A Station Eight Fan Web Site
Ask Greg Archives
Gargoyle Customs
Archive Index
: « First : « 100 : « 10 : Displaying #116 - #125 of 294 records. : 10 » : 100 » : Last » :
Posts Per Page: 1 : 10 : 25 : 50 : 100 : All :
Ruth Lang writes...
OK, this page is a great idea, and I'm glad I finally found it.
I've been trying to work out how GOliath's loincloth is tied. All the others (except Hudson,who has trousers) have their loincloths just over front & back, nothing going underneath to keep things secure. ANd I just can't make a single piece of cloth fold around the way Goliath's seems to be. I'm sure it has be only one piece, because that's the way Scots did most of their clothes.
I'm going to have to spend a lot more time on this place and see if anyone else has come up with my theory on gargoyle sex etc, based largely on what they wear, or rather how. ANd figure out who all those characters are in the age list, I've seen all the episodes now but half of them I can't recall hearing of. What Othello & whatshername in Legion? COldstone's mate doesn't have a name, they're characters in something of Shakespeare.
Greg responds...
There is, of course, a part of the loincloth that goes "underneath". Trust me, Goliath et al are not just out there blowing in the wind. It is still one piece, it just folds over the belt with space cut out for the tail in back.
Othello is the name we use to refer to Coldstone before he became Coldstone. The actual character doesn't have a name. It's just a reference.
Desdemona is the name we use to refer to Coldfire before she became Coldfire. The actual character doesn't have a name. It's just a reference, though we did use the Desdemona name in the credits for actress C.C.H. Pounder.
Iago is the name we use to refer to Coldsteel before he became Coldsteel. The actual character doesn't have a name. It's just a reference, though we did use the Iago name in the credits for actor Xander Berkeley.
Starrynight writes...
Hello Mr. Weisman,
I am writing in relation to a thought I had about Gargoyle culture and society after taking a Anthropolgy class this summer. The earliest human civilzations such as the Maya and the Egyptians built large buildings and monuments out of stone.
1. Did gargoyles ever built any kind of stone buildings or sheltors besides their rookeries by excavating caves?
2.If gargoyles did in some form hue stone to make a monument. Would it have possibly have been for there unique god which you have alluded to before?
2. Early weapon making among humans began with one of man's earlies ancestors Australopithecus. Like chimpanzes today they used tools to get food. They used stones to break open roots. The techinques of more advanced tools like arrow heads and flint knives did not begin until the next human ancestor arrived called Homo erectus. Did gargoyles ever develope any kind of weapon making or use of objects such as rocks to better inable themselves with technology in order to survive in harsh enviornmental conditions?
Greg responds...
1. Rarely. They required less protection from the elements, which is one of the major motivators to inventing "shelter".
2. No. There animistic/monotheistic faith required no monuments, as the gods/God was everywhere in everything.
Second 2. Again, generally not necessary. Gargoyles were, until humans invented tools, at the top of the food chain.
matt and others in the Comment Room writes...
we were wondering if a gargoyles urge to protect is a natural urge or something they are taught by older generations to do, or a combination of both?
Greg responds...
I'd guess both.
Jacob writes...
Hi Greg,
did Gargoyles ever play music or are they uninterested in it?
Greg responds...
Sure.
Siren writes...
I was wondering with Gargoyles' names. Now, according to the show to date, in 994 A.D., it was still the habit, at least of the Wyvern Clan, not to name gargoyles. Save Goliath. And even after then, to my knowledge, Demona's small clan of gargoyles did not have names.
Come present day, the Manhattan Clan all adopt names, even more traditionalists like Hudson. When the Avalon Tour came around, we come to find all the clans give names to the gaargoyles. (Of course, the Avalon Clan has names because they were raised by humans.) So through the centuries, has all the gargoyles changed their minds about naming eachother? Did the gargoyles name themselves or do the humans normally name them?
Greg responds...
Naming is, as I believe I've said before, addictive.
Once the custom is introduced it takes hold rather firmly. I honestly haven't decided for sure whether all of the existing clans use names, but most do.
Sometimes these names come from humans. Sometimes they evolve within gargoyle communitities over time.
