern in something based upon how much it resembles a human being; and this is hardly an objective premise to begin with. Semblance to human beings, mental or otherwise, can not constitute a requirement for being worthy of consideration or protection. However I do believe that it is reasonable to assign values based upon certain criteria from within our own perspectives (it's the only thing we can assign values from) as long as we make a concerted effort to avoid an obviously centrist sentiment like using ourselves as a template for what is worth consideration.

If someone were to ask me what criteria I thought were appropriate, I would probably return to what has already been implied. Intelligence. Emotional intuition. Volition. And a whole host of perceptual characteristics. Those things from which emerge a picture of mental life. Perhaps an ability to suffer and to anticipate conditions which cause or alleviate suffering, and to desire to distance ones self from a cause of it. However, if we are going to determine the presence of those capacities with nothing but purely verifiable data, then we fall in league with the evolutionary psychologists foundation of mental within the biological. And the biological machinery necessary to mediate these abilities is certainly not the exclusive domain of Homo Sapiens. (I _do_ subscribe to the evolutionary psychologist foundation by the way. I like to have data I can verify beyond "it is true because it is so.")

For a lot of people though, these emergent mental properties are always considered as something transcendent of biology, immeasurable, even inviolate, because I have observed others react with hostility to the reduction of mental qualities to biology. On numerous occasions. Thinking that way leads to all kinds of misunderstandings, however. Another contributor to this board, Entity, had taken the position that humans and gorillas were intelligent but dogs were not. I found this extremely interesting because even outside the realm of biological architectures in the brain I could use as a foundation for taking the evolutionary psychologist position, it needs to be acknowledged that even within social psychology dogs are attributed a measurable intelligence. It's not extraordinary. My dog has an IQ of 12 or so for instance. And of course these kinds of figures are disputable, because it really requires the participation of the test subject past his simple presence to get accurate results. I would submit that the whole concept of IQ as it is accepted within the social sciences borders on being fraudulent anyway. The point is that the ascription of non-intelligence that was made about the dog was arbitrary. It was not informed by the physical _or_ social sciences. It was just an assumption. And that kind of casual valuization can be dangerous when it functions as the basis for how much respect we offer another. This is not a slight against this Entity. I'm just using this as an example to outline the stated purpose of my original post. If people are going to hold these positions they maintain, then they need to ask themselves why they have that particular belief. If they have this mental dialogue with themselves and they cannot answer that first question, then it is time to evaluate how much their beliefs represent reality.

____________________________________________________________________________
I'm probably as guilty as anyone of overusing, or rather overbilling the issue of "sentience". I think the concept has its uses. But it's probably used as a crutch too often.
____________________________________________________________________________

I would agree. I think of it as a crutch of language. Some people subscribe to an ideology that is a holdover from religious impulses. It maintains that the mantle of "human" is sacred and unapproachable. They need to define what the quality of "human" is that makes it thus, without any background knowledge of cognitive science so that it fits their sensibilities. They can adopt the hazily defined expression, "sentience", imported from popular culture, via star trek, to articulate their position. For some others, the mental capacities of non human animals may be very well understood. They may acknowledge capacities for reflection and emotion, but they still need a convenient means of distinguishing various abilities. So an imprecise language becomes common.

Punchinello writes...

I just reviewed what I have written here. It's so formal it's almost offensive. I'm sorry. I don't think one can talk about issues like this without sounding (obtuse? Stuffy? Something like that.) And not a word about Gargoyles.

Let me leave the realm of animal intelligence's for a minute and consider the intelligence of some of the more fantastical characters in your story. The fae. When I think about this kind of (ethereal?) character, these are the kinds of associations that I make.

-The thought of angels moves faster than human thought. (I don't recall where that comes from)

-A four dimensional object or being will cast a three dimensional shadow. (That's an observation Buckminster Fuller made.)

-A being that cannot die will have no concept of death, and certainly will not attach values, positive or negative, to the ending of a life. (This is a condensed and bastardized summary of some of the speculation of extraterrestrial intelligence's that participants of the SETI program publicized.)

I hope some of the above makes sense. My thinking is this. That the content of fae thought/mentality may be fundamentally different from homo sapiens thinking. Not just an accelerated or enhanced analogue of human thought, but structurally different. Our mental world is the emergent condition of innumerable biological systems interacting with one another. I have no reason to conclude that the fae's intelligence emerges from anything reductionist in nature. It is a condition that exists without origin in biology (potentially). Everything that we think of as intelligence rests on an evolutionary foundation of connections to allow us to successfully distinguish between things we can eat and things that will eat us. It would be absurd to think that the fae (who I don't think were subject to natural selection through predation) would have an intelligence structured upon the same principles. Simple alternative concepts like "either or" may not have the same meaning to them. This could go far towards explaining why they are so damned irritating.

