A Station Eight Fan Web Site

Gargoyles

The Phoenix Gate

Ask Greg Archives

Fan Comments

Archive Index


: « First : « 250 : « 25 : Displaying #761 - #785 of 995 records. : 25 » : Last » :


Posts Per Page: 1 : 10 : 25 : 50 : 100 : All :


Bookmark Link

Todd Jensen writes...

Another "rambling" on my part, this time on Future Tense and its relationship to the actual events in the gargoyles' lives after the Avalon World Tour. As we all know, one of the big questions in the fandom is how much the events in "Future Tense" reflect the actual future in the Gargoyles Universe, thanks both to the fulfillment of two of them (in a way) before "The Journey" and Puck's little "Was it a dream or a prophecy?" remark (although I think that that line of his was done just to tease Goliath).

Now, two "prophecies" in "Future Tense" were fulfilled. Xanatos and Fox did have a son named Alexander Fox Xanatos, and the clock tower was destroyed. But I'm not so certain that either of these are quite so significant. As Owen, Puck would obviously know what the Xanatoses were planning to name their baby, after all. As for the clock tower, the destruction of the gargoyles' home would be a natural part of any "gloom-and-doom" scenario for them (not to mention that in the "Future Tense Universe", the clock tower would more likely have been destroyed by Xanatos or Lexington masquerading as Xanatos, rather than by the Canmores - whose existence Puck might not even have been aware of at that point).

Two "prophecies" that seem to be on their way to fulfillment in the future, based on your earlier MasterPlan comments, are the Ultra-Pack and the forty-year separation of Brooklyn and Goliath (brought about by the Avalon World Tour in the "Future Tense Universe", by Brooklyn's Timedancer adventures in the actual Gargoyles Universe). The first of these, of course, can again be easily explained: the Pack getting upgraded again does strike me as something that anyone who had paid close enough attention to their past career could have expected. The 40 years timedancing is a bit more of a poser, but I imagine that if you make enough statements about the future, a few are going to turn out correct, and the only real similarity is the "40 years" element (and the number forty has long held a certain symbolic significance, anyway - the rain that caused Noah's Flood lasted for forty days, the Israelites under Moses spent forty years wandering in the wilderness, etc.).

(The irony is that Brooklyn's Timedancing adventures would have to be the consequence of Puck's whole "Future Tense" vision to begin with, since they came about because Goliath threw the Phoenix Gate away into the Time-stream, which he did because of the "Future Tense" vision; a good case of a self-fulfilling prophecy).

(I've also spotted a possible fifth "twisted fulfillment" of a "Future Tense" event in the outline for "Gargoyles 2198" that you posted, but I'll wait until after the contest is over before naming it and asking you if you'd intended it as such - you can, of course, in the interim, have the fun of guessing which part of "Gargoyles 2198" I had in mind when I wrote this paragraph :)

And, of course, the way that things were going by the end of the series (at least by the end of "The Journey"), I think that we can safely conclude that Xanatos isn't going to declare war on the gargoyles, kill Hudson at the cost of his own life, drive the surviving members of the clan into the Labyrinth, and take over New York (to be succeeded after his death by a traitorous Lexington using him for a facade).

At least, that's my own two cents' worth on the relevance of "Future Tense" to the future of the Gargoyles Universe.

Greg responds...

Sounds pretty good. But you're forgetting one thing.

Response recorded on November 13, 2000

Bookmark Link

Todd Jensen writes...

This is a question on Nokkar, but don't worry; it's about him as portrayed in "Sentinel" and isn't "Gargoyles 2198"-linked.

I've noticed that a great many "Gargoyles" fans have displayed a low opinion of Nokkar as a character because of his treatment of the gargoyles, mistaking them for spies for the Space-Spawn and refusing (until almost the last moment) to reconsider; they've considered him a stubborn fool. While I can't approve myself of Nokkar's attitude of "I've already made up my mind; don't confuse me with the facts" myself, I have wondered from time to time if we haven't been doing him something of an injustice.

