Greg Bishansky writes...

This is more a ramble reply to Alex Garg's post, but I definitely think this is a fascinating subject, and could make a great Ask Greg discussion.

Honestly, at this point, I don't think anyone in the Manhattan Clan cares much about any of the clones. Any of them. What was the first thing said when Thailog appeared to perish and the clones had no where to go? "We can't just bring them back to the Clock Tower can we? I mean, they kind of give me the creeps."

Right there, the Manhattan Clan wanted nothing to do with them. Wanted to pretend they didn't exist. Let Talon take them to live in a sewer. Out of sight, out of mind. Not that the reaction is not understandable, it is. I think we'd all be uncomfortable around clones of ourselves made against our will and knowledge. It's a fundamental violation of our individuality.

Did any of the Manhattan Clan go down to see them between "The Reckoning" and "Invitation Only"? I'd be very surprised if the answer is yes. The one time they do go down, they want something. Goliath is following Elisa's request to attempt to date Delilah. Brooklyn... just wants to make a play for the only available female he's aware of. They were down there both for selfish reasons.

So, yeah, all of their talk about free will probably was less for the clones' sake, and more towards the Manhattan Clan's hatred for Thailog. They hate Thailog, so naturally they don't want the clones to be helping him. At this point, do they have any other reason to care?

Lexington's only real concern when Brentwood chooses Thailog is how it makes him [Lexington] look. Not concern for Brentwood's safety, or eventually having to face him as an enemy. Lex thinks it makes *him* look bad.

I know this is a pretty serious indictment of the Manhattan Clan. I love them, they are heroes, there's a lot to admire in each and every one of them. But, they're not saints. Which is fine, they're more interesting this way... if I wanted a group of pure goodie goods, I'd read a Silver Age Justice League of America comic book.

Alex Garg writes...

This is something that had I wanted to bring up in the Culture/Biology panel at the Gathering, but we ran out of time. Besides, it feels a little better to be able to ask this question now that "Bash" has broad exposure (although it's still new enough to constitute a SPOILER warning).

Gargoyles and Free Will.

A theme of Gargoyles since the introduction of the clones has been just how much control they have over making their own decisions, particularly given that they were programmed to obey Thailog. This comes to a head in "Masque" and "Bash," where the clones are bombarded with the "Free Will" message to the point where they can finally make their choices, but what's most curious to me is the pressure that they receive from the Manhattan Clan.

It doesn't surprise me that Maggie would bring it up in "Masque" - she was born and raised in a democratic society, so the idea that people have free will and the right to self-determination is ingrained in her psyche - but for Goliath and Lexington, and Angela to a lesser extent, to make the case for it in "Bash" was more surprising.

Goliath and Lexington both come from an era where there was no broadly applied concept of a person's right to self-determination. On the human side was the reign of the Catholic Church (and I'm writing very generally now) which in terms of ethics framed the argument for free will in such a way that while humans have the *capacity* to choose between different courses of action, our *obligation* is to obey God's commands; the fact that they did not was why we were expelled from the Garden of Eden. Therefore, under those circumstances, we don't really have a choice - God's infinite wisdom overrides our mortal judgments. That dogma then went on to inform the monarchies of the day, Scotland not excepting, where kings ruled by Divine Mandate. The idea that a king could be overthrown for unjust rule wasn't introduced until St. Thomas Aquinas, an act which prior to him (and even well after) would have been viewed as taking up arms against the will of God; and even then it was the laws of the Church which would be the standard by which a king would be considered ruling in an unjust manner, not the opinions of his subjects.

The gargoyles' "government" also has no apparent nod to free will or self-determination. Goliath became the leader because Hudson said so, Brooklyn became second-in-command because Goliath said so, and in each case the other gargoyles appear to acquiesce unconditionally to these decisions. Even in mating, you mentioned in the panel that gargoyles aren't necessarily choosing mates as much as they are naturally drawn to one another - even in human rituals it's a subject of debate over just how much "choice" we have in when and with whom we fall in love.