My second thought on the matter, in reference to the three dimensional shadow concept, is that the visual representation we get of the fae in the story may be a poor representation of the reality. I use the concept of a hypothetical four dimensional being to illustrate. A two dimensional being could be aware of my presence if I allowed it to, although it would be a simple matter to remove myself from it's perception with a minor movement. However it's awareness could not give it a complete representation of what I am. It could only understand me as a fragment that can be translated into something comprehensible within the context of it's world. I can easily attribute an extra dimensional quality to beings like Oberon and Puck who seem o appear and disappear at will. We might not be able to understand completely, what they are. Only that the portion of them that is represented in three dimensions resembles a group of tall, angular, oddly complexioned people in period costume.

My third observation of the fae, and in particular of Oberon who has demonstrated a dispassionate distance to killing his rivals in certain instances, is that he may have no concept of murder because he may have no concept of death. (Yes I know that he reacted to the iron bell in such a way that would indicate it was harmful to him. Even lethal.) However, even if he were to express a concept of death we would not be able to be certain that his concept was anything like our concept. Does death mean an end for him? If it does not, then the gravity we attach to it may be lost on him and the other fae.

I think my point is that while it would certainly not be appropriate to think of a creature like this in human terms, i'm not even certain you can extrapolate "human" from him. There could be creatures, so far removed from human experience that it would be impossible. Of course, the associations that I make with the fae are not going to be the same ones that you make. Your concept of them may fall within human experience. You have other creatures though. Your space spawn. They would certainly have been subject to mental dispositions grounded in a different biology. We're conditioned with the genetic remainders of our hunter gatherer ancestors. They would be conditioned with something else. I dont know what. Something spawny probably.

Punchinello writes...

______________________________________________________________________________
It brings me to another distinction: the one between sentience and artificial intelligence. Coyote, for instance, can throw a zinger, but is he self-aware? I don't think he is. Xanatos hasn't achieved (or would wish to achieve) that much, has he?
______________________________________________________________________________

I don't know anything about computer technology past it's relationship to cognitive studies into artificial intelligence. There is a lot of dispute about the possibility of an actual computer intelligence. I'm not competent to say if the possibility is real but I would not discount it. I can see numerous avenues for foundations for intelligence besides the neurochemical variety. Incidentally, I once took a Turing test...and failed. I was delighted.

Todd Jensen writes...

Many mythological scholars believe that in the early days of the myths, humanity was matriarchal, worshipping some sort of "Great Goddess"-figure, but as time went on, it underwent a shift to a more patriarchal culture, producing male gods such as Zeus who toppled the "Great Goddess" and replaced her. Did such theories (assuming that you're aware of them) influence your vision of Oberon overthrowing his mother Mab and replacing her?

Chris J. writes...

Greg:

I have a million questions, but I would prefer to leave them unaswered. However, I would like to thank you (and all those others involved) for creating such a magical series. Gargoyles is truly a work that raises that bar when it comes to storytelling in an animated series.

So, regardless of whatever happens in the future with Goliath and the gang, thank you for producing some of best storytelling this fan has seen in any medium.

Entity writes...

Ok, you know what I have yet to do? Praise you on GARGOYLES 2198. I mean, there is so much worthy of praise. Here are some things I found most impressive:

1) Nicholas Natsilane Maza and the Order of the Guardian that he is a part of. It gives both Natsilane and good old Tom a legacy.

2) The idea of the Space-Spawn being born "amidst the fury of an exploding star." It's such an original idea, and in science-fiction, originality is sometimes very hard to come by. Speaking of which, maybe there's a question in here: do you know what element the Spawn Spawn are based off of? (e.g. carbon-based)

3) To have the Space-Spawn take over the world right off the bat, and in such a swift, painless manner. As you state, there is "very little loss of life, unless freedom matters to you." This puts drama before bloodshed, pure Gargoyles.

4) The Illuminati's dark pact with the Space-Spawn. This actually brings up another question (and I hope this one hasn't already been asked, if so I apologize): is Alexander Fox Xanatos IV a member of the Illuminati at the time of his abduction?

Kelly L Creighton/Kya White Sapphire writes...

