A Station Eight Fan Web Site
hi, greg ð'
is megan in season 4 a transgender allegory? the scene where she says that form isn't who she's inside is a VERY trangender thing. was that on purpose or not? in season 1, when you were asked about this, you said you didn't have a trans metaphor in mind for megan, but things changed, i guess. (or not)
i think she works a lot better being a allegory for a trans person than for a person of color to be honest. but she can be both, i guess.
oh, and do dogs live longer in YJ? you said they live longer in gargoyles because they should live longer in real life, so in your universe, they do.
ps: i'm not saying you shouldn't like your show. you should, it's good :)
1. I think it's become both. Fans told us that they related to Megan as a trans allegory, so we went with that, while maintaining her growing out of the desire to be part of a "passing" allegory.
2 I believe I said Gargoyle Beasts live longer than dogs. But maybe you could show me a link to whatever wild thing I said. In any case, no. In YJ, a normal dog has a normal dog lifespan.
1. Were Hudson and Bronx close in the Dark Ages as they are in the present day?
2. Was the Blue Nosed Beaked Gargoyle that was with Demona's clan of the generation that hatched with Goliath's and Demona's or the one with the Trio's?
3. Does Bronx and other Gargoyle Beast like to have their bellies scratched like dogs do?
2. I'm not sure which gargoyle you're referring to. Check out the Gargoyles Wiki. Most of those unnamed Gargoyles were given out-of-universe names for reference. Find the one you're talking about, and then let me know.
3. Sure. I mean, I like that, too.
Rewatched "City of Stone" today (all four episodes). A few things that stood out to me this time.
Continuing the "gargoyles being called beasts" thread: the granary guards in Part One call Demona's clan "filthy beasts". Gillecomgain doesn't use the term "beast" for Demona, but does call her a creature and a monster.
(By contrast, the "breastplate gargoyle" comments about their old home, after Demona and her clan have to abandon it following Duncan's attack, "The hunting there was good" - probably one of the few occasions where gargoyles are talking about being the hunters rather than the hunted.)
Demona's clan uses nets twice in this multi-parter - once against the granary guards in Part One, once against Canmore's army in Part Four. The nets being in Parts One and Four gave a nice sense of "bookends".
A detail that I can't believe I missed before: Demona was bearing the Hunter's mask at her belt, as if a trophy, after the battle with Duncan. (The young Canmore grabs it from her during his attack upon her.)
Demona calls Bronx "my pet"; I looked up your remarks on gargoyle beasts in the archives and found that gargoyles don't see gargoyle beasts as pets, but as equals. Maybe another sign that Demona thinks far more like a human than she'd admit (or than it would be safe to tell her)?
I like the touch of the various new kings (like Macbeth and Lulach) being hailed as "High King of Scotland" - the "high king" part conveys all the more a sense of Scotland as a collection of recently-united chiefdoms (which it would have been at the time in actual history).
We tried to get a feeling for the actual history into the piece.
To celebrate the 25th anniversary of "Gargoyles", I watched "Awakening" (all five episodes) on DVD yesterday, and thought I'd share a few things I hadn't noticed before (or hadn't noticed enough) that struck my fancy.
1. When Goliath sends the trio and Bronx to the rookery, Bronx looks ashamed of himself - in a way that reminds me of times when dogs I'd known looked guilty over something.
2. When Xanatos tells Owen "Make the offer now" at the ruins of Castle Wyvern, I suddenly wondered whom he bought Castle Wyvern from. I won't ask here - it's obviously a "No spoilers" answer - but I was struck by the fact that this was the first time I wondered that.
3. I spotted what looked like a "foliate head" (or "Green Man"-type head) carved over the archway the gargoyles are standing beneath when the Commandos showed up in the courtyard, and a couple of winged figures on one of the tapestries. (I'll have to check for other unusual and remarkable features of the castle in later episodes, as well.)
4. Many of the human characters repeatedly call the gargoyles "beasts", both in the medieval scenes and the modern (Princess Katharine's protest at allowing beasts in the dining hall, Mary calling the gargoyles beasts, Bruno asking "Where's the beast?" while pursuing Goliath and Elisa).