The big element in this pondering is this question that I find it's occasionally useful to ask ourselves regarding those enemies of the gargoyles who fought against them because they believed the gargs to be evil monsters; would we have felt the same way about these people if the gargoyles really were a race of evil demons? In some cases, my answer would have been "Yes". I would have felt the same way about the Pack in "The Thrill of the Hunt", for example, or Castaway in "The Journey", because their reasons for going after the gargoyles were ignoble ones (the Pack motivated by a desire for simple excitement, Castaway by hatred and a desire for revenge) rather than for the purpose of protecting the community, and because they were willing to endanger innocent bystanders in a very ruthless fashion to achieve their goals.

But with Nokkar, my response is different. For one thing, he really does come across in "Sentinel" as genuinely concerned for the well-being of the inhabitants of the planet that he's been assigned to protect. He clearly shows concern for Elisa - he immediately asks her, after bringing Goliath down, if she's all right, and trusts her enough, in fact, to give her the personal guided tour of his spaceship. When Elisa finally, out of instinct, sides with the gargoyles and comes to their rescue, Nokkar still does whatever he can to treat her gently, and asks her (and actually listens) why she insists on risking her own life to protect them. (He also mentions having had a good relationship with the original inhabitants of Easter Island who built the moai statues of him, and seems willing enough to make friends with the two archaeologists and Dr. Arnada at the end of the story and share his mission with them). Indication enough that he was no simple mercenary but someone with a genuine protector instinct.

As for his treatment of the gargoyles - again, it wouldn't have hurt for him to have kept an open mind. But to return to my original point, would I have felt the same way about the guy if Goliath, Angela, and Bronx really had been an advance scouting party for the Space-Spawn? I will admit that I wouldn't. Even when Nokkar was about to execute them, he made it clear that a) he was doing this because the laws of his people forbade Sentinels to take prisoners and b) he was going to give them as merciful and painless a death as possible. (And, also to be perfectly fair to the guy, what proof did the gargoyles have to offer him that they weren't enemy aliens? To the best of my knowledge, none).

So this consideration does lead me to wonder whether we may not have done Nokkar a bit of an injustice in how we viewed his actions in "Sentinel". At any rate, I'm curious as to what your thoughts are on the matter.

Greg responds...

Well, I like the guy. I don't know that I'd jump through the same hoops to rationalize his actions, but I like him. For us, he was like those stories of WWII soldiers on remote Pacific Islands still fighting a war that they didn't know was over. (Not that the Space-Spawn War is over.) They go a bit batty over the long, long haul. And Nokkar's had a longer haul than most. The truth is he was anxious to be doing something productive. Anything. He wanted the Gargoyles to be S-S spies. That's bad. But when he realized his error, he didn't compound it. That shows he's redeemable. Easier to redeem than most, I think.

And I agree, he did demonstrate a real concern for humans.

Response recorded on November 10, 2000

Bookmark Link

Maria writes...

Hmm, in answer to your question, I honestly can't remembre
where I saw the word 'convenient' posted. I am pretty sure you had said it though. Someone had asked a question and you had said something along the lines of 'adoption probably being more convenient'. And, of course, that is probably true. I am certain that many of the fans, myself included - would be happy to just see Goliath and Elisa tie the not basically and at last rise a family. That in and of itself would be a nice closure to the romance to, even though it would forever continue.
Also, it strikes me as strange that G & E would break up so soon after 'Hunters Moon' and then have a double date like that following Halloween. But, someone in the comment room mentioned that 'Hunters Moon' had fallen on the 26th of October in 1996 - correct? So wouldn't the Halloween date take place in '97? And if so, why so long?
I know the general outline of what they'll go through and decide, having discussed their relationship and then find it a little too difficult. (But would that just be Elisa who feels that way, or would it be Goliath too?)
Somehow, I get the impression that they wouldn't break up for that long at all. But have we misunderstood the time line somehow? And wouldn't things work out to where they might have a commitment ceremony of sorts sooner than expected? It almost seems strange for them to want to drag it out, and yet at the same time, I can see why they would. Although they would be back together, they might still be afraid of total commitment. . .for obvious reasons. No kids.
But, how long exactly would thier triangle last? I don't think that Goliath would enjoy a date with Delilah, and she might in turn find it a bit odd to go out with the one who is Thailog's 'father' basically.
Anyway, you gave some good points and I do agree. I just have my own views too. Which we all do. And that is important so long as we don't obscure it for someone else or twist it around. And it's always important to be loved for who we are and to not judge others when it isn't our place. If I have come off judgemental - which I doubt I have - then I do apologize. (I apologize WAY too much! ^_^)
Anyway, good points.
Thanks. :)

Greg responds...

