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...