5. Goliath asks Elisa, when they first meet, "What were you doing in my castle?" Despite Xanatos having bought it, he clearly thinks of it as still his - as if laying pipe for the arc about the gargoyles having to leave the castle and Goliath resisting it.
1. The dogs I've had get that shamed look based on my reprimanding tone more than based on what they've done. As opposed to the cats I've had (and have), who at best stare at me as if to ask, "Are you talking to me?"
2. An interesting question.
3. Art Direction was pretty awesome on the show.
4. All very intentional.
5. We tried to keep each character's POV clear.
You mentioned that gargoyles and gargoyle beasts are distinct from most mammals and are classified as "gargates." Given their traits of milk production and warm bloodedness while laying eggs, I'd be tempted to classify gargoyles as monotremes, a subset of mammals that includes platupi and the echidnas, though I would need to look at their biochemistry to be absolutely certain (which has obvious logistical issues). I remember reading in the archives that gargoyles are the first "sentient" race, emerging sometime in the same time magnitude as dinosaurs. Classing gargoyles as monotremes could fit in with that time frame, because birds/dinosaurs and mammals diverged some time in the Carboniferous, significantly before the Triassic. This would put them in the same ecological classification as other monotremes (which you had demonstrated reluctance to accept before vis a vis platupi), but given the long time period, I would EXPECT them to look more and be more different from other monotremes than, say, a sparrow does from a T-rex, since their most recent common ancestor was much longer ago. Oddly enough, the most difficult thing about figuring gargoyles out is the difference between Lexington and the rest of the clan, because four vs six limbs is a major difference, and figuring out that phenotypic difference that still leaves the two types of gargoyles able to create viable offspring wasn't very easy. However, I think I managed to crack it. It is most probably a trait of the MOTHER of the gargoyle, not the gargoyle in question proper (so if Lexington decided he wanted a kid and found a willing female gargoyle (ignoring for thought experiment purposes that he wouldn't be interested in women), he probably wouldn't be able to pass it on). At some point, some female proto-gargate from just as gargoyles and gargoyle beasts were starting to diverge had a mutation that probably added an extra pair of limbs on their back. These extra limbs could have been useful, and could have evolved over time to help gargoyles fly (well, glide) through the power of "jazz hands" (like how bats fly proper). Eventually, another female gargoyle had another mutation that essentially told her kid's biological plan to omit the first pair of "arms" and only have the second kind (the ones that look wingish). Both phenotypes produced viable offspring with roughly the same ability to reproduce, but the second mutation probably started out rarer because it came later. So the general timeline looks like this:
Mammals and dinosaurs diverge -> Platupi diverge from other monotremes -> Gargates diverge from other monotremes (this comes after platupi because female gargoyles have mammary glands, and probably came about as a result of developing the first rudiments of stone sleep) -> Dinosaurs come on the scene -> Gargoyles and gargoyle beasts diverge from each other (probably via gargoyles becoming bipedal) -> Gargoyles evolve six limbs and this variant overtakes the population while the two back arms become more winglike -> the Lexington variant of gargoyles evolves -> Dinosaurs kick it -> Gargoyles gradually become more intelligent as their longer lifespans and lack of natural predators (thanks giant meteor) makes intelligence a more viable strategy for survival to make them more cooperative.
I don't know if this perfectly fits with what you have, but I did the best I could with the information (both show/FAQ-wise and through a degree in biochemistry) I had. What are your thoughts?
I love all this.
A couple thoughts that might or might not influence your thinking...
Lex has six limbs. The middle "rib" of his wings is actually a limb. In original development art (which you may have seen on the first season DVD) he has four hands: the two we're all used to and two more coming off those mid-wing arms. So what you're seeing in his final version his six limbs, but the middle two limbs have, uh... devolved into ribs.
We've discussed in the past that Gargoyle Beasts have vestigial wing bones beneath the skin.
Please bear with me...My question involves math. I will try to bullet-point and simplify it as best I can, if I can. I was thinking about gargoyle-beasts and their breeding cycles in relation to the cycles of the winged-gargoyle species.
1) You have stated in the past that beasts have four heats, and are capable of contributing an egg to the rookery following their own hatching, is this correct?