Thank you. I think I've responded to most of this recently, so I won't ramble on this time.

Response recorded on November 09, 2000

Bookmark Link

zippysquir@aol.com writes...

...I don't think Goliath is the kind of guy who ranks his favorites.

I'm not either really.

----------->William Shakespeare

Greg responds...

O.K.

Response recorded on November 09, 2000

Bookmark Link

demona writes...

greg i have my one clan and we will bring them back will u help us

Greg responds...

What kinda help we talkin' about?

Response recorded on November 09, 2000

Bookmark Link

Todd Jensen writes...

Just read your "Eye of the Beholder" piece. Oddly enough, I watched that same episode just a few days ago (I like to watch my tape of it every Halloween, one of three "Gargoyles" episodes that I watch on tape for annual holidays. The other two are "Sanctuary" for Valentine's Day and "The Hound of Ulster" for St. Patrick's Day).

This episode I very much enjoyed. I will confess that, even though I'm quite fond of Norse mythology, I never suspected, even after the revelation that the Eye of Odin was a magical artifact, that it was literally that (the eye that Odin gave up for a drink from Mimir's well) - in fact, I never even thought along those lines until "Eye of the Storm" came out. But the revelation that it was magical got my attention.

I also noticed the development for Xanatos here, how he proposes to Fox in the manner of a business proposition, particularly his reasons, but then in the course of the episode realizes that he is in love with her. (I particularly caught the very worried expression on his face after his "Spilt milk").

I caught the "Beauty and the Beast" reference with Goliath and Elisa, but I will confess here that I wasn't seriously imagining anything going on between them at the time. (Kind of embarrassing in hindsight, I must admit).

I caught the significance of the trio's costumes (including Lexington as a pilot being a reference back to "Her Brother's Keeper") - and I've got to agree with you that Broadway's belch was probably the crudest sound effect that "Gargoyles" ever had :)

And of course, the exchange at the end between Goliath and Xanatos that you quoted ("So now you know my weakness." "Only you would regard love as a weakness.") is one of my favorite moments in the series. (And I also very much like the last shot being of Owen smiling as he watches).

Greg responds...

Me too, pal, me too.

Response recorded on November 09, 2000

Bookmark Link

John writes...

Hi Greg,
Now here comes a verry wicked question: What did you think, is the best point to end the show? I know, and I hope, that you get the show back someday, but someday it has to end...
CU, John

Greg responds...

Why?

Response recorded on November 09, 2000

Bookmark Link

Blaise writes...

THE SILVER FALCON

I finally have some time to comment on this.

Originally I wasn't all that impressed with this ep--maybe because it only had one gargoyle (Broadway) in it, but then again THE MIRROR is a tough act to follow.

Over time, however, I've come to appreciate it a lot more.
The little touches--Broadway's reading, Elisa keeping her gun locked up, Matt looking for the Illuminati--were things I picked up on and appreciated right away, but the dynamic between Elisa and Broadway started to grow on me over the repeated viewings.

I didn't know that Benton and DD were one and the same when I first saw the episode until the final revelation. But I LOVED it! I thought it was just a wonderful pay-off, and so was the marbles in the bag.

I didn't think Hacker would be that important a character in later episodes (it was still early in the 2nd season, yet), but I liked that the characters had backgrounds and past relationships that had repercussions on the present.

Yeah, it's a pity that the "guy in the trench-coat" was immediately recognizable as Broadway. That extra suspense might have been real sweet.

Since you're putting up some fav quotes here's one of mine. Broadway's hit Dracon with the fire escape (OUCH!) and is quoting his favorite movie, and all Dracon can say is "Not you guys again!" I don't know why--maybe it's Richard Greico's (sp?) voice acting--but that line just makes me laugh every time.

All in all, an enjoyable ep, and a good beginning for Cary Bates, a name I'd come to find familiar in the closing credits of GARGOYLES.