While you've said that gargoyles are free to pursue their own hobbies and curiosities, it doesn't strike me that alone is enough to constitute an understanding of free will in the sense of making determinations about leadership in the way that the clones were being pressured to choose between the Labyrinth and Thailog.

So from what we saw in "Bash," where Lexington demands to know why the clones are choosing to help Thailog, and where Goliath says that "choice must extend to those who choose unwisely" - which is a very different concept than a basic, arbitrary choice between right and wrong - I have to ask: Where have Goliath and Lexington gotten the understanding to ask those questions?

Angela also presents an interesting case, because while she was raised by humans, she was raised by humans for whom it can't be assumed would have had the same understanding of free will as you and I do having grown up in a democratic society as it applies to personal choice, much less in making decisions of leadership. So is her command to Delilah founded more on her hatred of Thailog, or is she also making a case for free will; and if the latter, what informs that for her?

Touching on the same vein: Since 1996 would be the first U.S. election year that the gargoyles have really been exposed to - it seems to me that in 1994 the Manhattan clan was more curious about their new physical surroundings than cultural; and it was a midterm election anyway with much less media hype than a presidential cycle - what do the gargoyles of the Manhattan clan make of democracy, given their less than democratic heritage?

Bazell writes...

"Gargoyles protect." It's fairly straight-forward, but how did this cultural tradition begin? As the credo exists throughout the world, it was obviously some instance that happened very early in the evolutionary history of the Gargate species. Was it a pact made by the original gargoyle clan with a single human or community? Is it a biological urge (doubtful though, i.e. Demona, Thailog)? Or is it a tradition orally passed from generation to generation from the earliest of times by a single, extremely noble gargoyle/clan?

Bazell writes...

I've noticed since first watching the show that most gargoyles do not use weapons. Demona does (which is understandable since she has witnessed- and perhaps taken part in- the development modern technology), as does Thailog (also understandable since he is the polar opposite to Goliath and uber-evil). However, Hudson is the only "old school," shall we say, gargoyle who consistently carries a weapon. What is the history between Hudson and this blade? Is it unusal that he carries it, or have we just not seen enough gargoyles to see others who choose to utilize weapons?

Derek writes...

Will we ever see the biological parents of Demona, Goliath, Lexington or Brooklyn in the comics in Flashbacks?

Bazell writes...

Do Gargoyles have there own unique appreciation for artistic asthetics? I have noticed that the Manhatten clan has developed a true appreciation for human literature (like SHakespeare), but do they have there own asthetic disposition for other art forms such as music or painting?
I'm sure that, just like with literature, they've learned to enjoy the human endeavors in art. Also, I'm sure that each individual has his or her own opinions when it comes to what they enjoy, just like everyone else, but have the Gargoyles ever (or will they ever) developed an artistic culture of their own? Or do they, in general, have a unique opinion as to what constitutes art? For example, I could imagine that battle styles could be a sort of art form within clans.

dph writes...

1.Before humans made contact with gargoyles, did gargoyles have a unique (non-written)language unto themselves?

2.Before gargoyles made contact with humans, did gargoyles have a unique written language unto themselves?

Personperson123 writes...

What do gargoyles eat?And would they kill or hurt humans?

Purplegoldfish writes...

Do gargoyles generally hold mating ceremonies, or do they more or less elope? In "Vows," Goliath and Demona facilitated their own union-would there have been a more official ceremony later attended by the clan?

Adam writes...

Hi Greg. It's great to see Gargoyles back. Anyway, I have a question about when the Wyvern Clan split between 988 and 994. What I would like to know is why didn't the departing Gargoyles take any of the eggs with them? The new clan would have missed out on an entire generation of the clan. Or did they do something like take more of Bronx's generation(978) with them? I guess that would make sense. Thanks.