2) Assuming that question 1 is correct, a beast who hatched in '58 would be able to lay an egg in '68, whereas a winged-gargoyle from '58 would not be able to lay an egg until '08. Afterwards, that same female can lay an egg in '28, and '48. The beast from the same generation, however, can lay eggs in '68, '88, '08, and '28. At which point, they become too old to lay eggs. You have stated that beasts get the additional heat because they can mature faster. The question I ask is...Why is it not two additional heats? A female gargoyle from '58 can't lay until '08, but a female beast can lay after just 10 years. Why does the beast not get a final heat in the same year that a winged gargoyle from the same clutch does?
3) I'm sorry if my math or question is confusing. I was just hoping for clarity on this matter. If you don't feel like figuring out the math on this subject, I'll just default to my final, and most frequently asked question...
4) When did the London Clan's beast population go extinct?
Thank you for taking the time and effort to answer these questions. We really appreciate it, and you. #WeLiveAgain
1. I think so, but it's been a LONG time since I've thought about this.
2. I think BECAUSE they mature faster, they move through and past their breeding years faster as well.
4. No spoilers.
Hello Mr. Wiesman,
I have been reading the archives and I have a couple of questions regarding the more obscure Gaegoyle clans:
1) Youve mentioned that the Xanadu clan exists to protect the Beast lineage. My question is, are their Beasts all from Chinese stock, or have they incorporated other "breeds" (so to speak) into that gene-pool? Basically, Im asking if they all have the same basic appearance, or reflect all types of Beasts.
2) You also once said that the Lach Ness clan were aquatic in nature. Does that mean that they are truly amphibious (like frogs), or can they just hold their breath for long lengths of time (like dolphins)?
1. Leaning toward the latter, but haven't made a final decision yet.
2. Likewise, I haven't decided, though again I lean toward the latter.
These might both be good questions to bring up at the Gargoyles Biology and Culture panel this July at CONvergence. There are always some actual biologists in the room to advise me.
So, with "Chaw" becoming canon you have established that at least some female beasts' eyes are red. First of all, I love this feature. It becomes a common tie in gargate physiology, it gives us a visual cue to determine beast gender (which would otherwise be readily lacking) and it just looks cool.
I do wonder though if you have any thoughts about any future appearances of Boudicca. Perhaps you've seen the Gargoyle Beast page on the GargWiki where Boudicca's eyes have been modified to be red rather than white as we saw in the show. Would you make this minor ret-con official if we see Boudicca in a Gargoyles project down the road? In your mind are all female beasts' eyes red? Or is there a reason that Chaw's are and Boudicca's are not?
What about the beast we saw briefly in Ishimura (with white eyes)? Is that beast male or female?
All female gargate eyes glow red. Mistakes may have been made and may continue to be made. But the rules are the rules. Boudicca's eyes should have burned red. Are you sure they didn't? I know sometimes the red tint is fairly washed out...
As for the Ishimura beast, for the time being, if his eyes glowed white, let's assume he was a male.
So a few years back we had talked about the two other beasts on Avalon (besides Boudicca) and how they are male and female and mates. We seemed to come to the conclusion that if the math is correct they should have already mated and laid an egg as of 1996, though it has not hatched yet. I believe you agreed the math worked out correctly, but didn't commit to the idea that this had actually occurred and put it tentatively in the canon-in-training category (which is how it continues to be labeled on the GargWiki).
I just want to get some confirmation from you that this has not happened after all. Since Angela commented in "Phoenix" that she had never seen a gargoyle egg before, I suppose the two beasts on Avalon have yet to parent one, right?
Also, as a side note, I find it interesting that during the time spent at Ishimura and ChacIxChel (and to a lesser extent London since Goliath and Co probably didn't visit Knight's Spur), Angela never got a peak of the Ishimuran or Mayan rookeries. Is this something private to a clan and not something they'd put on the tour or did it just not come up due to lack of time or whatnot?
The latter question is easier to answer. I don't think there was time for Angela to see a rookery. And it didn't occur to her to ask for a special tour.
The former question... I guess she hasn't seen one.
