Comments for the week ending January 13, 2003

Index : Show Images

Vault Keeper> Have you been to see the lighthouse keeper?
Vash
Sunday, January 12, 2003 07:07:21 PM
IP: 129.98.123.136

Well Vash I'm stuck on part one, I just can olnly wonder around the island, I can't open any doors. I can't pick up my napsack,


Vault Keeper
Sunday, January 12, 2003 01:56:37 PM
IP: 24.64.223.203

A bit off topic, but I remember a long while ago discussions of cartoons from yesteryear and the show "Pirates of Darkwater" was mentioned. Cartoon Network is now showing it. Since it wasn't on last week, I'm assuming they just started showing it. Airtime is Sundays (Sat. nights) at 4:00 a.m. ET/PT, replacing the Herculoids (big loss).
Blaqthourne & Crimson Fury
Sunday, January 12, 2003 05:21:22 AM
IP: 67.74.151.44

Vault Keeper> If you hit 'h', you should get a menu to pop up with all the commands. To pick up or throw rocks, hit enter. To climb, get near a wall and hit the delete key. To my shame, I still haven't killed that hunter. I've beaten all the other levels though. =D
Vash
Sunday, January 12, 2003 02:10:32 AM
IP: 129.98.123.136

sorry to be a pain, but has anyone have experince playing Gargoyle rebirth?, I'm stuck on the first part. I can't pick anything up or open any doors, Or figure out how to climb and were.
Vault Keeper
Saturday, January 11, 2003 06:43:40 PM
IP: 24.64.223.203

So any loyal Gargoyle fans help me out here, how would the founder of the Stewart line meet Scottish Gargoyles.
vaultkeeper@dupuis.shawbiz.ca
Saturday, January 11, 2003 06:18:51 PM
IP: 24.64.223.203

GABRIEL - You wrote: [who is Donald Ban?]

Well, according to the information that I found (click my name to see the page) he was Canmore's brother.

Which means that the calculations on which we based the debate was are now slightly altered but not completely. Eliminating Canmore would not have left England without an heir of Duncan to press a claim against Macbeth. Macbeth would still have to contend with a legal heir that could raise an army against him. (That still doesn't mean that leaving Canmore alive was a smart political move.)
Airwalker - [airwalker9999@yahoo.com]
Brooklyn, NY
Saturday, January 11, 2003 05:32:04 PM
IP: 12.88.164.153

just wanted to say i always think its cute to see Gabriel and Ophelia's pics together here in the CR. lol, i'm so weird!
matt
Friday, January 10, 2003 08:32:37 PM
IP: 207.230.48.65

I'm finally back, and with a cold. Woohoo. *sighs*

Jimmy> "Apparently it was my fault even though driving in the dark wearing all black and without your headlights on as this guy was doing probably wasn't a bright idea on his part either."
What? Is that legal? In my state, they have to have their headlight on all the time... I'm sorry about your car. :(

Happy belated New Year, everyone. :)
Bud-Clare - [budclare@yahoo.com]
Friday, January 10, 2003 07:51:48 PM
IP: 24.169.113.216

So.....who is Donald Ban? :)
Gabriel "gaygoyle"
Friday, January 10, 2003 07:51:21 PM
IP: 66.169.210.231

GREG - Good point; we'd forgotten about him (and I don't have an excuse, given that I had read a bit about him). Of course, Donald Ban always seems to be forgotten or close to it; Shakespeare didn't even give him that much air time in the play.
Todd Jensen - [merlyn1@mindspring.com]
St. Louis, MO
Friday, January 10, 2003 06:47:36 PM
IP: 67.28.91.197

None of you are taking Donald Ban into account. Just because he didn't appear on camera, doesn't mean he didn't exist.
Greg
Friday, January 10, 2003 06:21:58 PM
IP: 66.81.250.132

Hi since I can't use the battle of Banockburn, then how do I get Robert Sewart to meet the Gargoyles?.
Vault Keeper
Friday, January 10, 2003 12:35:51 PM
IP: 24.64.223.203

Hi folks. Just wanted to let peoples know that if you're looking for me over the next few days, My computer is going in for repairs *gives it a swift kick just for good measure*. I should be back online Monday or Tuesday.

Hope all goes well. U all take care & be safe *hugs & Waves*
Wingless - [canclan@rogers.com]
Friday, January 10, 2003 11:31:35 AM
IP: 66.185.84.203

TODD - You wrote: [Well, in general, killing children is the Unpardonable Crime.]

I agree with you; morally, ethically, it is wrong to kill a defenseless child. But the argument here is not so much if Macbeth was wrong on a moral or ethical level; the question is did he make a strong political mistake that weakened him from the very beginning of his rule and was it a good idea in general to leave Canmore alive?

You see Canmore as just a child; but thats not how he would have been viewed in those days. He would be young but no longer viewed as a child particularly in the aftermath of his father's death. He isn't a child or a potential heir after Duncan dies; he is a someone with a strong claim to the throne. He is a successor and thus just another rival for power who shows all the evidence of being so from the very beginning.

You wrote: [Killing a child would be seen as even worse than overthrowing the previous (adult) king or allying with gargoyles.]

On its own, if Macbeth had just had Canmore assassinated as Duncan had Findlaeh killed, then everyone would be up in arms and shocked and mortified. But at that moment killing Canmore would have been part of a general purge; its not like something more than an hour passed since Duncan was magically burned alive. It probably wouldn't have been as shocking as Richard III having the Princes in the Tower killed which was outside the context of a specific battle and battle aftermath/cleanup.

Macbeth showed mercy and took the moral high road; I can understand that and even respect it. But he did do something extremely dangerous, foolish, and politically deadly. He not only placed himself in danger but also his entire family and Clan. He was not forward looking enough and allowed pity and age to influence him. He appeared to show weakness and left a loose end to haunt him 17 YEARS after the fact. And it cost him literally everything.
Airwalker - [airwalker9999@yahoo.com]
Brooklyn, NY
Friday, January 10, 2003 10:32:17 AM
IP: 12.88.162.81

Todd - I think you over value the "unpardonable crime" aspect of killing a boy child, old enough to serve in battle as a page or squire, in the day and age of Macbeth. Richard the III's situation wasn't about morality of his own age either, but propaganda by his enemies and political machinations. If Richard had slaughted a dozen common peasant lads of the same age of his nephews, it would have meant nothing to the powers of that age. It wasn't the youth of Richard's alleged victims that was his problem, as much as their political significance. Who they were, in blood and rank, not what they were in age.

In the days of Macbeth and Richard, children could be worked to death, whipped to the point of death as punishment, setenced to die by hanging for stealing food to keep from starving on the streets... Girls of the same age as Canmore could be taken as child brides, sold to brothels, (so could boys) and a child without family connections and protection was pretty much fair game for any manner of unsavory fates, and youth no protection in and of itself.

If Macbeth had slain young Canmore there at the battle field, executed the boy, it most likely wouldn't have been considered "unpardonable" so much as a part of a military action, and the tying up of loose ends at the closing of the war. Without Canmore, the English would have no rallying point, because they'd have no Scottish claimant to fight on behalf of. The Scottish forces who were against Macbeth would not have allied with the English to put an *English* lord on the Scots Throne. English forces without Scottish alliance would have been purely an invading force, and met with resistence from those who would have been their allies against Macbeth.

Mooncat
Mooncat
Friday, January 10, 2003 01:18:39 AM
IP: 68.102.23.36

AIRWALKER - Well, in general, killing children is the Unpardonable Crime. Again, take a look at "Richard III". The great crime that galvanizes everyone against Richard III (even his sidekick Buckingham, who's been anything but squeamish at this point, abandons him on the spot) isn't the murders of his various adult opponents and obstacles (Clarence, Anthony Woodville, Hastings, etc.), but the Princes in the Tower, who are helpless children. That gets everybody to side with Henry Tudor against Richard, leading to his death at Bosworth. Killing a child would be seen as even worse than overthrowing the previous (adult) king or allying with gargoyles.
Todd Jensen - [merlyn1@mindspring.com]
St. Louis, MO
Thursday, January 9, 2003 06:58:30 PM
IP: 65.57.62.66

Once again, WOAH.

Later~
Pyro X
CanadaThursday, January 9, 2003 03:23:40 PM
IP: 205.206.79.107

TODD - You wrote: [And I wonder myself how that would have been handled in the series]

The series could take the angle that it didn't really happen and was thrown in later to slander him; as it stands it doesn't seem to fit in well with the type of person we were introduced to in the series.

