Allan Ecker writes...

This isn't a journal, I guess. It's just a shout-out. It isn't a journal because I didn't get to the Con, but if it had been anywhere within, oh, a 500-mile radius of me, I would have been there, so I feel justified in at least writing that I would have been there. (Heck, if I weren't moving around so much due to internships and such, I'd have gone anyway.)

I just need to give applause to Gargoyles. It was beautiful, cool, and fun, truly a jem of animation. The Shakespearian references layered over deep characterization and even deeper character -development- truly light my heart afire. I'm aching for this DVD. I can garantee that, unless all the copies are snapped up in, say, the first week of them hitting the market (which I honestly hope for, since that will likely mean more would be on the way), I will get it. I have two other friends who will do the same, -almost- as much to show support for the incredible talent (and any applicable forces of managerial mojo) involved in producing Gargoyles as to have DVD-quality sound and picture as opposed to our moldering, commercial-break-laiden, misordered VHS's.

Gargoyles, is, in my humble opinion, the single best animated series American animation has to offer. Gargoyles is better than the sublime Batman animated series and the inspiring X-Men Evolution, both of which have been released on DVD already. It has also done what I previously considered the impossible in unseating Tale Spin from the pinnacle of my Disney Pantheon of Good Shows.

Gargoyles didn't find me until long after it had stopped airing. In fact, you might say I walked in just in time to see this pivotal moment in its growth. I just wanted you to know, Greg, that I will be voting with my wallet (possilby twice) to get Gargoyles the recognition it deserves.

To Greg, and to all who gave Xantos, Goliath, Brooklyn (and of course, PUCK!) life, thank you.

PS, an actual question:

Just how "voluntary" is stone sleep? You mentioned in a recent (well, two years ago by now) response that sunlight was "a powerful psychological cue". Could a gargoyle fight off stone sleep for as long as (or longer than) thirty seconds? Would this have any short- or long-term side effects?

Also, sometimes gargoyles roar after waking, others not. I take this to mean that it is semi-voluntary, like yawning and/or stretching. Is it more or less voluntary than yawning? Will some circumstances make a gargoyle less or more likely to roar upon waking?

Jasmine writes...

Why do gargoyles lay egg's? They have
hair so they are mammals?

Tom E writes...

If a Gargoyle had something happen to him when he was stone during the day, like say someone shot at him and the bullet got lodged in there, or a spear went through a wing and was left that way, would it still be stuck that way when night came?

Audra writes...

Hey Greg. Earlier tonight, when I was in the car with my mom and sister, and my sister was saying how one of her friends moved to Alaska. She said how weird that would be, because in Alaska, half the year it would be dark, and the other half, there would light. If gargoyles lived in Alaska, would they sleep for 6 months, then be awake for the other 6 months? That seems kind of weird to me. Like for the 6 months they would be awake, wouldn't they be tired? I mean because of being awake for so long with no sleep. Would they sleep every once in a while like humans do? I know this is kind of a silly question, but that kind of interests me! What do you think Greg?

Zel writes...

If a gargoyle's finger breaks off at night, and you hold it in place untill morning, what will happen? Will the finger remain stone? Will the gargoyle have an injured but attached finger, or will the finger be fully healed?

mike writes...

Do Female gargoyles go through the same female things that humans do like pms?

Scott Mercure writes...

Hello. I have an interesting question that I could not find answered in the archives. What, if any, are the differences between female gargoyles and human females when it comes to pregnency. Do they carry the egg for a length of time (and if so so long?) before laying it? Is it apparent when a female gargoyle is carrying an egg?

Maybe this question seems odd but it is something that's been rolling around in my head for a long time.

Thanks!!

Macbeth Or Macduff writes...

Would Gargoyles turn to stone by day , if they are in a cave or another place where you can not see the sun , day or night .

The Tigress writes...

I have a question regarding the stone sleep of the gargoyles and the changes in the O-zone layer due to pollution:

Since gargoyles get their energy from the sun's rays while in stone sleep, I was wondering if the difference in the O-zone layer from one thousand years ago up to the present has any positive or negative effects to the amount or the kind of energy the gargoyles recieve? Or if it even has an effect?

Punchinello writes...

