A Station Eight Fan Web Site
Rewatched "Enter Macbeth" today.
I can't help womdering what must be going through Hudson's head as he watches a Donald Duck cartoon, thoughtfully stroking his beard. The spectacle of a duck grown to human size, wearing clothes and speaking (kind of) could be an even bigger argument for not believing everything you see on television than the revelation of the Pack's true nature.
U remember in your ramble on "Enter Macbeth", your daughter spotted what looked like the Mona Lisa in Macbeth's mansion. This time around, I noticed a portrait of a man apparently in 18th century attire, who reminded me of portraits I'd seen of Bonnie Prince Charlie.
The doors to Macbeth get it both coming and going; they first get broken down when Bronx escapes, and when he returns with Goliath, they demolish a second pair of doors. (Of course, it becomes academic after the whole mansion gets burned down.)
Lexington talks about getting the clock working again; I wonder if he ever succeeded before the Canmores blew the place up.
1. Donald is a mystery to us all... ;)
2. I think Macbeth owned a lot of expensive art.
3. Yeah, so much destruction.
4. He never did.
I also rewatched "The Thrill of the Hunt" and "Temptation" today. Things I noted this time in "The Thrill of the Hunt".
1. Lexington, angered about the Pack's treachery, cries that they're like animals. I thought that appropriate, given the Pack's "animal names".
2. The Pack continue the "referring to the gargoyles as beasts" practice from "Awakening" and even speak of hunting them, such as Wolf's cry "Let the hunt begin!" - the talk about hunting them also made me think of the Hunters (though they wouldn't be introduced until Season Two, of course).
3. When Brooklyn and Broadway arrive at the end to tell Goliath and Lexington how they'd seen a report on the news about Fox and Wolf's arrest, they come gliding in from outside the castle - so apparently they weren't watching television with Hudson when they found out, but somewhere else. (I won't ask where, but this detail struck me for the first time.)
4. Dingo's cry of "Stone me!" upon seeing the photographs of Goliath felt like a particularly appropriate response to a gargoyle.
2. Common themes running through the series, I think.
3. Or they were watching t.v. earlier.
Am I missing anyone or adding someone incorrectly? So far Sevarius has the DNA of the following?
Goliath, Brooklyn, Angela, Broadway, Bronx, Lexington, Eliza, Hudson, Yama, Robyn Canmore, Dingo, Talon, Maggie, Fang, Claw, Wolf, Demona, Nessie, Deiliah (Mix)?
It's been a while since I saw the episodes. I guess he has Delilah, but then if you're including her, he'd also have Thailog, Burbank, Hollywood, Brentwood and Malibu. I guess he probably has Maggie, Fang, Claw and Wolf. But then I imagine he has Erin, Benny, Thug and Tasha, too.
Hello Mr. Greg! I would like to start of by saying that you are very admirable in your dedication not only to previous works but also to fans, as seen in keeping up this page. You're an amazing storyteller and as an author, I admire you greatly.
My question actually pertains to your series Gargoyles, which I have been bingeing non-stop recently. I saw in another ask that some gargoyles use weapons while others don't(ie Hudson). If you had to give each member of the Wyvern Clan weapons, what would they be and why?
Hudson does. He uses a sword.
Brooklyn, after his timedance, uses multiple weapons. (See Clan-Building, Volume Two.)
Lexington has been known to use what's handy.
The others largely don't.
Big fan of your work. Not really a question, but I felt the need to clarify after seeing your response to another question regarding queer-baiting.
In your response, you (respectfully) provide some push-back against the concept, while expressing a willingness to learn more. I had a few quick responses to your comments I wanted to share.
You talk about some of the examples given in the Wikipedia entry for queer-baiting to be unfair, citing Sherlock Holmes and John Watson as an example. To be clear, in both the Wikipedia article and in popular usage of this example, people refer to Holmes and Watson as they are depicted in the BBC series, "Sherlock", and not (necessarily) in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's original stories or other adaptations.
Queer-baiting refers to creators of media actively misleading a fan-base with hints or indications of "queerness" without any intent of follow-through. NOT -- as you indicated in your prior comment -- a fan-base misinterpreting close same-sex friendships and sexual. "Sherlock" (the BBC series) is a famous example of queer-baiting, as the series very often hints at homoerotic attraction between the two leads in the series' writing, the performances of the lead actors, and in the ways that other characters in series refer to their relationship. I won't go into specific details and examples from the series, but if you are interested in examples there are scores of them documented and easily locateable on the internet.
The key aspect of queer-baiting is the attempt to take advantage of queer fans by providing the bare minimum of queer(ish) interactions, without ever following through for fear of alienating a non-queer audience. This is very different from both presenting close same-sex friendships without any romantic or sexual relationship developing between the two characters, and the presentation of queer characters without the ability to actively show examples of their queerness due to external factors, such as network interference (such as Lexington in "Gargoyles" or Korra in "The Legend of Korra"). These are non-malicious and do not seek to mislead a queer audience.
To be clear, I don't think you have been guilty of queer-baiting in any of your work. I simply wanted to clarify the concept a bit more so that you can hopefully understand where the concern of the initial comment came from. Looking forward to "Young Justice" season three!
I get the concern. I do.