(It all depends on the format the series was told in - on TV as a Cartoon in the same age range as the GARGOYLES I doubt it would come up at all. Only if it were being done for an older audience or in Book/Graphic Novel format then maybe it would come up although in general the audience and even some of the cast members ignorance of Arthurian History could play into completely avoiding the subject.)

You wrote: [I still would argue that Canmore put to death as a child would be much more dangerous than Canmore allowed to grow to adulthood.]

From a moral standpoint he would lose the high ground completely; as it stood he could still argue that he was fighting a defensive war against someone who was trying to kill him and his family without reason. He would lose that position if he did kill Canmore; maybe the reason he didn't do it is because he didn't set out to become King and wasn't fighting for power. He fought for completely different reasons and ended up with power by default.

You wrote: [It would give Macbeth's enemies the perfect atrocity charge to drum up support in a move against him]

Killing the King isn't enough of a charge already to move against him? Using Magic and Gargoyles isn't something more on top of it? His enemies had a number of excuses to seize on if they wanted to attack him. Killing Canmore just would have been one more in a long line of possible reasons for war. None would have been followed through for the same reason his enemies didn't move against him after Duncan was removed - Macbeth's allience with the Gargoyles gave him a tremendous advantage and made it difficult if not impossible to remove him by force. I can only imagine how much force and allies Canmore had to gather just to get as far as he did in his fight with Macbeth and even then the battle wasn't falling into his favor; at most he was breaking (if even that much) even due to Macbeth's Gargoyle support.

You wrote: [Canmore's English relatives could still have launched an invasion in order to avenge him (or at least, with the pretext of avenging him), and some of Macbeth's nobles, uncomfortable at fighting for a child-killer, might well have deserted or joined the English.]

Without Canmore around to rally them and keep Duncan's claim going odds are that after the initial period of shock and disgust they would have come to some sort of an understanding with Macbeth, paid perhaps in land and titles that he could have given to them. Macbeth was attacked 17 years later because Canmore was able to keep his claim going and rally support; without Canmore and given the allience with Demona that Macbeth had its doubtful the English would have openly moved to war - they probably would have gone for a diplomatic solution. (And once Luach got on the throne anything Macbeth would have done would have passed into history together with him; it would have all just been a waiting game.)

You wrote: [I still think that killing Canmore as a child would only have made matters worse for Macbeth.]

I don't think that matters could have gotten any worse for Macbeth than they already were. He was guilty of overthrowing and killing the recognized King. He had the opportunity to stand accused of using magic to help him gain victory. The other Lords were already standing against him (Bodhe did mention before Macbeth went seeking Demona that only Moray was with him) and his entire ability to stay in power was based completely on support from Gargoyles. He wasn't exactly in high standing at this point - killing Canmore probably wouldn't have done him any more damage than he was already in. Letting him live hurt him more in terms of propoganda - it made him stand out as weak and pitiful, allowing the heir of his enemy to walk out of his camp alive and unharmed to raise trouble for him later. I can see him viewed as a fool and a weakling outside of his domains in Moray and the surrounding area that made up his Kingdom. Remember Morality isn't held in high esteem in those days; Power and Strength are what matter. If you want to be moral then you can always become a Priest. If you want to be King then you do what you have to do and to do otherwise is to shorten the length of your life and sentence your own family to suffering and death.

You wrote: [I certainly didn't consider it Bodhe's one good piece of advice; instead, I viewed it as his usual piece of bad advice, with perhaps an indication of how cruelty and cowardice often go hand in hand;]

Perhaps it would be better to say not that it was good advice but that it was the one piece of useful advice that Bodhe gave; everything else he ever told Macbeth was useless and foolish - give up Gruoch, let Duncan kill you and hope for the best, abandon the Gargoyles who are the only thing holding you in power, etc. But killing Canmore couldn't get him into any worse trouble or opinion than he was already in. And he stood more to gain than to lose in cold calculation from Canmore dying than from him living.

It was cruel and calculating; its not a position that I would like to be put in. But cruelty and calculation were the way things were done; life was calculated against life. Canmore or Luach, Duncan or Macbeth, Demona or Gillcomgain. Macbeth didn't look at it that way because he didn't really fight to seek power but to save his life and the lives of his family. But he didn't get his happy ending either; he only delayed what could have been avoided and ended up the worse for it.

You wrote: [In any case, Canmore only succeeded in overthrowing Macbeth because Demona deserted him. If she had stayed loyal, Canmore and the English might never have defeated him in 1057.]

We don't know that for sure; all we know is that Demona and her Clan managed to even out Macbeth's forces with those Canmore had. War isn't a clean thing or one that can be plotted exactly - there was no guarentee that even with the Gargoyles that Macbeth could have won. (Of course it all depends on the definition of victory we are talking about. If all he wanted was to fight Canmore to stalemate so that the English would tire of war then he could have done so; but could he win in a decisive manner? Would his War have just turned into a Scot version of the Hundred Years War given the abilities of the two sides? And his loyal Scots, would they want to fight endless Wars for what everyone was being told was a Sorceror protecting Demons?)


MATT - You wrote: [Maybe MacBeth should've asked Demona to kill Canmore for him]

The interesting thing is what did Demona think about what Macbeth decided? On the one hand she spared Canmore even after he attacked her; but did she think that what Macbeth did was wise or not?

(Her sparing Canmore has a more logical bent to it than Macbeth had. Macbeth had already pronounced judgement on him and to go against that judgement, even with what could be called just cause, would have been politically stupid for her to do in such a public arena. It would have embarassed Macbeth and gotten the Moray Humans too overly excited and fearful towards her and her Clan. Its one thing to want to be feared but too much and you can end up attacked and dead.

Of course there is the possibility that she still didn't have the heart to kill a Human Child despite everything and so showed him some mercy. That might even have been the angle that he used to get her to agree to come over to him when she decided against Macbeth - Canmore could have said that he remembered how she spared him and wanted to repay that now that she thought Macbeth was no longer trustworthy.

Personally though I think that it was a little of everything - being careful not to antagonise the Humans too much, showing some respect to Macbeth's authority in front of his people, and some reluctance to go so far as to kill a Child even if it was a Human Child.)
Airwalker - [airwalker9999@yahoo.com]
Brooklyn, NY
Thursday, January 9, 2003 12:08:34 PM
IP: 12.88.161.119

maybe MacBeth should've asked Demona to kill Canmore for him... everyone already thought she was evil...
matt
Thursday, January 9, 2003 09:14:01 AM
IP: 207.230.48.78

Well, in the traditional legends, Arthur's attempt to drown Mordred at birth is based as much on Merlin's prophecy that Mordred will grow up to kill him and destroy Camelot as on the whole business of Arthur's incest. And I wonder myself how that would have been handled in the series (if they had even dared do it in "Pendragon" in a flash-back or allusion; they might not have, for all that we know).

I still would argue that Canmore put to death as a child would be much more dangerous than Canmore allowed to grow to adulthood. It would give Macbeth's enemies the perfect atrocity charge to drum up support in a move against him ("He put a helpless child to death; what manner of king will he make?"). Canmore's English relatives could still have launched an invasion in order to avenge him (or at least, with the pretext of avenging him), and some of Macbeth's nobles, uncomfortable at fighting for a child-killer, might well have deserted or joined the English. We'll probably never know, of course - but I still think that killing Canmore as a child would only have made matters worse for Macbeth. (And I certainly didn't consider it Bodhe's one good piece of advice; instead, I viewed it as his usual piece of bad advice, with perhaps an indication of how cruelty and cowardice often go hand in hand; note that the same man who advises Macbeth to kill a defenceless child is the one who, when faced with a definitely not defenceless adversary, goes for a frantic course of appeasement).

In any case, Canmore only succeeded in overthrowing Macbeth because Demona deserted him. If she had stayed loyal, Canmore and the English might never have defeated him in 1057.
Todd Jensen - [merlyn1@mindspring.com]
St. Louis, MO
Thursday, January 9, 2003 07:51:55 AM
IP: 65.57.63.29

Ok so that battle was fought in the day, I'll guess I have to figure out another way for Robert Stewart to meet what would be a future patchwork clan.