Lord Sloth wrote some words he/she? had learned from the show. you couldnt decifer one of them. Im not sure how to spell it, but it sounds like ESH-ih-lon (he's one of our lower ranking members, etc. at least I think thats where i remember it from)

someone may have said this already. i havent read the questions being submitted archive.

Marty "Kaioto" Lund writes...

Not really a question, but you have my sympathy on Team Atlantis. Working in a corporation, I understand that nothing quite feels the same as having a project you've invested a hefty chunk of time into suddenly get displaced. Well, maybe being kicked in the guts by a mule or something comes close. :(

I wish people would make up their minds about projects before men and women started investing large amounts of time into making the project a reality. It is even worse in a creative process.

In systems design, it feels so insulting to get along the Systems Development Lifecycle to the point where you're working to fulfill agreed-upon specifications and suddenly the client does a 180 and tanks the entire project. I imagine it is even more frustrating in an artistic / creative setting where it is only natural to put large portions of yourself into a production.

So, to you and all those with whom you worked, my sympathies. I appreciate your efforts and I'm disappointed that we'll miss out on Team Atlantis.

Bona Fortuna
- Kai

Sexy Queer writes...

Greg, I am so sorry to hear about Team Atlantis getting dropped before it even hit the air. This Demona and Fiona Cammore story did sound pretty interesting.
Hope you get another voice directing jod or somthing else soon.

Todd Jensen writes...

Count me as another person who's sorry to hear that "Team Atlantis" won't be coming out after all. From what I had heard about it (especially at the Gathering), it had sounded good (and not just because Demona was going to guest star in it). Such a pity.

zakhur writes...

This is more a comment than a question! I've been a Fan of Gargoyles for a long time, since it first aired on the Disney Afternoon! and after it stopped airing, I started looking in the internet, to see if the show would keep going, I mostly saw some fanfics, but it never was quite the same.
Although I was amazed on how many fans the show had, and more so that most the of the fans were adults.
now, when I rediscovered gargoyles on toon disney, and finding this site again, and actually asking questions, and joining the comment room.
I find myself so intrigued not only on how great the show is, but how many other people enjoy it and find so much entreteiment in it, and how wonderfull gargoyle fans are, they are very loyel and really care about Gargoyles.
So my question is, how does it make you feel, As one of the creators, that after the show has been cancelled for 5 years, so many people love and keep it alive in their hearts, through the internet and reunions such as the gathering?

Mary Mack writes...

Where can *I* buy a copy of Cree Summer's CD?

Everyone eat Round Table pizza!

Oh! And sign up for G2002!

And write to Disney asking for Gargoyles DVD's! (Greg, you can tell Mr. Fukuto that I'll by Gargs on DVD, and I don't have a DVD player.)

Todd Jensen writes...

During the course of the series, New York was struck by a number of events of a decidedly "unusual" variety, and ones which obviously weren't completely covered up (even if the true cause of them wasn't known to its citizens). Gargoyle sightings were the obvious part, but also so were the "missing nights" in "City of Stone" and Oberon putting everyone to sleep in "The Gathering", for example. By the time that the gargoyles were revealed to the public in "Hunter's Moon", therefore, New York had experienced two years' worth of Fortean activity.

While the obvious main reason for the public panic over the gargoyles in "Hunter's Moon" and "The Journey" was simple fear over them, do you suppose that the cumulative aftereffects of the two years' worth of weirdness (especially from "City of Stone" and "The Gathering") could have been a factor as well? After all, in real life, unexplained ongoing problems can often lead to people looking for scapegoats, and persecuting minority groups thereby (as in the case of persecutions of the Jews getting more severe in 14th century Europe during the Black Death). Do you think that some of that could have been at work here?

Anonymous writes...

You idiot, do you actually think he'll answer everyone of those questions. If he actually gives straight forward and clear responses for half of these then I'm a monkey's uncle.

Audra writes...

Hi Greg!!!
Gargoyles is such a great TV show. It's my favorite TV show. And it shows cartoons are not just for little kids. Anyways, I remember reading about your plans about Brooklyn's mate. I was just wondering, did you, or any or any other creators plan on what she was going to look like? Does she kind of have a "beak" like Brooklyn? It's ok if you don't want to answer, but I just wanted to know. But I am glad that Brooklyn would get a mate. I felt very sorry for him after Maggie rejected him when he was trying to help her and Anglea chose Broadway. I was just wondering if you guys planned what Katana was going to look like. Thanks for reading this. ^_^

Sincerely,
Audra

Artemis writes...

