Tanya writes...

As answered in a previous question, Gargoyle females (can) bare eggs at 'biological ages 25, 35, and 45'. What about the males; what's the age limit for their potency? Also, does age difference play a great role in choosing a mate or is it mostly love and good genes? Finally, how common is it to take a new mate after a previous mate has passed away?

Anonymous writes...

*I hope this doesn't sound like story suggesting*

Was Nashville concived before or after Katana and Brooklyn's mating ceremony?

Matthew writes...

We know that there is faerie magic and mortal magic. Mortal magic seems mostly to be used by humans. Is it less common for gargoyles to study magic than humans? If so why?

Broadway's Angel(a) writes...

You said in your FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) archives that Broadway and Angela would probably raise their children the gargoyle way, "children of the clan, not individuals," by not favoring biological children over the rest of the clan's children, but does that mean they won't identify their own biological children. I believe that if they didn't recognize their biological children, they wouldn't have been so particular about the naming of their own children (Artus, Gwenyvere, and Lancelot) after Arthurian characters in reference to Broadway and Angela's connections to Arthur, Broadway being inspired to read from hearing about the Scrolls of Merlin and Angela living on Avalon where Arthur slept. So, do Angela and Broadway recognize their biological children but attempt to parent all clan children instead of favoring their biological children, or is the naming of all their children after Arthurian characters coincidence?

Jarrod writes...

Hi Again Greg!

In Gargoyle Society, You have stated that Clans would use Banishment as a form of Punishment. You have stated that Iago was Banished before the Massacre, but then came back to the clan, and I believe you have mentioned that it was because he set Othello against Goliath over Desdemona. Did Gargoyles who were banished, and without a clan have a lower chance of survival than those in a clan? Would clans let other nearby clans know about those who were banished so that they would not assist them during their Banishment. (Of course this would only apply if there were nearby clans.) Would Temporarily Banished Gargoyles always return to the Clan at the end of their sentence? Or would the majority stay away and find a new Clan, Home, or Protectorate? What sort of things would constitute a Banishable Offense?

Thanks for Reading, Writing, and Answering!

tyler writes...

how do gargoyles decide the clan leader? and y is the leaders mate usally second in command? ( by this i mean clans like avalon or ones without current leaders to chose)

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?