Vault Keeper
Thursday, January 9, 2003 05:49:16 AM
IP: 24.64.223.203

MATT - You wrote: [geeez, Airwalker, do you have anything ELSE to say! lol :)]

Sure, tons. But I decided to keep my last post short. :-)


TODD - You wrote: [I must admit that I'm a bit shocked that no less than three people in this comment room believe that Macbeth ought to have killed Canmore when he was a child.]

From a moral standpoint alone, having Canmore killed is wrong. But from the political standpoint leaving Canmore alive is foolish and even more importantly dangerous. Just a moral standpoint isn't going to hold up if your serious about holding your power and your position. Thats why I kept emphasising ruthlessness in the character of Medieval leaders; its sad and even barbaric to us to imagine such a thing but such a ruthlessness in logic and in deed would be necessary to live and thrive in those days. Its not for nothing that we can say that Civilization has advanced since the 11th century.

You wrote: [Granted, it would have saved him trouble down the road (or at least, might have), but would that be enough to justify killing a helpless boy of around 8 or 9?]

He was enough trouble right there on the battlefield; he wasn't just some crying innocent who was crying over his father or for his life - he was defiant, being forced to bow, and was boldly pressing his claim with almost a disregard for the fact that his father was dead and he was alone in the enemy camp. Not only that but he went so far as to make an attempt to kill Demona on the spot to the shock of everyone watching. This was no innocent boy but a man even if biologically he hadn't reached that point yet; a dangerous man with hate burning in his eyes.

Bodhe's suggestion was right politically if not ethically; it was probably the only good piece of advice he ever gave Macbeth. It is cruel to imagine and even cruel to do if Macbeth had decided on it. But we are not talking about Macbeth having gained power democratically either - He has just fought (murdered in the eyes of his opponents) his way to power against the recognised King. The circumstances that forced him to do so don't matter. Only victory and then consolidation of power do. Strength and Power mean everything. So does lack of enemy heirs to claim the throne he has taken. Thats how you get and hold power in the Middle Ages. I have no doubt in my mind that if the situation were reversed then Luach would have been killed on the spot by Duncan, probably with Gruoch watching too.

You wrote: [One could justify, in the same way, Arthur's attempt to get rid of Mordred as a baby by attempting to drown him and a lot of other babies.]

I'd be interesting in knowing exactly how Pendragon would be able to justify that in the series; he didn't exactly come off in his few appearances as the sort of person that would commit such an act.

(In the end though we are dealing with people out of the Middle Ages; they aren't going to have the same views and attitudes as we have in Modern Times. Murder to us is horrible but in the olden days it was just another instrument of policy.)

You wrote: [I doubt even that Macbeth would have been able to live out his days in peace had he killed Canmore as a boy.]

True; it would have haunted him. Thats why I say that in some ways Macbeth just was not ruthless enough for the times he was born into. He certainly wasn't ruthless enough to be a King, to grasp greedily at power and to hold it with all of his might. Instead he started on about "a Golden Age" (never a good sign by the way) and probably on all the high ideas that go along with that.

(Perhaps this was even recognized and understood a bit by Macbeths father and those around him before Duncan forced him to make a move - Findlaech gave no indication of even remotely wanting to press a royal claim for his son, not even to put him near the royal court. And even Bodhe doesn't suggest such a move for Macbeth when he's low on options and Duncan is moving against him. (I would wonder what Gruoch's opinion on the matter would have been.))


PYRO X - You wrote: [... ... ... ... WOAH.]

Why the shock? In the olden days I used to put up much much longer posts. That last one was pretty short.... :-) :-)
Airwalker - [airwalker9999@yahoo.com]
Brooklyn, NY
Thursday, January 9, 2003 12:10:38 AM
IP: 12.88.163.155

I'd say there is some great difference between Arthur killing his *own* incestuously begotten bastard baby out of embarressment and to simply protect his reputation, and Macbeth killing a boy old enough to be a military threat and figure head for massive rebellion that could threaten the lives of his people.

Killing Canmore would have been one of the smarter options, and the most logical. Misguided kindness on Macbeth's part leads to Canmore being able to lead a massive force against Macbeth and cause many more deaths than one boy who hates his guts anyways. At the very least, if he was to let the boy live, he should have kept him close at hand either imprisoned or under heavy guard. I'm still in favor of gelding Canmore as a way of making him unfit to become a figure head for rebellion.

Mooncat
>^,,^<

"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."
Mooncat
Wednesday, January 8, 2003 10:46:02 PM
IP: 68.102.23.36

HI MOUSE! WELCOME!!!

AIRWALKER> ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ??? ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... WOAH.





And that's all I have to say about that.



Later~
Pyro X
CanadaWednesday, January 8, 2003 10:04:52 PM
IP: 205.206.79.107

I must admit that I'm a bit shocked that no less than three people in this comment room believe that Macbeth ought to have killed Canmore when he was a child. Granted, it would have saved him trouble down the road (or at least, might have), but would that be enough to justify killing a helpless boy of around 8 or 9? One could justify, in the same way, Arthur's attempt to get rid of Mordred as a baby by attempting to drown him and a lot of other babies.

I doubt even that Macbeth would have been able to live out his days in peace had he killed Canmore as a boy. Just consider the story of Richard III and the Princes in the Tower, one case where killing the young rival heirs to the throne actually led all the quicker to a deposition. (Of course, one could always argue that the story would have ended differently if Richard had also disposed of Henry Tudor over in France at the same time).

And as for revenge: I take the angle that revenge is wrong, period.
Todd Jensen - [merlyn1@mindspring.com]
St. Louis, MO
Wednesday, January 8, 2003 06:53:18 PM
IP: 65.56.173.99

*reads Airwalkers last post... keeps reading... keeps reading......

10 minutes later... keeps reading...

geeez, Airwalker, do you have anything ELSE to say! lol :)
matt
Wednesday, January 8, 2003 05:24:01 PM
IP: 207.230.53.29

MOUSE - Welcome!


TODD - You wrote: [Of course, they might not have been all that aware of Duncan and Canmore's attitude towards gargoyles;]

Depending how far ahead of Duncan and Canmore we are talking about, they might not even really be aware of Gargoyles. After all if we figure that Gargoyles in general become Myth and Legend after 1057, why would any of the later royals bother seriously believing that their ancestors were fighting something that people might not even feel existed? It could even be something like one big family joke, sort of like "Fighting Gargoyles? Oh yeah, and don't forget about those 12 dragons he killed too..."

You wrote: [I think that you're a bit too harsh on Macbeth in "City of Stone Part Four";]

I am a bit harsh; I think that if your going to be a King or in any other position of power then you have to be held to much higher standards and judgements than other people would normally be held to. Thats why I tend to look more critically at the situation Macbeth was in.

You wrote: [It was Bodhe, not Macbeth, who wanted Demona excluded from the council, and didn't give his reason for it until they were actually met.]

I think that there is a strong possibility that Macbeth suspected what Bodhe wanted to suggest; I wouldn't be suprised if the possibility had crossed his own mind at one point. (Even if he wouldn't follow through with it, that doesn't mean that in a mental review of his options that it wouldn't have come up. And given the situation he was in and the type of advise Bodhe always seemed to give him, odds could be strong that Macbeth might have figured what Bodhe wanted to tell him.)

You wrote: [Luach spoke up immediately after Bodhe was done, before Macbeth had the opportunity to respond;]

Actually Luach spoke up when it seemed that Macbeth might be entertaining Bodhe's suggestion. Macbeth's first response was to rub his chin and say "I see.....", appearing to seem to take the suggestion seriously. Now this was probably just Kingly posturing, most like to spare Bodhe's honor but Luach had a point in his reaction.

You wrote: [most likely, Macbeth would have told Bodhe that forswearing the gargoyles would have been nothing short of foolishness.]

I think that he most likely dismissed the suggestion although Demona had left at that point. I don't want to imply at all that I think he would have willing surrendered the Moray Gargoyles or betray them. It would have been suicide for himself and his Kingdom to willingly give up the Moray Clan to the English.

But I think that he seriously underestimated Demona (and her Clan), almost to the point of automatically assuming that he would have her support no matter what. Macbeth confused allience with friendship; Friendship gives a lot of leeway for error and hope. Alliences can be broken for a variety of reasons and can't always be saved just because you knew someone for a good chunk of your life. I think that Macbeth was a little naive in his dealings with Demona and also a little unintentionally dissmissive too; He assumed that because he knew Demona for most of his life (although to be honest he didn't really know her that well - they interacted together about 5 minutes altogether over a 20 year period) that she wouldn't be looking for any possible weakness in their allience, that she would assume that the allience was above all including how she may view the situation her Clan was in. Alliences don't work like that.