Since we now call them "Beasts," if you could, would you change the line in "Awakening 1" from "I see you've met our Watch-dog..." to something like "I see you've met our Beast..." ?
No. To Goliath, it is -- and always was -- a metaphor.
Is Fu-dog a girl? Why I ask this is because depending on the future of the Manhattan Clan, if Fu-dog's a boy, then there probably won't be any gargoyle beasts in this clan in the future, since Bronx is male.
Fu-Dog is male. But Bronx's mate is Boudicca.
Here's something Im curious about: before gargoyle beasts were domesticated and brought into clans, what was their lifestyle like? What I mean is, did they hunt and live in groups (ie - wolf packs, lion prides) or did they live more on their own (ie - tigers, leapords)? I guess the exception to a solitary lifestyle would be a mate since you've said beasts mate for life. So I guess the options would be groups or pairs for the garg beasts. What are your thoughts?
Thanks for any answer you can give! :-)
I'm not answering this at this time.
Since Bronx would not have even hatched yet when Dark Ages starts, did you have any plans to feature another gargoyle beast or two among the main cast of that spinoff?
We would have -- over time and episodes -- populated the clan with gargoyles and beasts of each generation.
1. Back before humans became a serious threat to gargoyle clans, like lets say 5,000 years ago, did most/all clans have beasts members?
2. Why exactly did gargoyles "domesticate" the beasts? Did they actively bring them into the clan or have the two species always kinda stuck around together?
3. We've seen a beast member among the Ishimura Clan. From dialogue we learn that the clan has lived peacefully with humans for some time. Given that beasts reproduce sooner and more than gargoyles, why is the beast population of Ishimura so much smaller than the gargoyle population?
4. Did beasts evolve from winged gargates, merely losing their wings to become more terrestrial at some point? You've said before that beasts may have vestigial wing bones or something.
2. We'll have to wait and see...
3. You can't be sure it is from what you've seen.
4. Yes... or at any rate, they evolved from having that extra set of limbs.
We know that Ishimura has at least one gargoyle beast, considering the state of Beasts in London, I was curious, how many gargoyle beasts does Ishimura have?
I haven't done the math. Not a ton, but more than a few.
Why were there so few gargoyle beasts in the Wyvern clan? It seems like there would only six (or three couples) breeding gargoyle beasts as of 988. I thought gargoyles beasts could reproduce more than the three standard eggs over their lifetime because of their rapid maturity. So why so few?
There had been a shortage of beasts in many clans, particularly on the British Isles for centuries before we met the Wyvern Clan. I think the general answer why is fairly obvious: humans.
In #8 we learned that there are no gargoyle beasts in London. This surprised me, since the clan is large, I had assumed that all of the large clans had beasts. It is very unfortunate for the beast species, and really drives home the point that they are much worse off than the gargoyles.
We know that the Xanadu, Manhattan, Ishimura, and Avalon clans have beasts in 1996, and the Mayan clan will hatch some in 1998. The London and Labyrinth clans have none.
1. Does the Pukhan clan have any gargoyle beasts?
2. Does the Loch Ness clan have any beasts?
3. Does the New Olympian clan have any beasts?
4. We're told that by 2188 the gargoyle population will have grown, with all the clans reaching a "full" size. a. What will the beast population be like in 2188: larger than in 1996, smaller, or about the same?
b. Will every clan have beasts in 2188?
Hey, I'm sorry, but I'm just not going to answer these questions at this time.
Given that Bronx and Boudicca mated very shortly after their first meeting, I'm guessing gargoyle beasts are a lot more casual about mating than gargoyles are. So I have a few questions about gargoyle beast mates:
1) Do they mate for life?
2) Do they generally choose new mates if their mates dies before them?
3) Are they monogamous?
4) Di Bronx and Boudicca feel sad at all about being separated after they mated?
I'm basing this -- at least to some extent -- on some research I did on wolves back in the early nineties. But some of this, I'm just making up as I go along.
I love this website!!!!!!!
I have some questions about gargoyle beasts
1. what do other beasts of other clans look like. like london, mayan, loch ness ect.