Greg responds...

Yeah. I think SILVER FALCON is one that kinda grows on you. There are a few like that. They seem sleepy and/or insignificant, but there finer qualities and overall importance emerge with time.

Response recorded on November 09, 2000

Bookmark Link

Todd Jensen writes...

Note to Aris: Good point, and I certainly never thought that the similarities between "Gargoyles" and "X-Men" were based on anything other than the same theme. But I was raising the question as to whether anybody at Disney had that fear, in light of the documented fear that some of them had that "Gargoyles" might be perceived as a "Batman"-rip-off. (Which fear was strong enough to lead to Greg producing that short essay on the differences between "Gargoyles" and "Batman:TAS").

Greg responds...

That's what I thought you meant.

Response recorded on November 02, 2000

Bookmark Link

Todd Jensen writes...

Ah, a ramble on "The Silver Falcon" at last - and it was worth the wait, too.

Looking back on the episode, the main thing that I can remember from the first time that I watched it was a bit of initial disappointment when it turned out that what Matt (and, after him, Elisa and Broadway) had stumbled upon wasn't actually an Illuminati scheme but Dracon going after some stolen jewels; I was very much intrigued with the Illuminati, after all. But I think that the story worked out nicely enough to make up for that, in that it was very atmospheric, with some nice twists as well, and Elisa and Broadway getting to both show some real detective-instincts in them.

And I certainly was surprised when it turned out that Benton and Dominic Dracon were the same person; I hadn't been expecting that. (Although, looking back on that episode, the revelation at the end puts an interesting twist on Benton's complimentary description of DD in the photo :)

One of the big impressions that this episode made on me, by the way, was the dizzying heights at the skyscraper in the climax; I certainly didn't envy Elisa's situation. (I've always had a poor head for heights, myself).

Greg responds...

Me too. And everyone is just dancing around up there. Even Dominic. Man.

Response recorded on November 01, 2000

Bookmark Link

VF writes...

I really admire the patience and dedication of longtime fans and admirers (including yourself) of "Gargoyles." I only discovered the show for myself (with the help of my two young daughters) a bit more than a year ago, and I KEEP hoping that "some day" will come already and new episodes can be made.

Folks can say what they want about Toon Disney, but that's how my daughters found it and shared it with me, so the channel is at least providing the opportunity for a few new viewers to discover the show.

It's clear from watching the series, and then finding this Web site and learning more about the behind-the-scenes processes involved in its making, that there were a lot of thoughtful, creative, talented people behind it. Your ideas about characterization and story continuity have prompted me to post some thoughts and an inquiry here. (It's at the heart of one of the main reasons why I really lament that there aren't any more episodes being made ... yet.)

From a writing point of view, I think "Hunter's Moon, Part III" -- which I realize was a season finale -- would have served as a much better "final" finale for your involvement than "The Journey," which just left everything dangling for me like an unfinished book. Maybe I should say "like an unfinished chapter" because I don't want the book to end. At least in "Hunter's Moon," it ended with a bit of a payoff: an open declaration of mutual love between two main characters ("You know how I feel about you, right?" "How we both feel, yes." and even a kiss). It helped bring together a few loose strands that had been threading from almost the very beginning of the series without completely shutting it off from future development (far from it, actually).

In "The Journey," there is an aborted, sort-of date with very little discussion between Goliath and Elisa about what is really happening between the two of them or that very significant exchange between them from the previous episode. Also, from the information shared in this site, it seems you knew this was your farewell episode in many respects. So I would be interested to learn what you intended to have at work between Goliath and Elisa in this episode because I'm not sure that I "got it" all. I think an argument could be made that the episode, coming immediately in sequence after "Hunter's Moon," implies that a relationship between the two is A-OK with them without any internal conflicts.

Did you really want to make things seem less defined between them and let some time pass before they actually had The Talk about their relationship, specifically to help sustain fans' interest at a time when you may not have known what the future held for the series and their story?

Sorry to ramble on, but I don't want to appear as though I'm sorry you stayed on for one episode too many (again, far from it!) I'd like to learn your thoughts about the episode from a story/character development perspective.

Thank you.

Greg responds...