You wrote: [The Canmore trio's seeking to avenge their father's death was less reprehensible than the motives of other anti-gargoyle figures (such as Hakon or Duncan), but still, it was revenge.]

The desire for revenge in and of itself isn't an evil thing; it just tends to lead people into doing evil.

You wrote: [And one could argue that Charles Canmore was partly responsible for his own death in choosing to continue hunting Demona for the sake of the old feud rather than letting her be.]

Actually I'd argue that he was completely responsible for his own death; nobody forced him to actually go looking for Demona after all. And she didn't attack him first either - he provoked the battle that he ended up getting himself killed in.

You wrote: [When you stop to think it over, they must have been good at it, given the fact that Goliath and his friends didn't even see a hint of them when they were at Loch Ness.]

Well given how Greg described them as almost being aquatic maybe they were in the Lock itself where they could have floated up right next to Goliath and Angela and still not be completely seen. :-)

(I personally believe that they were most likely on the other side of the Lock away from all the action; except for the time where the two submarines are fighting in the Lock and are massively distracted from looking for anything, all events in the episode have Goliath and Elisa move further and further away from the Lock and towards some sort of Civilization that the Lock Ness Clan would most likely avoid.)

You wrote: [I'm afraid that I'll have to disagree with you about Goliath's behavior at Castle Wyvern in 994; I didn't see it as servility at all.]

I was exaggerating slightly. He wasn't exactly bending over backwards in dealing with the situation. I'm not sure that there really is a delicate way to deal with the increasingly dangerous situation he and his Clan were in; but I do think that he was being overly optimistic about it. His tone sounded to me almost like he was convinced that things HAD to improve which is a dangerous thing to do if your a leader. Not despairing is one thing but hoping that everything will get better without preparing for the worse case scenario is dangerous.

You wrote: [Goliath clearly understood that fighting back and showing resentment for the way that Princess Katharine and her subjects were treating them, as Demona was doing, would only make the situation worse, by "confirming" the humans' worst fears and suspicions towards gargoyles.]

Fighting back is one thing - that is what makes Demona's reaction in the Hall improper. But feeling resentment (and getting that message across) is another thing. Its an allience, not a friendship. And its an allience that was getting increasingly worn thin by Katharine and her side rather than anything the Gargoyles had done up to that point. (Brooklyn and Lexingtons actions later don't help but at the point we are talking about that hasn't happened yet.) If some sort of communication doesn't come through then it leads to even greater problems later on. When a good number of Gargoyles want to quit the Castle (and thus end the Allience) while the Magus is at the same time looking up sleep spells to use then some action has to be taken.

Goliath's problem seems to have been that he was hoping that everything would improve soon and that if he sits quietly and doesn't do much then matters won't get any worse. Its not coming across from him to Katharine that without them the ability to hold the castle is non-existant. Its almost a Union/Management Conflict and Goliath is coming across as a weak Union leader. :-)

You wrote: [Goliath understood, I'm certain, that fear and intimidation is no basis for peace, that you can't establish harmonious race relations by scaring the other race into backing down.]

I'm not saying that he had to use fear and intimidation; thats why his punishment of the Trio was not unfair (except in terms of punishing Broadway who wasn't really involved and just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time). But he's not doing anything but having his side accept how the other side is acting. Thats not going to lead to a healthy relationship either.

I'm not saying that he was in an easy to deal with situation; he had a major problem in front of him. The problem is not that he was lacking understanding but that he seemed to be too understanding in accepting the situation the other side was handing him while at the same time being under attentive to how his own people are going to feel about it and understand it. He needed to find a way to shift the situation to an equal playing field which I can only see done by making sure that Katharine understands they need each other; and that wasn't getting through.

You wrote: [but I certainly don't believe that he was too soft-hearted for his times, any more than I believe that about Macbeth]

Whenever I think of the era I get the impression less that soft-heartedness was a bad thing than lack of ruthlessness was dangerous. Calling Goliath and Macbeth soft-hearted is probably again a bit of an exaggeration on my part but at the same time the roughness, the cold heartedness of the era seemed to call more for something that they might both have had but didn't want to use. (I'm reminded of the scene in BRAVEHEART where Robert the Bruce is screaming at his father after his father made a deal with the English and has his son unwittingly hand them Willaim Wallace; Robert the Bruce makes the arguement that appeals to the heart of a modern person but his father makes the argument that fits the times.)

You wrote: [yes, it allowed him to return, but would starting off his reign as King of Scotland by putting a helpless child to death have been much better?]

He is already going to be seen as someone who stole the crown from his cousin, killing him to get it. Killing Canmore on top of that wouldn't have hurt him much more than he was already going to be hurt in terms of propoganda. (And besides if he had killed Canmore then people would have talked about it but with time it would have been forgotten and Macbeths version would have taken sway; letting Canmore live leaves him around to press a claim and to keep his memory of events alive - that Macbeth essentially overthrew the rightful King, exiled the rightful successor and used Magic and Demons to do it.)


MATT - You wrote: [Its possible that around the year 1000 Moray, Loch Ness and London Clans were the only ones in Europe, but i don't think its as likely as you think. just because no other Clans survived til 2000 doesn't mean they didn't survive for perhaps hundreds of years more than the Moray Clan.]

Its possible that there were a few other Gargoyle Clans or just small groupings of Gargoyles besides London and Lock Ness that managed to hide out in Europe past 1057 and that didn't manage to live to out to Modern Times.

But I largely dismiss the idea of huge Clans surviving in hiding and then being found and destroyed during the thousand year period following 1057 based on the idea that after a certain point if that were to happen then it kills the idea of them being mythological to the general population. If a Clan hid in Germany until the 1600s for example only to be found and then destroyed then it shatters the mythological barrier and leaves strong evidence that Gargoyles really existed in writing if in nothing else. There has to be a cutoff point and it has to be early on.

Moray seems to have been the last Known Gargoyle Clan in Europe and I think that its a good bet that its end is the cutoff point for Gargoyles in Europe. After that any other Clans are in hiding and not only that but people aren't really looking for them anymore either. That helps in the hiding. The idea of Gargoyles becomes almost Mythological to Humans after this point. Its possible to perhaps stretch the period out another century but by the time of the first crusade I think that the situation would be largely stabilized among European Gargoyles. Any Clan that was going to survive was established and hiding; any Clan that wasn't going to survive would probably have been wiped out by this time.

You wrote: [The Mayan Clan was nearly wiped out in the 1990's so who knows how long other clans may have survived before being destroyed!]

With the Mayan Clan the question is where they wiped out as known Gargoyles or did the relic hunters just smash the statues at the Pyramid for the hell of it?

I see the point that you are driving at though - some Clans would have hidden, lived longer than the Middle Ages, and then happen to get wiped out somehow. But my comments were mainly on European Gargoyles. The timeline doesn't have to be the same in other regions of the world; the cutoff date could be different in other regions of the world depending on the local circumstances. The point though is that after a certain point Gargoyles have to become myth and legend to Human Beings and that the situation has to stabilize for hiding Clans after a point. You can't have Clans hiding everywhere and then getting wiped out without leaving any evidence that the Clan existed after a certain point. By the time the printing press comes along and then the age of exploration, word would get out if hiding Clans got found and destroyed constantly. It would weaken the mythological idea.

You wrote: [if Demona didn't know about the Loch ness and London Clans its possible there were other hidden clans that she didn't know about either that may have survived for a long time, but not til the present time...]

We know Demona doesn't know about a Lock Ness Clan but it is questionable if she doesn't know about London now although she probably didn't know about either in the 1057 era. And it is possible that there might have been a Clan or two hiding somewhere in this period that got discovered and destroyed, that was an unsuccessful hiding Clan. But largely after a point the situation has to stabalize and hiding Clans have to stop being found in Europe at the very least or Gargoyles can't really be considered to be mythological to Humans. Some modern record would exist. (Besides also after a certain point Europe becomes an impractical area for Gargoyles to live in - with all the conflicts going on odds aren't good that a hiding Clan is going to live long on that continent. London and Lock Ness happen to be on an Island off the Coast of Europe which gives them a little protection after a while; it helps that after William the Conqueror Britain is never again invaded.)