Hi Greg! First time poster here. I want to thank you on writing such a great show!! I only started to watch it a little over a year ago. I've only seen about 70% of the episodes, because of it's late airtime and the fact that I have older siblings who what dibs on the tv. What I really want to ask you is how did you come up with this whole series? It's really incredible how it all ties in, considering its complicated plot. My teachers have always told me that I have a gift for story telling, but most of its all been fan fiction. I love to write, but the only reason I do fan fiction is because I can't seem to make up my own characters. So how did you come up with all these complex characters? Did you have to sit down for hours to think of characters, or did they just suddenly come to you one day? Anything you're willing to tell me will be greatly appreciated. I don't care if writers don't really make it on their first story, I know that (I'm only 17, after all). I just want to write share with some people something that I can truly call my own. Thank you! (Next time around, I actually will ask questions regarding the show)
=^..^= <---Meow!

matt writes...

a couple weeks ago someone asked what gargoyles protected before the other races showed up and you said each other. but since we have the Mayan clan protecting a forest, the Loch Ness clan protecting prehistoric monsters, the London Clan protecting a shop in SOHO, and i'm sure there were other examples, what gargoyles protect has always been extremely varied and never limited to sentient beings.

1. it seems from clan to clan there is a wide range of what to protect. why is that?

2. every species, like the gargoyles, protect their own kind and eggs, etc., but why did gargoyles begin to extend that protection to more than themselves?

Todd Jensen writes...

Since you and Entity recently (as of July 20th) had a brief exchange about Xanatos's characterization, I thought that I'd give a thought of my own about him.

One thing that has occurred to me is that there was an intriguing paradox about Xanatos in his "feud" with the gargoyles. One advantage that Xanatos had over the conventional "cartoon super-villain" was that he was a level-headed, practical man who wasn't interested in revenge or pointless vendettas. And this, on one level, made him potentially a more challenging adversary for the gargoyles. Because as a result, he wasn't likely to get so distracted in carrying out his personal score with the clan that he'd make foolish mistakes which they could take advantage of and thereby win, the way that more conventional "master-villains" in animated series do (and which, elsewhere in "Gargoyles", the Archmage himself fell prey to, when he kept on making strategic and tactical errors in "Avalon" - such as not waiting until dawn to attack or in magically tormenting Goliath when he could just as easily have simply zapped him into a pile of dust). It removed the leading source of "mistakes that antagonists make" which can save the day for the protagonists.

But, ironically enough, this very trait of Xanatos's also may have helped the gargoyles in a way. For, since Xanatos wasn't a revenge-crazed man, he wouldn't be likely to be constantly pursuing the gargoyles obssessively in "conventional cartoon super-villain" style, and indeed, he didn't. He went after them because he had specific plans about what to do with them (using them as his agents for such operations as stealing the disks from Cyberbiotics). But that motive didn't take too long to be discarded, as it became increasingly aware to Xanatos that he couldn't make use of the gargoyles in that way ever again; in fact, I recently noticed, upon examining his actions closer, that in Season Two, despite his continued clashes with the clan, he had stopped attempting to actually capture and dominate them (the one exception being his capture of Hudson in "The Price", and then there was a different reason for that - the need to use Hudson as a guinea pig for the Cauldron of Life). So he no longer had a serious reason for capturing them, and consequently, didn't see the need to make those efforts. The only possible reason left for going after the gargoyles was that of revenge, and that obviously didn't interest him. So he had no reason to pursue them (and indeed, seems to have even been aware, as the ending of "City of Stone" makes clear, that leaving them more or less at liberty could be much more advantageous to him anyway). He could afford to leave them alone.

So I find it an amusing paradox that the very factor which could have made Xanatos a serious threat to the gargoyles actually helped to make him less of a threat than he might have been. He wasn't obssessively pursuing them on the basis of a pointless grudge. He went after them only when he saw a genuine need to, and there was increasingly less reason for him to capture or destroy the whole clan as the series went on (and good reason, on the other hand, to let them be).

KW Keller writes...

Well, I'm not Todd, but in response to the history of Excalibur, Geoffrey of Monmouth's "Caliburn" is thought by some to be derived from the Welsh "Caledfwlch" (Breton "Kaledvoulc'h"), or from the Irish "Caladbolg" or "Caladcholg." Caledfwlch appears in several Welsh Arthurian stories, especially "Culhwch ac Olwen." Caladbolg, "hard dinter," was the lightning sword of Fergus Mac Roth. Caladcholg was a similar sword owned by Fergus Mac Leti. Various people have argued at one time or another that the modern idea of Excalibur was taken from one of these sources.