Well. I was trying to play fair, I think. I was leaving, but the series had 12 more episodes that I was at least supposed to advise on. Most of my positive (try this) advice was ignored, though some of my negative (hey, don't do that) advice was taken. I wanted to give ME some closure, but I wasn't trying to give the series closure.

Specifically, what I was saying was that the journey would continue. That the adventure would continue. That even Japan had gargoyles, and Vinnie (or Greg Weisman) would never be totally out of the picture. That no matter what hassles Goliath and Elisa had ahead of them, that they would still have each other as companions on the journey forward.

This was not to imply that Elisa was all copecetic about loving the gargoyle. But that she knew that she did. That she would never abandon him. And vice versa.

Does that help?

Feel free to ask more specific questions, if I haven't covered it for you.

And by the way, cuts or no cuts, "Deadly Force" or no "Deadly Force", I'm still glad that Toon Disney's airing the show.

Response recorded on November 01, 2000

Bookmark Link

Ray Kremer writes...

Aris-

As long as we're chatting, well, yes. It is annoying and boring. That's unavoidable, but also why I only did a handful. Unsportsmanlike? Absolutely. Which is why I'm more than a little sorry for doing it. Though it honestly didn't occur to me before that the robot numbers would have some logic behind them, I figured they were random (guess I wasn't thinking about how Greg operates). Maybe I won't be able to work up the guts to do more acronyms later, we'll see. This time I was swept up in the excitement of knowing two letters for sure. If you want, we can make a note that the point I got for the "994" is tainted. And I'm not sure the website completely atones for my sins, either. But really, is it so much worse than when the clans contest was going on?

I suppose Greg will be reading these. His challenge will be making the next contest one he won't end up regretting...

Greg responds...

You guys worry too much.

Response recorded on October 26, 2000

Bookmark Link

Aris Katsaris writes...

Btw, (and so that I'm not negative all the time), I want to thank you, Ray, for the page with the text and the blanks filled in. That *does* atone for the brute-force tactics :-)

Greg responds...

:)

Response recorded on October 26, 2000

Bookmark Link

Aris Katsaris writes...

Sorry about this, but it must be done. :-)

Ray, don't you think that the brute-force tactics you are constantly employing are a bit annoying *and* extremely boring, not to mention unsportmanslike?

Once again, sorry...

Greg responds...

-

Response recorded on October 26, 2000

Bookmark Link

Todd Jensen writes...

By the way (also on that same document) I agree with you that a big problem with the notion of "Goliath as a human who was transformed into a gargoyle" is that the audience would be expecting and wanting him to find a cure, which of course would be out of the question in a television series since it would automatically end it. I found that particularly interesting since I've noticed that there are many cases of television series which have an explicit or implicit specific objective for the protagonist(s) which, if achieved, would automatically force the series to conclude. Thus, unless, the concept is handled extremely carefully, the series develops a note of frustration about it as the protagonist always has to fail to achieve his or her objective, to keep the series going.

"Gargoyles", fortunately, managed to avoid that problem by making the protagonists' goal something that was a journey rather than a destination. The gargoyles' goal is to survive in this strange new world, understand it, and protect it, all three ongoing quests rather than ones with a specific end of "We've done it; now the story's over". Which, I certainly believe, was a good thing for "Gargoyles".

(Of course, some of the spin-offs might be described, from what you've said about them, as falling into the "concrete objective" category, but even there, there were solutions to that here and there. For example, in "Pendragon", Arthur and Griff's goal is to find Merlin, but from the evidence that you've given, the story would definitely not be over after they do find him and get him out of the Crystal Cave. "Timedancer", of course, would be a different story, since the series is definitely over once Brooklyn gets back to Castle Wyvern, but since that won't be for forty years after his adventures begin, there's room enough for a lot of stories there).

Greg responds...

Yep. I like things that evolve.

Response recorded on October 20, 2000

Bookmark Link

Maria writes...