I think that 1057 is the end of Gargoyles being a matter of public record in Europe. Its possible that it took another century before the situation for Gargoyles consolidated and that there might have been other hiding Clans besides Lock Ness and London in this period but that they failed to hide successfully and were wiped out. By the 1200 period Gargoyles have to have faded from the European Mind as something real; they should only be shadows in the back of peoples minds, something that inspires statues on Churches for no logical reason but not something people can really imagine existed.


VAULT KEEPER - You wrote: [Well Airwalker you sure know how sink one's idea]

Sorry!
Airwalker - [airwalker9999@yahoo.com]
Brooklyn, NY
Wednesday, January 8, 2003 12:39:00 PM
IP: 12.88.164.244

Macbeth should have put young Canmore to death, or at least in a prison where he could not make allies among the English. I'd have gelded him for good measure, making him unsuitable as a figure head for a rebellion, as well as making Canmore unsuitable for kingship and unable to make alliances based on power marriages.

It's pure stupidity to leave a viable male heir to the man you just deposed by force and send him to another powerful country where he had kin/allies and can come back in force later as a threat to your throne. Either kill him or geld him, and hasten to fill your own nursery with back up sons and daughters. An heir and a spare, and sons/daughters to marry off in alliance marriages.

Mooncat
>^,,^<
Mooncat
Wednesday, January 8, 2003 11:29:01 AM
IP: 68.102.23.36

TODD> <<but would starting off his reign as King of Scotland by putting a helpless child to death have been much better?>> Yes.
Greg Bishansky
Wednesday, January 8, 2003 10:58:51 AM
IP: 216.179.1.117

Since the Battle of Bannockburn was fought during the daytime, I doubt that there were any gargoyles involved in it. (Not to mention that the only gargoyles left in Scotland were the Loch Ness ones, who were still in hiding; when you stop to think it over, they must have been good at it, given the fact that Goliath and his friends didn't even see a hint of them when they were at Loch Ness).

AIRWALKER - I'm afraid that I'll have to disagree with you about Goliath's behavior at Castle Wyvern in 994; I didn't see it as servility at all. Goliath clearly understood that fighting back and showing resentment for the way that Princess Katharine and her subjects were treating them, as Demona was doing, would only make the situation worse, by "confirming" the humans' worst fears and suspicions towards gargoyles. Yes, he might have felt tempted to do on occasion - we know that he has a strong temper (and he even seemed a little angry at first when he entered the great hall at the end of Act One of "Awakening Part One") - but he had the wisdom and restraint to not undertake reprisals. Goliath understood, I'm certain, that fear and intimidation is no basis for peace, that you can't establish harmonious race relations by scaring the other race into backing down. It might work on the surface for a while, but eventually it'll fall apart. And he understood, also, that the reason why humans are so unfriendly towards gargoyles is because they're afraid of them, and feel intimidated by them.

I will admit that Goliath may have been a little too passive in his hopes of peace for humanity, alongside the rest of the clan (gargoyles in general show a tendency to just keep to themselves and live out their lives apart from humanity - almost a case of self-segregation - rather than to reach out to them and make an effort to invite the humans into their lives to show them what they're really like), but I certainly don't believe that he was too soft-hearted for his times, any more than I believe that about Macbeth (over, say, his sparing of Canmore; yes, it allowed him to return, but would starting off his reign as King of Scotland by putting a helpless child to death have been much better?).
Todd Jensen - [merlyn1@mindspring.com]
St. Louis, MO
Wednesday, January 8, 2003 07:27:18 AM
IP: 65.57.59.66

Well Airwalker you sure know how sink one's idea, the reasons I was interested in the Staurts is that this Scottish royal family got there start during the battle of Bannackburn.

As we know Robert the Bruce won Scottish independence with that battle, he had help which included fleeing Templars from France. also Robert Stewart was in that battle was well.
Now what if Robert the Bruce had help from the Gargoyle during this battle?, there are two good reasons for the Gargoyles to take part in this battle. One is revenge on the English, the other is Robert Stewart promise those Gargoyles that fought in the battle would have a place of there own to live in safety,
vaultkeeper@dupuis.shawbiz.ca
Wednesday, January 8, 2003 05:29:33 AM
IP: 24.64.223.203

surviving clans> its possible that around the year 1000 Moray, Loch Ness and London Clans were the only ones in Europe, but i don't think its as likely as you think. just because no other Clans survived til 2000 doesn't mean they didn't survive for perhaps hundreds of years more than the Moray Clan. i once asked Greg where was the last clan to be be destroyed located, meaning besides the existing clans, what clan lasted the longest. i believe he said he didn't really know. but when you look at it, the Mayan Clan was nearly wiped out in the 1990's so who knows how long other clans may have survived before being destroyed! if Demona didn't know about the Loch ness and London Clans its possible there were other hidden clans that she didn't know about either that may have survived for a long time, but not til the present time...
matt
Tuesday, January 7, 2003 07:37:13 PM
IP: 207.230.53.61

Another reason why the Stuarts wouldn't have been that likely to ally with gargoyles (besides the fact that the only gargoyles left in Scotland when they came to power were the Loch Ness clan, which was in hiding): they were descended from Duncan and Canmore, and were well aware of it. (Of course, they might not have been all that aware of Duncan and Canmore's attitude towards gargoyles; it appears to have been a case of the Stuarts inheriting the crown and the Canmores the feud). It's one reason why Shakespeare portrayed Macbeth the way that he did; the King of England (James I) at the time was a Stuart.

AIRWALKER - I think that you're a bit too harsh on Macbeth in "City of Stone Part Four"; what I saw of it didn't quite match the description that you give. It was Bodhe, not Macbeth, who wanted Demona excluded from the council, and didn't give his reason for it until they were actually met. Luach spoke up immediately after Bodhe was done, before Macbeth had the opportunity to respond; most likely, Macbeth would have told Bodhe that forswearing the gargoyles would have been nothing short of foolishness. (Greg Weisman's description of the episode in his "Ask Greg" rambles certainly indicates that that's how he saw it).

I doubt that abandoning the gargoyles would have done Macbeth any good had he carried out Bodhe's advice, anyway; Canmore and the English would most likely have simply found another excuse to continue the fighting (especially since the English went on fighting Macbeth and Luach for Canmore even after Demona deserted Macbeth). The English had sound motives for helping Canmore that didn't have anything to do with gargoyles, I might add (in real history, at least); he had important relatives in England (one of them, both in real history and in Shakespeare, was the English general, Earl Siward of Northumbria), and there was also the fact that helping Canmore to the throne would mean that the English would have a man on the neighboring Scottish throne who was in their debt, which would certainly be good politics.

The Canmore trio's seeking to avenge their father's death was less reprehensible than the motives of other anti-gargoyle figures (such as Hakon or Duncan), but still, it was revenge. (And one could argue that Charles Canmore was partly responsible for his own death in choosing to continue hunting Demona for the sake of the old feud rather than letting her be).
Todd Jensen - [merlyn1@mindspring.com]
St. Louis, MO
Tuesday, January 7, 2003 06:43:32 PM
IP: 63.208.61.120

hi all, new to the room. just thought to say hi and see what is up.
Mouse - [bratofkansas@hotmail.com]
Parsons, KS, USA
Tuesday, January 7, 2003 05:24:47 PM
IP: 209.184.246.199

TODD - You wrote: [Malcolm strikes me as more culpable, in his foolish use of gargoyles as bogeymen to scare Katharine.]

I see things in reverse between Macbeth and Malcolm; I think that in the situation with Malcolm, while he wasn't acting particularly intelligently, he wasn't doing anything he could imagine would crash his allience with the Gargoyles. Its not hard to figure that as she gets older, Katharine wouldn't be so dense and blind as to not realise that it was the protection of the Gargoyles that made living in Wyvern possible. The fall of the Wyvern Allience stands much more on Katharine even though Malcolm does have some hand in it too.

You wrote: [Macbeth's slip-up was a much more favorable one; he was seeking to teach Luach to have the patience to what his advisors had to say instead of immediately silencing them.]