Entity writes...

Hi Greg,

Don't let the death of Team Atlantis get you down, true brilliance is never recognized in its own time.

Anyway, I was wondering about your personal opinion on something: pop Arthurian Legend. First there was the "Merlin" miniseries, now there's another one on TNT called "The Mists of Avalon." Both take the traditional story of King Arthur and try to present its elements of magic to contemporary TV audiences in the guise of religion. Instead of accepting magic as a part of the legend, which I guess TV execs think is too "silly" or maybe even "controversial," they turn the Arthur legend into a morality tale about the old verse the new, Paganism verse Christianity, imagination verse logic, etc... take your pick.

What's your take? Do you think this is a constructive and innovative approach to telling the story, or a distracting and childish one?

Aris Katsaris writes...

A couple weeks ago, you posted a ramble in an interesting exchange of ideas with Punchinello, about the subject of "sentience" and how it's used in science fiction and fantasy, about whether it's a wall or not, etc, etc...

I thought to chime in, contributing with the concepts that Orson Scott Card introduces in "Speaker for the Dead" (an excellent book btw - I encourage everyone to read it). There he uses different words to differentiate between different kinds of 'alienness'... Let me quote:

"The Nordic language recognizes four orders of foreigness. The first is the otherlander, or 'utlanning', the stranger that we recognize as being a human of our world, but of another city or country. The second is the 'framling' [...]. This is the stranger that we recognize as human, but of another world. The third is the 'raman', the stranger that we recognize as human, but of another species. The fourth is the true alien, the 'varelse', which includes all the animals, for with them no conversation is possible. They live, but we cannot guess what purposes or causes make them act. They might be intelligent, they might be self-aware, but we cannot know it."

Obviously here the most important concepts are that of the 'raman' and of the 'varelse'. These can be useful, over and beyond the concept of 'sentience', because they refer to how much of an understanding can exist between different species - unlike 'non-sentient' for a species to be 'varelse' doesn't necessarily make it "inferior"... Only non-understandable.

On the other hand I find these concepts also intriguing because they *do* carry a moral judgment within them, even if it's a more subtle one. To recognize an alien as "raman" is to recognize him as basically human, to recognize that his fundamental motivations are the same as yours. It's the beginning of understanding and tolerance...

Now in the gargoyles universe, it's clear that both gargoyles and fae (and Nokkar's people also) are all "ramen": Other species which despite all their difference with our own, we can recognize as fundamentally 'human'. I'd also go on to say that this is what people like Jon Castaway refuse to see. By declaring that all gargoyles are monsters he doesn't necessarily refuse them their 'sentience' - he does refuse though to see that they are 'ramen'... and as such he can say things such as 'they are all evil', 'they must be destroyed', etc, etc...

And with that let me conclude with another quote from the book:
"Since we are not yet fully comfortable with the idea that people from the next village are as human as ourselves, it is presumptuous in the extreme to suppose we could ever look at sociable, tool-making creatures who arose from other evolutionary paths and see not beasts but brothers, not rivals but fellow pilgrim journeying to the shrine of intelligence.
Yet that is what I see or yearn to see. The difference between raman and varelse is not in the creature judged, but in the creature judging. When we declare an alien species to be raman, it does not mean that they have passed a threshold of moral maturity. It means that *we* have."

Sorry for the length of this ramble... :-)

Patricia writes...

Hi Greg!

In response to the Tootsie Pop commercial: I've seen it within the past year on TV, so.. it's still making its rounds on TV. And yes, I know the commercial, but.. I'm an early 80s baby (born in the early 80s). And that response fit with the question, very much so.

I'm running out of things to say.. whee.. ahem...

Oh! I found a quote or a poem or something about the "Hobgoblin of Little Minds," but I've forgotten where I put the paper that has it.. hmmm Maybe (hopefully) when I find it, I'll remember to type it up for you.. and see if that's what you're talking about.

Ok, general question that isn't really on Gargoyles or any of your other projects, but you might know.

What's the plural form of series? Is it series or seria? Or none of these? If it's not one of these, then what is it?

Thanks.

P.S. I can't wait for the next Contest to begin ;) Though I respect if you take a break, I just want to see how well I think I can do in them.. hehe... Umm.. yeah. Boy this covered alot of ground...