Hey Greg!!
Um, I have a question about doing my own kind of gargoyles story. But I want to make sure that the characters I'm thinking up don't mix too much with Disney and what you came up with. Is there a way I can email you, or you email me, so I can maybe get some interesting ideas or even some council? This is something I would like to do as maybe a comic book series or something. Or maybe just a book series with a lot of illustrations. Kind of like a teen book, or even an adult book or something. But without the unnecessary adult material which I consider sacred and unneeded in todays hideously over-rated Hollywood. It's so hard to see movies these days because there aren't any good ones to see.
Anyway, my email is Marie Destine@aol.com. I'm not sure at this point if there is anythin at all that I will be able to do. This is just an idea at pressent that I want to explore and hopefully make a reality. So, if there's anything more you need to know about the ideas I have so far, or wouldn't mind giving me some tips I would appreciate it. I just figured I should ask you what is the best course to take because you are in the business and I thought that you might be the best person to ask.
So anyway, any help you could give would be great.
Thanks in advance!! ^_^

Greg responds...

I don't think I can be of much help, and I'm not too clear on what you have in mind anyway.

Gargoyles (generic) unrelated to Disney's property are certainly fair game. But, frankly, I'm not about to help you with what in essence would be competition TO my work, inspired at least indirectly BY that work.

Gargoyles based in any way on the series would get you in major trouble with Disney, assuming you didn't have their permission. And again, I'd love to be writing books based on the series. So we'd be competing.

And in any case, I make it a policy not to look at other people's ideas, to protect myself legally.

Sorry.

Response recorded on October 19, 2000

Bookmark Link

Kayless writes...

Hey there Greg.

I was thinking of posting a guess for the contest but then I thought: Why pour gasoline on a burning house? You know, this new contest reminds me of a Simpson's episode where Apu hides a snake in the Quick-E-Mart on Whacking Day as a marketing ploy. The first one to whack the serpent gets a free Squishy. Unfortunately the participants search for the snake by knocking over counters, flinging food, and smashing products. Apu sighs after giving up on telling them to control themselves and says, 'I really should have put more thought into this.'

I still need sleep…

Greg responds...

YOU need sleep?!

Response recorded on October 19, 2000

Bookmark Link

Todd Jensen writes...

Another "more-musing-than-question" comment here. In "M.I.A.", when Leo and Una are urging Griff not to take part in the Battle of Britain, saying that "the Nazis are a human problem", Goliath replies that "in my experience, human problems become gargoyle problems."

What I found interesting about this remark is that, in fact, the origins of the "gargoyle problems" in the series do bear out the truth of Goliath's remark.

1. The Wyvern Massacre of 994. Arose in part from an attack on the castle by Hakon and his Vikings, who were initially doing so for the plunder (and Hakon at first didn't even believe that there were actual gargoyles living there).

2. The flight of the eggs to Avalon in 995. Arose from Constantine murdering Kenneth II and wanting to marry Katharine to strengthen his claim to the Scottish throne that he'd just usurped.

3. The troubles that Demona and her clan underwent at the hands of the Hunters in the 11th century. Stemmed partly from Gillecomgain's personal vendetta from Demona (which was essentially a gargoyle problem), but also from Duncan and Canmore's feud with Clan Moray over the succession to the Scottish throne (definitely a human problem).

4. Goliath's modern-day adventures in "Awakening". Ultimately stemmed from a human problem (Xanatos wanting to conduct a raid on Cyberbiotics to steal its research).

5. The Quarryman threat from "The Journey" onwards. While based in part on the public's fear of the gargoyles, as far as Castaway is concerned, it's ultimately really based on a human problem (Castaway's unadmitted guilt over shooting and maiming his brother, which he blames the gargoyles for).

(Not to mention that the evidence in "Once Upon A Time There Were Three Brothers" shows how the feud between two rival Scottish houses over the throne in the years leading up to 971 wound up drawing in the Wyvern clan).

So I'd have to agree with Goliath on that one; a very accurate statement on how the gargoyle race isn't an island.

Greg responds...

Yep. And I'm glad Goliath learned that lesson too.

Response recorded on October 19, 2000

Bookmark Link

Aris Katsaris writes...