With Macbeth on the other hand, he holds a secret counsel in the middle of a war at which he openly states he doesn't want Demona to hear and then allows the idea of betrayal to be entertained by one of his chief counsellors. Even if he had no intention to betray and even if he wanted to teach his son something about ruling, there are some times you have to shut advisers up. Macbeth couldn't have been blind to the fact that Demona wasn't particularly fond of Humans and didn't really trust them that much. And he was worried at that very meeting that some word of it might get to her on top of everything else. (Not only that but he named Demona his primary adviser and then doesn't invite her to a private war council - it was bound to make her suspicious.) Even if he didn't have bad intentions, his actions were much harder to ignore than Malcolm telling his young daughter some scary bedtime stories. Actions are not only important but also the context where they take place; even with all the talk of victory on the part of Macbeth and Demona the outcome of the war with Canmore was far from certain. When your defenses are dependent on Gargoyles, its not a good idea to even allow the idea of betrayal to be mildly entertained; in some ways perhaps Macbeth was too soft-hearted to be a Medieval King. He needed a ruthlessness that he just didn't seem to have.

You wrote: [Of course, the great irony about Luach's pro-gargoyle stance is that, in actual history, Gillecomgain was his father.]

Just biologically; it was Macbeth who raised him and so I think has a greater right to claim him as a son than Gillecomgain would ever have. (I also think that this historical tidbit is implied in the animation if not directly in the actuall CITY OF STONE story; Young Luarch looks a lot like Young Gillecomgain rather than young Macbeth. He only starts to resemble Macbeth when he gets older and thats more because of the beard than anything else.)

You wrote: [What Gillecomgain would have thought had he known about it, I really don't know, but I doubt that he'd have been too thrilled.]

I don't think that he would have cared much for his son; at the very least I think that he would be much more like his own father was to him. Besides Luach's behavior is more upbringing than anything else. If Gillecomgain had lived then its doubtful that Luach would have been raised by Macbeth and that he would be anything like the way he ultimately turned out.

You wrote: [How much are the general public, the "normal population" to blame, where the near-extinction of gargoyles are concerned.]

Honestly it depends on the area and specific circumstances as far as I can see; in some areas the General Population probably had a strong hand in Gargoyles being wiped out (i.e England) while in other places Indifference or even Aid from the General Population probably had a strong hand in Gargoyles surviving (i.e. Japan).

In general though its usually some individual and/or group that manages to get the General Population to at least if not support them then not interfer with them. I don't think you can really seperate the two - it can't just be only villains or only the General Population. They are both needed and both responsible. Even if its only indifference on the part of the Population and nothing active, Indifference can still be deadly.

You wrote: [It's worth noting that their motives for gargoyle-hunting and gargoyle-slaying were always evil ones]

I think that an argument could be made for the Canmore Trio, that they were doing it more to avenge their father than to be following up on any family tradition. Wanting to avenge your fathers horrible death isn't exactly what I'd call an Evil Motive.

The problem is that a largely Neutral desire (i.e. Avenging their Father) turned into an Evil Goal (i.e. Wiping out ALL Gargoyles). Whats even worse is that largely two of the three Canmores was largely indifferent to any Goal and was just going along with it with indifference. Robyn and John didn't exactly have their hearts in it; Robyn in fact just wanted to get it over with. Only Jason was really wanted to do anything for any sort of reason.

You wrote: [there seem to have been no cases among them of misguided hero-types]

Well, lets not forget that Vinnie had to have had a few ancestors running around somewhere. :-)

You wrote: [Instead, their motives were things like personal revenge (Gillecomgain, the Canmore trio)]

With Gillecomgain it started out as personal revenge but by the end I don't think that was the main motive anymore. After all if it were just revenge he would have stuck to only hunting Gargoyles and Demona in particular. The fact that he moved into assassination and that he kept talking about fighting someone "worthy of his skill" suggests that personal revenge stopped being an important factor. Even the marks on his face only came up as an afterthought, right when he thought he was about to die in battle rather than something he kept mentioning in battle after battle.

You wrote: [or seeing the gargoyles as an obstacle to their schemes against other humans (Hakon, Duncan, Canmore)]

With Canmore I think that it was more pure hate than anything else. He got the fringe benefit of weakening his enemy out of the bargain too but I think it was more a desire to pay the Gargoyles back for his loss of status and exile that drove his opinion more than anything else. It wasn't just about fufilling a plan.

You wrote: [The crowds in "Hunter's Moon" and "The Journey" let themselves get caught up when rabble-rousers like Castaway make anti-gargoyle speeches and eagerly volunteer to become Quarrymen.]

In HUNTERS MOON it was more the Clocktower attack and lack of any information whatsoever that lead to a howling crowd. They just got told that some mythological beings blew up a building and were now fighting in a Church. Thats not exactly going to calm the situation. (And it didn't help matters that Matt Bluestone was just sitting on his hands and waiting; he didn't have to have the building stormed but the crowd could have been dispersed before it reached mob proportions.)

In THE JOURNEY there still isn't any information going out other than Matt making nervous statements about how Gargoyles aren't a threat to public safety. It would have been more helpful to mention that the people who actually blew up the buildings were in police hands and that there wasn't any more of a threat of that happening again. He's not really suited to dealing with the public that much.

If you don't give the public anything to work with then they will head to the people who will. (But even then the Quarrymen weren't really that large; Castaway mainly invited people he saw on the news. I don't think it was immediately as widespread as it seemed although he had the potential to grow if left unchecked.)

You wrote: [The humans in Castle Wyvern in 994 were prejudiced against gargoyles, displaying considerable ingratitude towards them.]

The nobles were ungrateful; its still questionable what the actual Castle Inhabitants had to say. If they were also ungrateful then I have to wonder what the hell Goliath based all of his optimism and hope on?

Although again its a question of leadership once again; people will follow the message. Katharine was against the Gargoyles and the Magus was head over heals in love with her and willing to indulge her. The rest followed. If she hadn't been that way its questionable if the nobles had behaved the way they did. (I personally think that Goliath was largely fooling himself with the hope that if he acted all timid and subservient that everything would work out for the best, that time was on his side, and that a problem didn't really exist. I think that he was not suited to be a Medieval Leader; Modern Times suits him more. Like Macbeth he wasn't ruthless enough.)

You wrote: [And one can argue that if the general population had stood up in defence of gargoyles a lot more often, people like Hakon wouldn't have managed to do quite so much damage.]

No matter how it would have been done, with betrayal or without it, if Hakon had gotten into the Castle the end result would have been the same. The only thing that the General Population attitude towards Gargoyles gave Hakon was an easier way in.


VAULT KEEPER - You wrote: [What about the Stuarts?]

In general don't count Gargoyles in Scotland after the year 1057. This also seems to be the cutoff date for Gargoyles in Europe. After 1057 the survivors (London and Lock Ness) are in hiding and the idea of Gargoyles passes into myth and legend.

I figure like things like this:

(We know next to nothing on how the Lock Ness and London Clan formed its questionable if they existed before 994 or if they came together to form Clans by 1057 - I think Greg mentioned that Lock Ness existed in the 971 era but I don't know about London; odds might be good that London was also a Patchwork Clan that formed and went into hiding after the English set to wiping out their Gargoyles in the 1000-1057 era - if they were established before the English wiped out the Gargoyles then their location would have been known; if they formed after an English wipeout then they had leeway to find a new home to hide at that nobody would associate them with.)

There were many Clans before 994 although their numbers start to lessen as time goes on. By 1020 there are almost no Clans (perhaps only the Lock Ness Clan) with a number of Gargoyles floating around. At this time it seems that the Gargoyles of the area joined together in 3 groups - there was the Lock Ness Clan, the London Clan, and Demona's patchwork Moray Clan.

(It might be that the original Lock Ness Clan was destroyed in the 994-1040 era and then reformed as a patchwork Clan; that would explain why Demona wouldn't think that they existed and that her Clan was the last one in Scotland while at the same time explaining how a Lock Ness Clan could exist and be in contact with Wyvern in some manner before 994, in the 971 era.)

Moray though seemed to be the only publically known Clan by the 1040 period; London and Lock Ness are already in hiding and not thought to exist. Even Demona was convinced her Clan was the last, as far back as 1020. In 1057 Moray was destroyed and the last Gargoyles in Scotland (and probably in Europe) were thought to be destroyed.
Airwalker - [airwalker9999@yahoo.com]
Brooklyn, NY
Tuesday, January 7, 2003 12:48:44 PM
IP: 12.88.161.220

Wingless and Airwalker made good points about Scottish Gargoyles after 1100, and you mention that later Scottish rulers and royal familes didn't have any contact with Gargoyles. What about the Stuarts?,


Vault Keeper
Tuesday, January 7, 2003 09:13:16 AM
IP: 24.64.223.203

Heh, someone is selling a copy of Greg's JLA-Gargoyles parody comic on eBay. Click my name to see.
Vash
Tuesday, January 7, 2003 12:59:45 AM
IP: 129.98.123.136

I don't think that Kenneth and Maol Chalvim had the outright anti-gargoyle prejudice of the sort that would motivate one to attack them; you're right about that, Airwalker. I saw it as a more subtle level of prejudice, more viewing them as "lesser beings". Prejudice doesn't necessarily have to be "kill the monsters!" in sentiment.