I feel that in Guatemala, only four gargoyles traditionally had names, i.e. the four gargs who wore the pendants: Zafiro, Turquesa, Jade and Obsidiana (though at other points in history they might have been Zafira, Turqueso, Jada and Obsidiano). But now that all but those four are dead, now that all the surviving Mayan gargs have names, it will be interesting to see whether or not the hatchlings that hatched there in 1998 were given names or not.
matt writes...
in "The Price" after Hudson's statue was destroyed was the Clan in effect beginning to perform the Wind Ceremony on Hudson when they were standing around talking about him?
also, in the credits of that episode there was a mention of parts of the episode being inspired by material in the comic books (presumably the Gargoyles comic books) any idea what thats about? i have a few of the comic books and i have no idea what the credits are referring to...
Greg responds...
No. They were just trying to get their heads around his death. The Wind Ceremony would have come later.
The story was inspired by an idea by Lee Nordling in a Gargoyles story he did in an issue of Disney Adventures Magazine. It was his idea (though he used Goliath, not Hudson) to have Xanatos replace a sleeping gargoyle with a stone statue to fool the rest of the clan.
That was the only thing from his story that we used, and I've never even met Lee, but it was a great idea.
Vanity writes...
Gargoyle customs-
It has been well established and I would think we all are well aquainted with the notion that Gargoyles didn't use names. Not for themselves as humans did and that the eventual use of names was influence and need of conformity from/by humans.
However you have said that gargoyles kept their myth, history and traditions alive by oral revelation from one generation to the next.
How where they able to tell sagas of things great leaders had done if they had no name of which to tell? (Try to tell your children about Napolean and all the things he did and all the people in his life without using his name)
It would be all too generic and vague for any real value. Did gargoyles never realy have great leaders? Did they consider the clan as a whole more important than the decision making of the leader?
Thanks
and further note-my post on the guitar tab--well the on the outro the difference in the type size from the field box to the post page made it look wrong. so here is the outro again.
E-6--6--6--6---6--6---6-------1---6---6---6]
B------------4------1---1---1-------]----CONTINUE
G
D
A
E
E--6h5h6h8---9h11h13h12---13h14---14h17---18
B
G
D
A
E
Greg responds...
History to the gargoyles is more about the clan, about movements, than about individuals. But descriptive terms can be used to identify individuals. (Cf. Homer's Illiad.) I'm forgetting the technical term just at this moment -- where's Aris when you really need him -- but if you've got a guy named Ajax of the Broad Shoulders, for example, then do you really need the "Ajax" part of the name.
The point of NOT naming, as Hudson would say is to NOT set limits on who or what an individual is. So he might be "Of the Broad Shoulders" one minute and also be "Of the Massive Temper" the next. Both would be true, but reflect an aspect of the individual, as opposed to making an attempt to wrap the entire individual up into one word: Ajax. Over time these epithets would become as familiar as a name for an historical figure -- particularly in the context of a tale told over and over again.
Vanity writes...
Questions regarding gargoyle sex and sexuality.
1) Do gargoyles reckognize their own sexiness, do they reckongnize that they may or maynot be sexier than another gargoyle?
2) Do gargoyles just instinctively know (or practice) sex or are they taught in some manner?
3) What is/are the function(s) of the female gargoyles' breasts? (Milk, motor oil, chiefly sexual)
4) Do tails play a role in sexual activity? If so how?
5) Do gargoyles practive pre mate-bonded sex, or generally stay virgin up to chosing a mate?
6) Oral sex?
7) Is rape a problem for gargoyles? Either by eachother or by humans whilst they are young.
8) Which would you consider more sexually active male gargoyles or female?
9) Goliath told Elisa that when she was human he hadn't realized how pretty she was. What physical traits in humans can potentially attract the eye of :
A- A male gargoyle to a human female?**
B- A female gargoyle to a human male?**
**no need for great specificity here, merely general qualities that may be attractive to a gargoyle
10) Do they suffer STD's?
note: I am not trying to be cute, I consider these serious questions, I however realise that question (4) is somewhat well...wrong, but I believe in its legitimacy.
Greg responds...
1. Huh? I think self-esteem/ego/etc. issues aren't much different for gargs than humans.
2. I'd lean more toward instinct, but I'm sure there is some discussion.
3. Milk. Garg females breastfeed the hatchlings.
4. Use your imagination.
5. Generally they mate for life.
6. Are you offering?
7. Without getting into rape specifically, I think the series has made an effort to show that no species corners the market on either good or evil.
8. Equal.
9. Likely the qualities they have in common, I suppose. Elisa's hair for example, I think, is very attractive to Goliath. Her lack of wings, tail and horns of any kind is probably not so attractive until (a) his eyes are opened during "The Mirror" and (b) he comes to terms with the strong attraction he has for her soul. I would think that for a gargoyle female, there wouldn't be that much in human males to find attractive. But that might just be my bias showing.