<glances at Adam and says nothing> :-)

Okay, moving on to other things. I had said:
--"Let me just paraphrase a sentence of Terry Pratchett: "All things are true, for a given value of 'truth'."

and you said:
--"Who's Terry Pratchett?"

and I say:
*Shame* on you! :-)

Anyway, Terry Pratchett is a (British) writer of humorous fantasy, probably the best of the lot. His most famous work is the "Discworld" series of books... It ranges from the silly/trivial ('Colour of Magic','Eric') all the way to the deep and serious ('Small Gods', perhaps 'Hogfather') sometimes even venturing into the dark and creepy ('Soul Music', 'Carpe Jugulum')

The early books ('Colour of Magic' 'Light Fantastic') weren't *that* great so I usually recommend 'Small Gods' to beginners, which is also the book I started with - it isn't just a good book but it's also a story with none of the recurring characters of the series so one won't get confused at all.

But perhaps (given the Gargoyles series) a better recommendation would be "Wyrd Sisters" (a humorous take on 'Hamlet'/'Macbeth' and Shakespeare in general). Also its 'sequel', "Lords and Ladies", parodying in part Shakespeare's "A Midsummer Night's Dream".... Great book...

My all-time favourite Discworld book is perhaps "Hogfather". Featuring Death, Death's grandaughter Susan, Auditors of Reality, Santa Claus, a brilliant assassin with the mind of a child, a stupid thug with the mind of a child, the oh god of hangovers, tooth fairies, the first bogeyman *ever*, and also the monster under your bed. A book about the magic (aka 'real terror') of childhood. :-)

That books is also the reason that I know that Santa Claus can be handled in a very serious manner - and "Hogfather"'s utilisation of him is as serious as one can get... I actually have more respect for the big guy now.. :-)

Okay that was a ramble - sorry about that. To finish, I'll just say i've heard than in America Pratchett may be better known because of his co-writing the book "Good Omens" with Neil Gaiman...

Greg responds...

Sounds interesting, but here's the thing...

At this point in my life, I don't really want to read other people's creative (i.e. fictional) interpretations of legend and myth. What I've read up to this point, I've read. But now, I'd prefer not to clutter my own creative process with other peoples interpretations. I'd rather go to so-called original sources and come up with my own stuff.

Response recorded on October 19, 2000

Bookmark Link

puck40 writes...

dear god.... its been what? a week if that? I have no sense of time anymore. erhmm... go Greg! good god, I mean good job with the contest! o.O; hoping to get it done in tie for G2001. <falls over laughing> 9.9; so erhm. I'm going to ask a question in next post. This one its just. Good job and dear god... good luck answering these things <if the contest isn't *over* by the time my post hits>.

Greg responds...

Uh... thanks... I think...

Response recorded on October 19, 2000

Bookmark Link

Ed writes...

Hi Greg.

I like the shape of the future you've built, or as far as I can see it. Obviously you won't answer anything on it at the moment, but I'm particularly interested to find out what the other clans are up to. And Coyote-X sounds great. I just hope the Space Spawn aren't the sort to gurgle in their throats or shout, "prepare to die, earthlings!" or something.

As for the large amount of guesses already filled - I still think the last ones will take a long time. Especially since some of them seem to be names that I don't know if we can guess. 233-253 and 306-339 look particularly tough.

Greg responds...

Hopefully, will make the Space-Spawn as interesting as Demona and Xanatos were in their way and in their time.

Response recorded on October 19, 2000

Bookmark Link

Todd Jensen writes...

One thing that I was thinking about the events in "The Gathering". Many Gargoyles fans, including myself, didn't approve of Oberon and Titania's attempt to kidnap Alexander, even if it was for the sake of allowing him to achieve his magical potential. But one thing that I recently considered is that their abduction attempt may have been a blessing for the gargoyles, if a disguised one at first.

After all, one of the major results of the whole kidnapping attempt was that Xanatos ended his feud with the gargoyles, and gave them shelter at Castle Wyvern after the Canmores blew up the clock tower and exposed the clan's existence to the world. If he'd still been at odds with them, I doubt that he'd have done that (or at least, not under as generous terms for the clan); at best, in the aftermath of "Hunter's Moon", the gargoyles would have been reduced to his pawns (just as he'd wanted them to be when he first awakened them), and at worst, they'd be homeless and all but defenceless, most likely to wind up dead or in captivity. I doubt that Titania was anticipating the Hunters' actions a few episodes later when she tried to kidnap Alex, but I can't help but suspect that it saved the gargoyles' life at St. Damien's Cathedral.

