matt writes...

grrr, because anonymous had to bring it up again i thought i should once more say that i seriously doubt gargoyles evolved from dinosaurs, maybe they had a common ancestors or something, but it seems really unlikely that gargs are saurian descendants. i mean, look at the English gargs! they don't look anything like dinosaurs or even reptiles. i think its more likely that the English gargs evolved from lions, horses, and birds then other gargs evolving from dinosaurs, and Greg has said that they didn't. i think Gargs are so different from most higher life forms of life that the gargate family seperated from the rest of the animal kingdom far back in history, before dinosaurs, maybe even before reptiles!

sorry, i had to rant about that again...
"Why do the little things always frustrate me!" -Demona
geeeez, Greg, do YOU think gargs evolved from dinosaurs? i know you're not a biologist, but what do you think?

Demoness writes...

Suggestion:

I noticed that Greg has been receiving the same questions over and over again and I'm certain he's getting tired of answering them all the time. So, to save him as well as us time & trouble, why don't who ever manages the archive to create a "FAQ Archive" and put the FAQ with best answers in it.

just a suggestion

WereFox writes...

I know we've spent a lot time talking about Demona's motivations, but what of Thailog's. I'm guessing a desire to prove his own legitamacy in light of his unique origins and the long shadow cast by his fathers, especially Goliath.
One thing that never made complete since to me though was why he turned on Demona. There can't be that many Gargoyles who would ally themselves with his "unique slant on things." Clones are fine but Thailog initially relegated them to the status of servile drones. Was it that Demona was a loose canon. Was he simply bored with her? Finally it occured to me that if he is trying to prove himself to be a better Gargoyle,by his own defintion, tthen Demona might very well seem like a "hand me down." Or perhaps, he realized that Demona saw him not as "Thailog", but as a Goliath substitute. Talk about a blow to your self worth!

WereFox writes...

Does the spell of immortality completely heal Demona and MacBeths injuries. Do bullet or stab wounds heal without a trace or do the leave battle scars. It had occured to me that the spell might not have to heal them to be good as new, just enough to keep them alive. If being "alive" is the minmal requirement. Then the two of the could theoretically go into comas for the rest of eternity and still be considered "alive" for the purposes of the spell. I know, now way you were actually going to do this. Just exorcising a "creativity demon."

Corrine Blaquen writes...

Another interesting thing to think about: For brief periods of time, Angela has had both Macbeth and Thailog as stepfathers. *Grin* Angela's family is somewhat dysfunctional, is it not?

Todd Jensen writes...

Well, it's certainly a relief to have the Gargoyles 2198 contest finally over with; I'm amazed that it took us so long to get the last two answers right. Well, now for a few comments on "Gargoyles 2198"'s overall description.

A number of elements in it certainly surprised me. For example, while I had suspected for a long while that the Space-Spawn would be playing a major role in the spin-off, I hadn't expected that it would open with them actually conquering the planet. Likewise, I was certainly surprised at the reason for Owen being unable to become Puck in the series (Alex being in Space-Spawn captivity), though it did make sense (I'd had my own speculations for the reason for the "block on Puck" before the contest began, though I won't mention them here because of the rules - suffice it to say that none of them involved Alex being held prisoner by anybody).

Another element in the spin-off was one which I'd perhaps "half-anticipated", and which did strike me as logical, but which I hadn't been seriously expecting in "Gargoyles 2198"; the notion of Samson and Delilah working together. Now, before the contest had come out, I'd been speculating for some time over whether Samson would have some connection with Delilah - given their names, it would be almost impossible not to have something like that happening - but never gave it any serious thought since I obviously didn't seriously believe that the original Delilah whom we met in "The Reckoning" would still be around at the time of the spin-off (even when it was "Gargoyles 2158" rather than "Gargoyles 2198"). Of course, I hadn't counted on the possibility of a namesake descendant, but it certainly struck me as a good solution.

And I've got to admit, you found a way to have the Illuminati stoop to a new low in the spin-off; they certainly were shady even in the original series (deals with organized crime, the Hotel Cabal, supporting the Quarrymen), but now they've become out-and-out quislings.

All in all, the spin-off certainly looks promising. I don't know if you'll ever get it made, but it should be interesting.

Questions follow in a separate post.

Jimmy_Q writes...

Now there's a HUGE difference between 994 Scotland and 1994 U.S. Wouldn't the differences in vocabulary, word usage, etc. between these times and places reflect that? If Goliath learned to read and write in 994 Scotland then how was it that he awoke in Manhattan seemingly capable of reading and comprehending modern day American literature? Did he somehow work on his literacy skills outside the series or what? I figured that, as the ultimate all-knowing diety of the gargoyle universe, you would know this.

Jessica Cotten writes...