2.i noticed the picture of the blue gargoyle beast of the gathering of 2004 looks a lot like it could be bronx and budecca offspring. i was wondering if it was designed to b their child or if it was desinged after them? if it was to be their kid whats is it's name, gender ect. ( sorry if u dont know what im talking about i cant think of the word, mascot maybe, it was on there web site and in a few different places in different positions)
gargoyles # 6 comes out today o ya
I'm glad you love it, tyler, but without being too judgmental, I wish you'd make better use of its archives.
1. I'm not going to tie my hands -- or rather my artists hands -- by committing to something visual before we choose to depict it.
2. You'd have to ask the designer of the mascot. Mascots are fun -- but they aren't canon.
How close a species to them do Gargoyles consider Gargoyle beasts to be?
Perhaps closer than we consider chimps. But perhaps not closer than we SHOULD consider chimps.
THE HOUND OF ULSTER
At last!! I say that both because it's a new ramble, and I'm finally able to add my own. I'll play catch up with your other additions over the weekend.
When I first saw this episode, both the "Previously on" segment and the title indicated that Bronx would get some exposure. I wasn't sure HOW since there's only so much you can do with a dog (or even a dog-like beast) without giving them some anthropomorphic qualities. Consequently, I think it makes since that Rory Dugan became the protagonist.
And yet, that in itself is unique. Here we have a non-regular being the main character of the episode--hightlighted with that wonderful "hero-shot" where the camera circles around Rory's face (well done bit of animation, that). I mean, I don't know of too many other series that do that (well, maybe there were some old "Batman: TAS" episodes that seemed to focus more on the villains, but they're the VILLAINS!)
I love Molly's character design--the hair-style, the eyes, the three belts (in technicolor!) around her waist.
Rory's vision of Crom Cruoch really threw me the first time I saw it. Then I completely forgot about it until the Banshee transformed at the end.
BTW, time out here to say kudos to the voice work all around. Colm Meaney's (sp?) guest turn was great. Scott Cleverdon did excellent work (and HE added the battle cry?! I love that thing!). And as for Sheena Easton, hey do I really need to say anything?
Loved the Banshee's keening! I have to wonder though...it seems to me that gargoyles have a stronger sense of hearing than humans, yet the Banshee's cry is apparantly more fatal to humans.
Anyway, I was a little surprised at our heroes sinking into the bog right off. Very tense the first time you see it, and a nice little character bit for Goliath--he turns from Elisa to try and save his daughter, but can't and turns back to find Elisa has already sunk beneath the surface. For a guy so big on protecting his loved ones that must have been a truly hellish moment.
But Bronx escapes and we get our first glimpse of the Banshee.
Rory's discussion with his Dad is interesting to me, mostly in how pessimistic and cynical Rory acts. One line of his that I always like (even if I don't agree with it): "There are no heroes anymore! Only villains! And they've got us all beat." Sometimes it's very easy to think that.
Our main heroes wake up trapped in the Cairn, and Goliath says that "a whole clan of gargoyles could not batter down these walls." That line always struck me for some reason.
A bit disconcerting that Elisa's muddy in this scene and clean in the next, but "meh".
And although Cuchullan's remains would have been nice, I don't really miss it (unlike the whole Anubis thing). Besides, how much of an unmummified corpse would be left after 2,000 years?
Rory meets Bronx and between the pooch's outlandish appearance and the legends of his father, Rory reacts in a perfectly reasonable way...he runs like hell. And falls off a cliff (looking at it from the wide shot, I can't help but think it's a miracle he survived).
BTW, the little memo you posted finally clears up why Bronx singled out Rory--the Banshee's scent. Yet Bronx can still sense that Rory's not an enemy.
The Banshee talks with our "main heroes." I can never stop noticing her rather exaggerated gestures. She must be a bit of a drama queen. I like her "ghost" form, though.
The Banshee does have that one character trait (which Todd has already mentioned) that annoys me to no end: she does not even consider the possibility that her prisoners might be telling the truth. And as you pointed out she could have just mesmerized it out of them (no fuss, no muss), which makes her behavior even more inexcusable.
After the Banshee hears Bronx and splits, and Angela says that Bronx will save them (she's got more faith in her pooch than I've ever had in any of mine, I'll admit), the camera starts to briefly zoom in before cutting to the next scene. I'm always wondering what got cut, if anything.