I certainly agree with you about the similarities between Macbeth and Prince Malcolm, particularly their inadvertent contributions to the break-ups of their alliance. (Malcolm strikes me as more culpable, in his foolish use of gargoyles as bogeymen to scare Katharine. Macbeth's slip-up was a much more favorable one; he was seeking to teach Luach to have the patience to what his advisors had to say instead of immediately silencing them. It only led to trouble because Demona was eavesdropping at the time, which Macbeth didn't know then).

Of course, the great irony about Luach's pro-gargoyle stance is that, in actual history, Gillecomgain was his father. He definitely wasn't a chip off the old block where gargoyles were concerned. What Gillecomgain would have thought had he known about it, I really don't know, but I doubt that he'd have been too thrilled.

Some good comments on the "gargoyle massacres" in Scotland and England. Actually, it reminds me again of the question that I sometimes wonder where "Gargoyles" is concerned; how much are the general public, the "normal population" to blame, where the near-extinction of gargoyles are concerned.

On the one hand, all the massacres that we come across in the series, or even the attempted massacres, are carried out by "professional villains" - the Vikings, the Hunters, the looters in Guatemala, etc. They were, as you put it with Gillecomgain, "general blights", not just threats to gargoyles. (The Canmore trio in "Hunter's Moon" are the closest to an exception, but even then they wind up blowing up a police station to get at Goliath and his clan). It's worth noting that their motives for gargoyle-hunting and gargoyle-slaying were always evil ones; there seem to have been no cases among them of misguided hero-types who believe "the gargoyles are a danger to humanity; we must destroy them so that people can sleep safely in their beds at night" of the sort that motivated, say, Beowulf to slay Grendel or St. George to slay the dragon or the heroes in LotR to stand against Sauron and Saruman and their forces. Instead, their motives were things like personal revenge (Gillecomgain, the Canmore trio) or seeing the gargoyles as an obstacle to their schemes against other humans (Hakon, Duncan, Canmore), to such an extent that even if the entire gargoyle race was composed of evil monsters bent on preying on humanity, the Hunters et al would still have been classified as unsavory individuals.

On the other hand, the general public could be argued to have some responsibility for the situation. The crowds in "Hunter's Moon" and "The Journey" let themselves get caught up when rabble-rousers like Castaway make anti-gargoyle speeches and eagerly volunteer to become Quarrymen. The humans in Castle Wyvern in 994 were prejudiced against gargoyles, displaying considerable ingratitude towards them. And one can argue that if the general population had stood up in defence of gargoyles a lot more often, people like Hakon wouldn't have managed to do quite so much damage. (Greg Weisman mentioned the old proverb about "All that it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing" to illustrate this). I still think that it's a pity that Greg Weisman didn't do the entire Season Three of "Gargoyles", which under him could have explored that question in much more detail.
Todd Jensen - [merlyn1@mindspring.com]
St. Louis, MO
Monday, January 6, 2003 06:48:20 PM
IP: 65.57.60.73

Missed the Top Ten! Damn! Well, uh.... 11th! :-)


WINGLESS - You wrote: [why do we do this countdown thing again?]

Just like the song in FIDDLER ON THE ROOF says - Tradition. :-)


BLAISE - You wrote: [Saw it and liked it, though I couldn't help but glance askance at some of the...larger alterations.]

I didn't mind alterations so much as the story stayed interesting and powerful; I enjoyed it more than I did the first film. Rohan and the Ents really captured the screen for me. Frodo on the other hand got on my nerves a bit. I was more interested in the struggles of the armies of Good and Evil than of him fighting off his little bit of "drug abuse". Of course it probably didn't help that everytime Gollum showed up on screen everyone in the theatre started laughing at him. (I felt pity for the poor bastard and I was a little suprised people found his whole Smygul/Gollum speech funny.)

You wrote: [I can definitely say that I'll be looking for the Extended Version of this one]

I'm also planning to get the Extended Edition when it comes out. It did feel a little disjointed at some points like they left out a little too much to keep the movie down to a trim three hours :-) and I'd like to see how well the left out footage rounds things out.


TODD - You wrote: [Prince Malcolm and Macbeth appear to have been the only human rulers who made pacts with gargoyles during this time]

The two of them seem be very similar to each other too; both were orphaned, both were "poor relations" of some other more powerful individual, both had the strong need and the imagination to seek out aid from unlikely allies, and both had a tendency to stick their foot in their mouths leading to bad results down the line for themselves and the Gargoyles they allied with. Oh, and they happen to be related to each other.

You wrote: [Nearly all the other Scottish kings that we know of were either openly anti-gargoyle (Constantine, Duncan, and Canmore), or prejudiced against them on a more subtle scale]

To be honest Canmore honestly had the most reason to really hate Demona and her Clan who were assumed to be the last Gargoyles anywhere. They did help kill his father, install Macbeth on the throne and send him into exile for a huge chunk of his life. (In fact Canmore probably has the most similarity to Macbeth and Malcolm of all the Scottish Kings that appeared even to the point of allying with Gargoyles to get himself an advantage over his enemy; he departs from the example in that he really hated the Gargoyles and got rid of them the first chance he got after he achieved what he wanted.)

You wrote: [Malcolm II in "Avalon Part One" considered Princess Katharine to be "daft" for taking such good care of the gargoyle eggs, even to the point of refusing his offer to get her out of the castle following Constantine's usurpation;]

To be honest he does have a bit of a point; you have to be a little daft if your a medieval noble who carries 36 fragile Gargoyle eggs across Scotland and then spend all of your time taking care of them. Its not exactly something you see done everyday.

Kenneth's son (wasn't he called Calvin in the episode to differentiate him from the other Malcolms?) was more pragmatic than anything else - after all he didn't make a move against the eggs Katharine was taking care of. And he didn't advise his father that he should have her get rid of them either. I think that if Constantine hadn't come up to shake up the entire situation and Katharine had been able to stay in the Castle that later on Calvin would have used them to back up his own personal power. That doesn't mean he had a good or high opinion of Gargoyles but I think that he would have been open minded just enough to keep all of his options open.

You wrote: [I don't know what Kenneth's position on them was, but he certainly didn't appear to entirely disagree with his son's response to her care for the eggs.]

I'm not even sure I would disagree that its a bit crazy to carry 3 dozen Gargoyle eggs across Medieval Scotland; its certainly not an easy thing and certainly not something that most people would do. I think that on that level Kenneth would agree with his son's statement. After all he doesn't shift the conversation to the eggs and what to do with them but to defending Katharine. I think that Kenneth was largely trusting and indifferent; he trusted Katharine and her judgement but it wasn't exactly something important to deal with. I don't think that he had a negative opinion of Gargoyles; actions speak louder than words sometimes. After all he didn't censor Katharine or her father before her for being allied with them and he took no action whatsoever against the eggs.

You wrote: [Luach was an exception]

He was really the exception in general; he didn't have to live in exile, he grew up surrounded and friendly to Gargoyles, he had his father and mother to look out for him throughout his childhood - he was almost an inversion of all the major Scottish Kings who showed up in the series.

Of course with Luach there was a positive influence - I imagine that Alex would be a bit similar to him.

You wrote: [However, I doubt that Kenneth's predecessors mingled that much with gargoyles, either.]

I agree; most Human/Gargoyle alliences in Scotland seem to have been inspired by need largely on the part of the Humans who needed enforcers (which wouldn't really improve the opinion of people towards Gargoyles) to help them stay alive and in power. Without some Human seeking them out the odds are good that the Gargoyles stayed far off and seperate in isolated areas. (Hudson agreed to allience and so did Demona, largely I figure for the same reason - they wanted a settled and more protected way of life than they had although Demona's was much less settled than Hudson. But neither of them went looking for a Human to ally with. Both Macbeth and Malcolm came to them.)