And my response probably shows my (relative) queer blindness. I've seen every episode of "Sherlock," and never noticed any significant difference between how John and Sherlock are depicted here than in other versions.
I don't want to be defensive; I want to be open. But as you indicated, I've never intentionally queer-baited. Lex was gay to the extent allowed at the time (which was not at all). Some fans read a homo-erotic charge into the Dick/Wally relationship and the Bart/Jaime relationship, but that was never our intention - and I sincerely don't think we were trying to fool anyone. (Though one of those four characters is gay, in our minds, at least. But not in the minds of TPTB, even though TPTB did allow us to be objective about other characters on the show, starting with Season Three.)
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.
A few things I've been wondering
1)Is Matt considered part of the Manhattan Clan or just a friend?
2)We know Broadway loves old detective movies but what film genres do you think the other members of the clan enjoy most?
3)Do any of the other Gargoyle clans enjoy aspects of human culture like music, books, comics, film or television?
1. An ally.
2. Brooklyn likes swashbucklers. Lex likes SciFi. Hudson likes Celebrity Hockey. Bronx likes anything that's muted.
Topic: Gargoyle Biology
Question 1: Given the Gargoyles' wings are like bat or bird wings, nor noticeably have a smaller pair of hands, could there possibly have been a Gargate species that existed with two sets of arms, instead of a pair of arms and a pair of wings?
Question 2: Given the immense diversity between Gargoyle appearances, including the Loch Ness clan being semi-amphibious, do Gargoyles have a high genetic mutation rate or a special genetic adaptivity depending on the environment?
1. Well, I suppose. Interestingly, an older design for Lexington gave him two sets of true arms, including two sets of hands, with his wings largely unchanged, i.e. that middle set of arms that you can see in the center of his wings were still there, but they were more firmly developed and had actual hands at the end.
2. Maybe? I'd have to consult with some of our fan-biologists on the possibility. But keep in mind, Gargates are a VERY old species. They've had tons of time to evolve. Way longer than humans have had. The miracle is that they have maintained as much cultural, um, "integrity," as they have.
I've recently rewatched Awakening, and the scene where Goliath tells Demona that she can't kill an enemy unless it is "in the heat of battle" sparked a question in me: as of Phoenix, which members of the Manhattan Clan have actually killed someone?
Most have, in battle, in the tenth century. Angela hasn't. Egwardo hasn't. Nashville hasn't. Maybe Lex & Broadway haven't. But that seems unlikely/unrealistic.
Oh, and if you're counting her, Elisa hasn't.
Hey! Young Justice is my life. As of the time I'm sending this, Pride Month is almost over. I read over lots of the asks and replies you get on here and a fair amount are about something LGBT related, whether its about something thats akin to Fanfiction or borderline homophobic. I'm sure you might have come to dread those types of questions, but mines is a bit different.
I don't want you to think that I'm requesting this, i guess at the end of the day i am, but i mean so in the most respectful way possible. Please... If there's ever a time when you might include LGBT content or anything like it in YJ, please don't let it be queerbaiting. Its such a horrible thing to do to us. I don't think I'd be able to handle it from my favorite show. I don't think you'd ever let that happen, and i don't even think we'd get LGBT relationships in the show, but i just had to say it. For myself, just in case.
I had to look up queerbaiting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queerbaiting
Some of the examples given on the wikipedia page seem unfair to me. (Though I'm happy to grant that as a straight male, I'm coming at this from a very different point of view.) For example, calling Holmes and Watson queerbaiting actually seems outrageous to me. Creators need to be able to present two male or two female best friends in a close but non-sexual relationship without being accused of trying to "bait" anyone.
I'm not going to address anything related to YJ, since that would involve spoilers, but I will bring up some Gargoyles stuff, as an example.
In our minds, Lexington is gay. But in those mid-nineties days when the series was originally on the air, there was absolutely no way Disney would let us objectively show this. Nevertheless, we strove to write the character to be consistent with his orientation. We thought we were doing the best possible alternative. So were we queerbaiting? And what would the alternative have been? Not depicting any LGBTQ characters at all?
I, personally, don't have the clout to make (successful) ultimatums to my employers. I could, of course, have insisted on being allowed to show Lexington kiss a guy. But if I had insisted that it's the kiss or I walk, Disney would have shrugged and waved goodbye to me. And my replacement would likely - if only to reassure his or her bosses - have made Lex objectively STRAIGHT. Is that better for anyone?
This kind of thing is simply a reality of the industry. It is getting better. There are plenty of series we can point to that demonstrate that. And I like to think I'm trying to help make things better still. But I'm going to - for my own mental health - reject the notion of queerbaiting almost entirely.
Maybe I'm not yet 'woke' enough. That's certainly possible. But I'm going to consistently push to depict what I can, to suggest what I cannot and to not for one second shy away from depicting two same sex characters having a close but platonic relationship, because (for example) one or both might be heterosexual. Because I write characters. I don't write agendas-masquerading-as-characters. I have agendas, but I don't write characters who are nothing but. I try to keep my characters consistent and true to themselves. But I'm not baiting anyone. And I'm certainly not trying to trick anyone with this sort of thing. Quite the reverse. I'm simply trying to do the best I can under occasionally hostile conditions.
Sorry if that's disappointing. But it's the best 2018 Greg Weisman can give you.