Greg responds...

Sometimes things just seem to work.

Response recorded on October 19, 2000

Bookmark Link

Todd Jensen writes...

One thought that I had about your remark that Goliath isn't likely to tell anybody about the details of that "Future Tense" nightmare that Puck gave him; I think that it's a good thing, myself. I'm not sure that it would be that advisable to let the rest of the clan know about Lexington being a traitor in "Future Tense", and I'm definitely certain that it would be a bad idea to let Brooklyn know about the "mated to Demona" business (especially where Owen is concerned :)

Greg responds...

Yeah. Not much to gain by it, huh?

Response recorded on October 19, 2000

Bookmark Link

puck40 writes...

Hey Greg

Comment about Terry Pratchet. :)
Just find any one of those Discworld books and read the first couple pages. If your not hooked into it by the first or second page... well like thats possible. hee hee
ja!

Greg responds...

see my comments to Aris.

I realize I'm cutting myself off from some good stuff, but I don't have a shortage of books to read EVER.

I just read William Faulkner's New Orleans Sketches. It was a great early example of his work.

Response recorded on October 19, 2000

Bookmark Link

Maria writes...

Another silly Question from Silly Maria: ^_^
Why is 'adopting' for Goliath and Elisa more convenient?
I obviously have a very different thinking pattern. I guess I feel that if someone really loved someone else they would be willing to make some sort of change. So that's why I find it hard to believe that Elisa or Goliath can't make a magical change or something. In my mind, just because you change your form doesn't necessarily mean you are changing who you are. It can change a PART of who you are, but it doesn't change everything about you. You are who you are inside. And that includes your SOUL. Your soul is who you are. That's why we are able to differentiate between right and wrong because GOD gave us that gift. We just abuse it sometimes or ignore it, because we are down here on earth to learn. And from circumstance and learning different behaviors, we sometimes become what we were not in the beginning.
So, why would it be so inconvienient? (Bad spelling. . . :P) I mean, I am probably WAY off base. But that's just the way I feel . . . if that's all right.

I guess the problem for us Goliath and Elisa fans is we REALLY want Goliath and Elisa to have a child. Yet, contradictorally, we understand that ethnically, it would be impossible. And yet we hope for a miracle. I guess in my frame of mind, seeing them raise a family of their own would be like some kind of resolution. Strange, isn't it?
Anyway, enough of my rediculous ramblings. I probably don't make any sense - though I try to. It's just hard sometimes to put my thoughts into words. And they don't always come out the way I want them too. So for that I apologize. A hard life has let my communication skills go to par. ^_^!
Well, if that wasn't too - ridiculous - I'll take off now. TTFn. Ta Ta For Now!! :)

Greg responds...

There's nothing wrong with the way you feel.

But it's not the way I feel. I am a secular, at times Pagan, Jew. And yet, I would not convert to another religion for anyone. Not for "love", certainly. If my "love" couldn't accept me for who I am, why would I want her? Most of my life, I dated non-Jews. It's theoretically possible that I might have married one. But I still would not have converted. As it turned out, I did marry a Jew who "practices" the religion more than I do. I haven't gotten "more Jewish" because of her. I've fundamentally stayed the same. And yet, being Jewish is part of who I am. Part of what made me who I am. Same with being short. Same with being nocturnal. Same with being a guy. A heterosexual. A storyteller. I can't change any of these things (or a bunch of other things) without fundamentally changing my identity. Who I am. Who I want to be. I'm not talking about changing breakfast cereals. I'm talking about fundamental factors to my identity in THIS LIFE. Maybe I was someone entirely different in another life, and maybe my "SOUL" is an unchanging light that shines through the prism of each new life. But the prism matters to me. And I think it matters to Goliath and Elisa too. And by the way, I don't see why ADOPTION is any less legitimate a way to share their love with a child than spitting a kid from one's combined loins.

But did I use the word "convenient"? If I did, what was the context? Because the decision was not based on convenience.

Response recorded on October 19, 2000


: « First : « 250 : « 25 : Displaying #761 - #785 of 995 records. : 25 » : Last » :