I imagine that if Malcolm hadn't gone to Wyvern to make an allience then the Wyvern Clan might have lived as isolated as the Lock Ness Clan did; it might even have survived intact to Modern Times in isolation. After all without Malcolm there would be no castle, no peasants in the area, and no need for Vikings to come to the area.

You wrote: [I doubt that relations between gargoyles and humans in Scotland prior to 971 could ever have been especially healthy on the whole, however, or the general anti-gargoyle massacres between 971 and 1057 would have been unlikely to take place.]

We are talking about Medieval times; populations got massacured off all the time. The Gargoyles simply had a much more difficult time recovering and so got wiped out from the country completely. It doesn't appear after all that there was a country-wide attempt to wipe out all the Clans in Scotland; it was more piecemeal and based on a lot of factors in the specific area. If anything Medieval England seems to have had worse relations with its Gargoyles; if what Bodhe told Macbeth in CITY OF STONE 4 is taken literally then the English made a serious countrywide attempt to get rid of all its Gargoyles.

You wrote: [Of course, Demona's general career of brigandage between 994 and 1040 probably worsened the situation - we know that it definitely led to the first Hunter.]

Demona's wanderings with her Patchwork Clan from 994 to 1040 probably didn't help matters. It didn't help either that that they were also viewed as the last Gargoyles in the whole country. So I figure that it did build some popular support for the Hunter. But at the same time they were well received in Moray after Macbeth became King so I don't think it really made the situation any worse than it would have already have been at the time.

And given how Findlaeh reacted to the Hunter, not just as a Gargoyle Hunter but as an outright assassin who just happened to hunt Gargoyles in his free time, odds are good that the Hunter was a blight to the entire population, not just to Gargoyles and wasn't really that popular.

You wrote: [But even then, there must have been a fair amount of anti-gargoyle prejudice in the human population of Scotland on the whole for it to take root in.]

Also lets not forget that by the time that Demona was wandering Gargoyles were largely wiped out; all that was circulating around were some stories. When Duncan and Macbeth found them both were shocked to have actually found any Gargoyles around. Lack of contact together with some stories and rumour can't have been helpful.
Airwalker - [airwalker9999@yahoo.com]
Brooklyn, NY
Monday, January 6, 2003 01:09:35 PM
IP: 12.88.163.238

Rounding out the top ten.

*Taks Day Quil*
Spaccebabie
Monday, January 6, 2003 10:00:54 AM
IP: 67.25.49.181

WINGLESS - Actually, I've often wondered about the reason for the Top Ten myself.

Moving on to Airwalker's discussion of gargoyles in Scotland during the 10th and 11th centuries, a few comments of my own:

Admittedly, our picture of the status of gargoyles in that period of Scottish history isn't quite as full as it would have been had "Dark Ages" been made, but we can get a few general ideas. Prince Malcolm and Macbeth appear to have been the only human rulers who made pacts with gargoyles during this time (we know that Macbeth did so out of necessity, and presumably it was the same with Prince Malcolm - Greg's "Once Upon A Time There Were Three Brothers" story indicates that Prince Malcolm allied with the Wyvern gargoyles to get their help in restoring his family to power). Nearly all the other Scottish kings that we know of were either openly anti-gargoyle (Constantine, Duncan, and Canmore), or prejudiced against them on a more subtle scale (Malcolm II in "Avalon Part One" considered Princess Katharine to be "daft" for taking such good care of the gargoyle eggs, even to the point of refusing his offer to get her out of the castle following Constantine's usurpation; I don't know what Kenneth's position on them was, but he certainly didn't appear to entirely disagree with his son's response to her care for the eggs). Luach was an exception (note how he heatedly defended Demona and her clan when Bodhe suggested that Macbeth cut off his alliance with them), but since Demona's clan was massacred in Macbeth's last battle, he never had the opportunity to ally with them once he became King of Scotland. Since there were no known gargoyles left in Scotland after 1057 (Demona's clan was dead, she had presumably fled abroad, and the Loch Ness gargoyles were hiding), none of Canmore's successors to the throne had the opportunity to interact with them, so their opinions on gargoyles would have been strictly moot. What the Scottish kings prior to Kenneth II thought of gargoyles, we'll probably never know. However, I doubt that Kenneth's predecessors mingled that much with gargoyles, either. (I doubt that relations between gargoyles and humans in Scotland prior to 971 could ever have been especially healthy on the whole, however, or the general anti-gargoyle massacres between 971 and 1057 would have been unlikely to take place. Of course, Demona's general career of brigandage between 994 and 1040 probably worsened the situation - we know that it definitely led to the first Hunter. But even then, there must have been a fair amount of anti-gargoyle prejudice in the human population of Scotland on the whole for it to take root in.)
Todd Jensen - [merlyn1@mindspring.com]
St. Louis, MO
Monday, January 6, 2003 08:16:16 AM
IP: 65.57.58.89

Top... um... Well, top something!
Fire Storm
Monday, January 6, 2003 05:45:46 AM
IP: 66.72.184.69

7TH!!!!!

Vault Keeper> last week i posted this:
Vault Keeper> there was (according to greg) an Irish Clan at one time. and CuChullin was possibly in contact with them. the original Hound of Ulster was a member of this clan. (see The Hound of Ulster)
Airwalker also answered your question (see the last post of last week)

later
matt
Monday, January 6, 2003 05:41:43 AM
IP: 207.230.48.32

Hi again I still need to know if there were or are Irish Gargoyles?,

Also I'm currently researching Scottish history and royal family Stuart,

Let's just say for now I'm working on a new project,
Vault Keeper - [vaultkeeper@dupuis.shawbiz.ca]
Victoria, BC, Canada
Monday, January 6, 2003 02:21:24 AM
IP: 24.64.223.203

****As if carried on a wind, Blaise's voice echoes through the Comment Room.**** Oh, and one more thing I forgot....

FIFTH!!!

****Wild laughter fills the Comment Room, until it gradually fades away.****
Blaise
Monday, January 6, 2003 01:05:20 AM
IP: 209.179.233.106

****Blaise suddenly appears, floating over the table in a cross-legged position. A few cookies fly up to his waiting hand and he begins munching on them.**** First thing's first....

A HAPPY BELATED NEW YEAR TO ALL!!

Well, I'm back from holidays. Spent quality time with my family (except my father, who's on active duty in Singapore--but I'll try to visit him in June). Got some great gifts (among them the "Slayers TRY" collection, "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" special edition, and some extra money with which I bought "Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem" for the GameCube (now if I only HAD a GameCube...).
It wasn't all peachy though--on New Year's Eve my poor car got hit (I bought it in March and then got in an accident in May, a few months later my car got towed, then I lost the front two hubcaps on my trip to my family, and finally, at the end of the year...). It got backed into by the brain surgeon living across the street from where I was staying. The silver lining here is that since my car was parked--legally...with me several yards from it...sleeping--I am not at fault. It'll be a while before I can open the driver-side door, though.

JIMMY> Yeowch! I can't say I've had it as bad as you. Here's hoping you can get this cleared up soon and with as little damage to your wallet as possible.

TABRON, VAULT KEEPER> Welcome! (A little late, but hey--better than never).

TWO TOWERS> Saw it and liked it, though I couldn't help but glance askance at some of the...larger alterations. I can definitely say that I'll be looking for the Extended Version of this one (saw the EV for "Fellowship..." and was quite pleased overall, though I did miss some of Frodo and Gandalf's dialogue at the beginning).

That's about all I have to say right now. I'm not entirely looking forward to going back to work tomorrow (it would be a different story if it was acting work, but at least I can pay the bills). At least tonight I can actually sleep on a mattress in my apartment (the floor is not a terribly comfortable place to sleep). I'll check back when the dam of words in me bursts again. Until then, farewell. ****Blaise wraps his cloak about himself and bursts into flame. The fire-ball instantly goes out, but not before lighting the candles on the table.****
Blaise
Monday, January 6, 2003 01:03:23 AM
IP: 209.179.233.106

4th!!
DPH
AR, USA
Monday, January 6, 2003 12:23:52 AM
IP: 204.94.193.81

Third in the name of the Fay!

Mooncat
:D
Mooncat
Monday, January 6, 2003 12:22:07 AM
IP: 68.102.23.36

2nd or 3rd
Leo
Monday, January 6, 2003 12:09:29 AM
IP: 68.96.8.12

First For 2003! Woos

um...why do we do this countdown thing again?
Wingless - [canclan@rogers.com]
Monday, January 6, 2003 12:01:10 AM
IP: 24.43.42.78