When Molly transformed into the Banshee...I figured they were both one and the same. At least, until Molly appeared in Rory's house the next day and said she'd go with him to the Cairn because she loved him. THAT cast some doubt in my mind.
"Be still little mortal and come quietly with me, into the dark." That line still sends my dirty little mind reeling with possibilities. ;-)
I like Mr. Dugan's attitude towards his son's visions: he may not entirely believe in them, but he's not about to go tempting fate in regards to them, either.
A little animation bit I only really started noticing after you mentioned exploring more of the relationship between Rory and Molly--when Rory strides down the hill towards the Cairn, Molly gets a sad/worried look on her face. Rory isn't looking at her so she doesn't have to act, but it's still there. It's more than just avoiding an old enemy that makes her want to keep Rory in the dark.
I love the voice acting in the Cairn--as the two characters talk, a bit more of each's "other" starts to creep into their speech.
I love the whole "Gae Bolga" scene.
"Skills may rust indeed, but true friendship stays bright." Y'know, because of the accent, I didn't understand what he was actually saying there for YEARS!
I always noticed how you guys had Goliath and Angela, the usual heavy hitters, get knocked away by Crom Cruach the instant they try to join the battle. Makes sense--this was Rory and Bronx's show!
"And there's no kind of training schemes for this job, I'll wager." Nope, and no pay either! Just ask Spider-man!
On the "Thor" subject, I never knew that much about Thor (either comic or mythology) until a bit after GARGOYLES, so for me this was fairly fresh.
Dog's (or gargoyle beasts) can look smug! I've seen it myself!
I always thought the "Previously on" segment for this episode felt awkward towards its end--your ramble helps clear that up.
One thing that struck me this time out was the Banshee's character design, especially in the face. It can move from beautiful to rather corpse-like.
Yes Cuchullan was the "Hound of Ulster," but only because he killed the original hound and vowed to act in its place until a new one was raised. Who's to say these hounds weren't gargoyle beasts?
Those "Hounds" were indeed Gargoyle Beasts in the Gargoyles Universe, and as I've learned more about the legend SINCE doing the episode, it seems to me that as Cu Chullain was replacing the "Hound" he killed, he would also be raising and training a new "Hound" to eventually take his place. That, to his mind, was the Hound of Ulster that he recognized in Bronx.
Or that's my current theory anyway.
ok, i really had to research the archives to figure all this out, but that (and the long wait) will be worth it to satisfy my curiosity.
ok, heres some things you've said in the archives (correct any of these if i've gotten them wrong or they have changed):
-1 year in Avalon is 24 years in the real world, so 10 years on Avalon is 240 years in the real world.
-Gargoyle Beasts are mature by age 2 and can mate and lay an egg 10 years after they were hatched.
-besides Boudicca, there is another female and a male beast among the Avalon Clan and they are mates.
-the Avalon Clan hatched in 1078.
1. so, ten years after the Avalon Clan hatched (this would be the year 1318 in the real world) the gargoyle beast pair would have been old enough and in sync with the natural gargoyle cycle to mate and lay an egg, is that correct?
2. if an egg was laid in Avalon in 1318, then ten years later on Avalon in the year 1558 the egg would be in sync with the natural cycle and again and would hatch, is that correct?
3. then ten years later on Avalon, which would be 1798 the gargoyle pair would be in sync again to mate and lay an egg, is that correct?
4 so, just to be clear, when Goliath, Elisa and Bronx arrive on Avalon, not only should there be Boudicca, and the other two beasts, but there should also be the first now mature pup of the beast pair and their second egg, waiting to hatch in 2038. is that correct?
i know the math is kinda crazy, but the way i figured all this out was by saying 10 years on Avalon is 240 years in the real world and just adding from there so:
1078 real world- eggs hatch
+240 (10 years on Avalon)
1318 real world- gargoyle beasts mate and lay egg
+240 (10 years on Avalon)
1558 real world- egg hatches
+240 (10 years on Avalon)
1798 real world- beasts mate again
+240 (10 years on Avalon)
2038 real world- second egg hatches
is all this right? its entirely possible, despite my checking, that i could've goofed up somewhere, so please correct me if i'm wrong on anything.