10. Not likely, as they heal every day, no illness really has the opportunity to take hold.
I get that you're serious. I tried to answer as seriously as I could and stay in the ASK GREG realm of PG. If you're attending the Gathering this year, Thom Adcox and I will be hosting a late night "Blue" Mug-A-Guest, i.e. an opportunity to ask us adult questions about the series. Over 18 only please.
Vanity writes...
When early man first met a Gargoyle was he just compelled to kill it? Did early man's superstitious and early proto-religous notions convince him that gargoyles must be evil? I would think that early man would be scared of the much more physically dominant gargoyles, however; mammoths proved no match for early humans. Of course I'm also curious as to gargoyles' reaction/response when early man first starting walking about.
Which specie of man first encountered gargoyle (Homo neanderthalis, Homo erectus, Homo sapien..ect..)?
Archeologists have definately found early man developing weapons crafted of wood and stone and bone. This would help offset the physical inequality between man and goyle. When did gargoyles borrow or invent tool making for themselves. Being 'rational' beings I would think it wouldn't take long for them to realize that the spears humans threw at them really hurt!!
I hate to ask a billion questions like this but....
You have said that gargoyle evolution predates mammalian evolution so Gargoyle evolved before man. So given the seemingly headstart in evolution how could they just let man rule the world.
Why does it seem that given the rough lives of gargoyles, which they had no better that early man; did they not invest themselves in art, music, and architecture. When even some of the earliest men developed tools, made art, evidence of instruments presumed by archeologists as perhaps made for music. They began religous elements as burying the dead and trying to preserve the elderly. (Evidence of this espicially advanced in Homo neanderthalis, of which old men have been found with multiple injuries{perhaps gargoyle induced} indicating his being taken care of by the neanderthal family even at the high risk way of life that the neanderthal lead). What accounts for early man's eagerness to "learn-adapt-evolve" where gargoyles seemed content just to use or mimik man's achievements?
Greg responds...
1. Not necessarily. I don't think early man could kill a gargoyle. That took practice.
2. I think fear -- not necessarily superstition, but old-fashioned, this thing is bigger and stronger than I am fear -- would have been there.
3. And Mammoths were something of a match for man, certainly they were dangerous prey. And they weren't nearly as intelligent as a gargoyle.
4. Since, my theory is that Gargoyles pre-date modern man, the answer is, all of them, I believe.
5. I don't have dates for this, but I'm not sure that gargoyles ever truly adopted the spear. Yes, it hurt. But they had better defenses (and offensive strategies) given their physical natures than to adopt spears.
6. Note - I don' mind a billion questions. Just wish you'd NUMBER them, for easier reference. (EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION!)
7. Well, they didn't just let men rule the world. They were largely asleep when man began to take over. Gargs tended to trump everything that came before, including man. But a man with tools, ultimately trumped the Gargs.
8. Who said they didn't? Who's to say that some of those artifacts you speak of weren't gargoylean. And were just attributed to man by human archaeologists who know no better.
9. No, not burying the dead, because gargs have their own tradition, the Wind Ceremony, ashes to ashes or dust to dust.
10. Again, you're assuming facts not in evidence. The fact that they didn't use clothes or weapons or have sophisticated shelters, none of which they physically required, is hardly proof that all they did was use or mimic man's achievements. The first time you meet the gargoyles, in 994, the species is, sadly, already in decline. What you know doesn't speak to what there was or might have been once upon a time.
Justin writes...
Greg,
I have questions about "full" clans.
1) Now a full clan in definition is a group with common family ties in some form. So would clans ever reach a setup where not every gargoyle knows the gargoyle? I.E a clan with say 500,000 members?
2) Will the Manhattan clan ever exceed a population of a 1 million? or more?
3) If three is yes than will some eventually move into the city and leave the castle?
thanks
Greg responds...
1. Not likely. Clans tend to split after their membership gets up into the range of about eighty.
2. Again, not likely.
3. You know I've only planned as far as the early 23rd Century. The numbers of living gargoyles worldwide don't approach what you're asking about. So I can't answer what would happen if or even whether we'd ever get up to numbers that high.
: « First : « 100 : « 10 : Displaying #116 - #125 of 294 records. : 10 » : 100 » : Last » :