A Station Eight Fan Web Site

Gargoyles

The Phoenix Gate

Search Ask Greg

Search:
Search type:

Displaying 1 record.


Bookmark Link

Anna McNarin writes...

Unfortunately, I no longer remember what my first reaction to Gargoyles was as I was eleven when the show aired, I just know what I saw stuck with me. In the back of my mind the memory of being enthralled by the characters and stories always hovered with one thought, "that was an amazing show." I do, however, recall my reactions to watching the volume one DVD oh so many quick years later. Needless to say, a spell had been cast and my love for the tale was born anew.

Having been blessed with a decent memory, there weren't any new big surprises for me as an adult, and so I felt drawn towards watching character relationships more than the action. Two characters in particular caught my interest: David Xanatos and Owen Burnett. Being a lover of duality in life, these two business men stirred my imagination and had me laughing in what was probably a very Puck-like manner.

To the average Joe on their streets, Xanatos is a charismatic -I swear I can hear Jonathan Frakes smiling-, eccentric man with just enough brains to know what to do with his money. His assistant, Owen, is the opposite, so stoic in nature some might see it as borderline masochistic, despite no doubt equaling his employer in brains, and perhaps money. There were times Xanatos treated Owen with such disregard, it was a wonder the blond man stayed on with a man, who for all appearances, viewed the worth of his life as being only as valuable as he was useful. It's that last line that never fails to put a smile on my face, because with the knowledge that Owen is the Puck the meaning twists.

Puck is an actor, arguably the best ever born, so I went through and watched Owen not just being Owen, but as Puck playing Owen. Once I did that I realized that even if the pact between them didn't exist, and given Xanatos knew Owen was born fey, Puck would probably stay on for the simple reason he and David are part of one of the biggest pranks in history. Their interactions, comments, even the extent to which Puck stays in character, it reads as one gigantic private joke on the world. After reading through some of the archives, I also had the startling notion that any person Owen were to become involved with more than likely would not know of the true nature of his soul since trapped as human he would be breaking character if he told. The "prank" continues, and Puck goes down in unwritten history as the greatest actor to live. His magic and form were suppressed, his personality wasn't, yet he keeps to his character. And to all those who would think he would go mad spending the rest of his life locked behind a mask, I don't believe so, not one bit, not when breaking character is more maddening a thought than living with it. The proof is in the scene Oberon proclaimed his sentence upon his servant, Puck swallowed his tongue the second Owen appeared. If begging for his magic were more important than his reputation as an actor he wouldn't have let transforming into Owen stop his lament. Besides, he still has his dreams, in sleep he can be as he wishes.

I have to agree, too, that the idea of Puck being Oberon's boy is absurd. Perhaps the reason so many see a resemblance is similar to how some cannot tell different people of the same nationality apart. I will grant that Oberon appears to view Puck as a child who doesn't know what is best for him and that can be seen as paternal nature, but there was never a doubt that theirs is that of master and servant. My sympathies lie with Oberon, though, for as a personal servant Puck was privy to the intimate on goings of Oberon's life as Owen is to David. To personally go and fetch your own servant, then to hear him choose another over you; I would surmise Oberon came as close to feeling like he'd lost his best friend as he ever could. Sad as I am to say it, I see Puck dying as Owen. If the great ones burn brightly to die young, Oberon's Children will never forget their Lord's pale trickster, and I venture the wisdom Hudson shares in "The Price" struck not David, but Owen.

Pardoning the lengthy analysis, I did have a few questions floating through my brain. They're lovely, potentially silly little ones those of us who love to read into everything ask. If any of it is a repeat, I'm truly sorry, I haven't made it much beyond the Owen Puck archives, the FAQ, and a few random links.

1. In your mind, do Puck and Owen share the same eyes, or at the very least eye color? Animation and comics have their faults and reasons, I'm curious to how you see it.

2. Throwing out a rough guess that there is about six inches height difference between Owen and Puck, would he have even noticed the difference it makes when standing, or being prone to floating at all heights, not have noticed at all?

3. You've previously stated that if Owen dies as the result of external forces, i.e. car crash, he gets shot, then he's dead, no coming back, good-bye. Makes perfect sense. Then there is his pact to serve Xanatos, which if I understand, counts for the whole of Xanatos' life. Also makes sense. I cannot seem to correlate the two, as Owen dying first would breach the terms. Is this a loophole in their contract?

4. Common sense, and how into character Puck gets says they wouldn't be, despite Fox and Alex proving otherwise, but any children he were to sire as Owen would be fully human wouldn't they? Or because his magic has been locked away as opposed to removed, would it be passed on like a recessive gene?

5. Speaking of suppression, as a fey caught in a mortal shell, if someone or something were to remove the inherent magic within him, would Owen die? I would think so, but you may see it differently.

Anyway, thank you -and whoever else happens upon this- for taking the time to read it. May the plot bunnies bless you. :)

Greg responds...

1. I haven't thought about it, but I doubt they share the same eyes. Eye color? Maybe.

2. I'm sure he noticed.

3. Death negates most contracts.

4. Depends. But Fox might serve as a cautionary example.

5. I'd think not.

Liked your analysis, btw.

Response recorded on February 01, 2010