Ugh. God, you're really going to make me do the math, aren't you? Let's start by saying that I'm not confirming that any of this happened. I'm just striving to address your calculations.
1. The natural gargoyle cycle would dictate that an egg would not be layed until 1328. Eggs are layed on even decades. They hatch on odd decades.
2. An egg layed on Avalon in 1328 would hatch in 1578.
3. Moving forward, the next egg would be lain in in 1828.
4. That egg would be waiting to hatch in 2078. Nevertheless, by your calculations, when Goliath and Elisa first arrived on Avalon, there should indeed be a pup that hatched in 1578 and an egg that was laid in 1828.
I've got a number of questions about Gargbeasts and their relation to the Clan. It always seemed to me that the Gargoyles had a deeper connection to their Gargbeasts than we humans tend to have with our "lesser" beasts. (Though, where dogs are concerned, I don't get how a creature that is naturally caring and loyal can be considered lesser to anything.)
1. Are Garg-Beasts considered siblings, parents, and sons/daughters by the rest of the Gargoyles in a clan? Would Goliath consider Bronx a Rookery Son and the Trio consider him a Rookery Brother?
2. Do GargBeasts and Gargoyles nurse each others offspring? (Evolutionarily, I can see the advantage in this, as it provides a greater variety of anti-bodies to the hatchlings.)
3. While I have serious doubts that a Gargbeast can ever become a Clan leader, are they ever in positions of authority or rank over the sentient Gargoyles?
1. No. There is an awareness that Beasts are a separate species. But I do believe that the bond between Gargoyles and Beasts is stronger, and more akin to blood relation than the bond between humans and their pets. Beasts are not considered pets. They do not have "masters". The relationship is closer to one of equals than of master/pet. Grok?
2. I don't think so. But I'll admit I haven't given this much thought.
3. I won't say 'never'. But it doesn't seem likely. Though you should keep in mind that typical gargoyle "government" isn't exactly ripe with bureaucracy. There is the Leader and the Second. And that is all. Beasts ARE warriors. And on that score, Bronx, for example, is considered an equal to Lex or Broadway or Hudson or Angela. Only Goliath as Leader and Brooklyn as Second have actual authority over Bronx and the others. Now, keep in mind, one of the other Gargoyles might tell Bronx to do something in the heat of the moment. Or ask him to come somewhere or refuse to let him go along. But that's not authority. That's just life. Hudson might likewise tell Lexington to do something in the heat of the moment. Or ask him to come somewhere or refuse to let him go along, etc.
With regards to the character gargbeast Boadicea... I assume you named her after the queen of the ancient Britains? If so then you pronounced her name wrong. It came out as Bow-dee-ca, whereas the real queens name was Bow-da-cea.
Your phonetic spelling leaves a little to be desired in terms of clarity, but thanks for trying to help.
ok, i've been wondering about this for a long time. you've established the Gargoyle reproductive cycle and how it works and i must say its a really well constructed system. its great how a couple produces their last egg and in the following rookery their first child has its first child. works out very well.
on the other hand, you havn't given as much information on how the Gargoyle beast reproductive cycle works. you've said that Gargoyle beasts can produce children after only one generation has passed. for instance, you said that even though Bronx hatched in the rookery right before Angela's he can already mate, and Boudicca is old enough to mate with Bronx. you've also said that Gargoyle beasts can not only start breeding sooner, but also produce more than three offspring as Gargoyles do. and obviously, Gargoyle beasts have pups in the same 20 year intervals.
so my questions are, what is the Gargoyle Beast breeding cycle? how many offspring does a typical Gargoyle Beast pair produce if conditions are normal and healthy? is a pair still birthing pups in the same rookery as their older children are?
thanks alot Greg!
I think you've more or lessed gleaned the short answer, here.
Beasts mature faster than Gargoyles do. But the cycle and life span are exactly the same. Thus a Beast couple is capable, generally of having one more egg than a gargoyle couple born at the same time would be.
That is, they are capable of having an egg in the cycle immediately following their own hatching.
In any case, I think that's right. I don't seem to have the brainpower at the moment to double check all the math.