Hey Greg,

Well, either I can't find my answered questions(there are a lot)or I just asked them in a way that wasn't appropriate. Oh well. Anyway, if you ever get to do gargoyles again would you use Timedancer or would you maybe use a different idea if a better one surfaced? Timedancer is good, but I wouldn't put Brooklyn with someone so different. Maybe, but then again; you are the one writing the shows not me.

Since I can't find my questions. Could you e-mail me at Alexlyons3@hotmail.com

Punchinello writes...

Hello Mr. Weisman.

I don't come here often, but occasionally I'm struck by the urge to quiz you on something. I was browsing the questions you're fielding, and I was struck again by something I notice every time I visit this page. There seems to be some preoccupation here with "the mind of the other." I noticed another poster make reference to your interest in it (although I cannot find any record of your having initiated the discussion).

While the series was still active I saw you invoke this theme frequently whenever you emphasized the cultural shock that the gargoyles experienced in modern America, and I appreciated the fact that you treated our linguistic tendencies to "name everything" as a curious human social construction. It helped to push the idea that these creatures were _not_ human and that we could not understand their natures or their motivations from within the context of human sensibilities. I see there is some similar talk here of the fay, and the notion that their essential nature might be something that is sufficiently far removed from humans so as to be outside our understanding. All of this puts me in mind of the anthropomorphic problem that the SETI administration outlined for dealing with the idea of extraterrestrial intelligence's. Human beings have a tendency to ascribe human values to non human species, and beyond that have considerable difficulty in contextualizing "the mind of the other" without unconsciously resorting to the context of human sensibilities.

Which brings me to the reason for this post; because being a student of the sciences (and probably less attached to my humanity than most people), I have found reason to be extremely critical of some of the aspects of the way the anthropomorphic problem is treated within the natural sciences as it applies to non-human animals. Generally speaking, my problem is that some of the more archaic ethical distinctions that are made between humans and other animals have their foundation in the premise that the ascription of certain mental capacities ( reflection, emotion, etc.) are the ascription of _uniquely human_ qualities. The fact that this premise, itself, is socially constructed rather than informed by data, seems to be lost on at least most _social_ scientists. What is troubling me is that I have begun to observe this kind of thinking migrate into the popular domain through science fiction. I don't really follow sci fi, but I've seen star trek, and I have had occasion to see the half-dozen or so other popular sci fi programs that one can find on television. I see a trend wherein the heroes casual disintegration of a planet is commonly justified with the hazily defined and indistinct ethics of "It did not harbor any sentient life."

This trend is scaring the hell out of me; because the expression "sentient" is not really used within the scientific community, so it does not have any agreed upon definition attached to it and there is no objective data informing the idea of it. The word seems to have infiltrated popular culture, however, where it finds frequent expression. That's what's bothering me. I see a lot of the same hazy ethical reasoning on this board. A number of messages expressing the confusion that humans in your story were subject to when they "mistook the gargoyles for animals rather than sentient beings" and in doing so, justified a campaign to exterminate them.

I would hope that a reasonable group of people would be given pause by the almost casual disregard for life that is being demonstrated with the prioritization of one life over another based upon the presence or non-presence of this seemingly magical endowment. Because if I am reading the intentions of the contributors to this board accurately, then it would appear their position is that if the occupants of that clock tower had been a group of stray dogs or a family of polar bears, then annihilating them with a wire guided missile would have been perfectly reasonable. "It's all right. It didn't harbor any sentient life." I would encourage the fans that come to this site to give some thought to what it is they mean by "sentience." What is the content of this sentience? If it entails that a creature can react to it's environment, anticipate, reflect and emote, then it should be pointed out that what available data exists indicates that this capacity is only about as exclusive a domain as most land based vertebrates.

I guess they shouldn't have disintegrated that planet after all. I hope to encourage others to give this issue the thought that it requires. I am also hoping to elicit some commentary from you, on the matter of how you perceive "the mind of the other." What mental distinctions do you draw between humans and gargates or faeries. I would be interested in hearing you address the notion.

Punchinello

Jim R. writes...

This is something I've been wanting to ask for a while.

A lot of information on the net in relation to Gargoyles is the criticism reports I read. Critics who evaluated Gargoyles say that as for children, it's a good show to teach morals, right-and-wrong differences, and social problems. They especially mention the episode "Deadly Force" in particular as a lesson learning experience about the dangers of weapons.

But, as for those of us adults, we believe Gargoyles was Disney's way of appealing to a more mature audience. Most of us would say its attractive because of the story, characters, episodes, Shakespearian underlyings, or the overall fictional universe idea makes it interesting. These things, I think, are what make adults come to Gatherings or purchuse merchandise, etc.

So, my question is: Who would you agree with more? The people like us fans, who ask you questions, still watch the series on our VCRs, and adore the story. Or, the critics who would say that Gargoyles is a good children's cartoon, suitable for teaching them lessons of behavior, ethics, etc.