As long as I'm on the subject of clones...
I've noticed you've been fielding questions about the clones unique coloration. I think at least one person made the observation that there were other structural differences as well. Different types of horns or fins. Different types of builds to the extent that you could interpret some skeletal differences. And maybe I'm crazy, but I would swear I remember Lexington's clone having a spiked ball at the end of his tail?

Now, I don't read fiction (even in a cartoon) in a manner that compels me to think the author must have some kind of explanation for this change. I interpreted it as artistic license. The clones looked like creative variations on a visual theme. They were fun. Interpreting the show as reality, set to film, inspires people to demand to know exactly what obscure feature of "gargoyles science" makes this happen though. I don't think I really like the way it's assumed that a clone of an organism would replicate the donor organism in every detail. That's probably another idea borrowed from star trek.

The concencus right now seems to be that the clones features were altered by a side effect of being rapidly aged in tubes. (They do that with beer now, you know.) However, it's occurred to me that there might be a much more plausible and more interesting explanation. The clones features could have far less to do with the fact that they're clones, than it does with the fact that they're clones of gargoyles.

When an organism is being put together at the molecular level, the process is working against certain forces. Most obviously, gravity, but other forces as well. So there are certain mechanical limitations on the way an embryo can form in the womb. Biology confronts that by developing tissue in various ways. From a mechanical perspective, bone tissue develops by an accretionary process which is technically similar to the way a seashell would form. Muscle tissue forms a gauzy scaffold though, and then develops vasculature into the scaffold.

Ultimately, all of these mechanical processes are compelled to action chemically, by the properties of DNA. That doesn't mean that the final result would be identical for every conceivable circumstance though. Many highly ordered, developmental processes and simple, dumb forces impinge upon our development in the womb, besides the chemical synthesis of our DNA. So while my genes inform the shape of my nose, for example, they are not the only thing which begin to inform it. And some structural features in an organism are more rigidly dictated by genetics than others.

Our genes are more of a blueprint for a theme. We're one theme. I'm not suggesting that the variation could be extraordinary, as I don't want to imply that we are less indebted to our genes than we are. The variation I'm talking about amounts to some subtle changes in morphology. These changes would not always be conspicuous, but sometimes they can be glaring. The coloration of domestic cats, for instance, while informed by their genes, is the product of several developmental forces. And when you clone a domestic cat, you usually get a cat with completely different coloration than the donor. You can easily end up with a calico when you clone a black cat.

If it had been a documentary instead of a cartoon show, I would have suspected that you would get unique results from cloning a gargoyle.

Seeing a gargoyle would be professionally interesting to anyone involved in the biological sciences. But seeing a group of three or more gargoyles would be extraordinary. Even though we define species in terms of reproductive isolation these days, we still use morphology to identify them. And gargates exhibit morphology unlike any other reproductively isolated species in nature. I've mentioned before that the most interesting aspect of the gargoyles, to me, is not the "turning to stone thing," but the fact that you have the morphology of Lexington, Brooklyn, Griff, Una, and Zafiro within one reproductively isolated group.

All members of a species exhibit morphological differences. All tigers and giraffes conform to their species respective morphologies to subtly different extents. We don't usually observe the differences outside our own species, but even when we examine our species differences from person to person, barring aberrations, the changes are never more than minor cosmetic distinctions. Mostly it amounts to slightly different fatty tissue distribution in the face or melanin content in the skin. When racial confirmation is examined, it is only in terms of proportional averages of the length of the limbs to the dimensions of the torso. Even where sexual dimorphism is concerned, the primary characteristics are actually variations on the same organs. This applies to almost every animal on the planet.

When we look at the gargoyles though, they look like Darwin's grab bag. When you compare Brooklyn and Lexington, two members of a species from the same regionally isolated set of genes, you see extreme morphological differences. There is simply no way their skulls can be variations on a single blueprint. There are obvious features that they seem to have in common with each other, and with other gargoyles, that help begin to identify the common origin of their morphologies. The way their lower limbs are designed, their tails and their abdomens seem consistent. But their wings are definitely not. These could _never be_ cosmetic distinctions. These are major structural differences. The way their wings connect would necessitate completely different musculature in their upper bodies, and that, in turn, would require differences in their skeletons to provide structure for the different muscle insertions.

When you add Una and Zafiro to this picture, everything we know about the morphology of species is thrown out the window. I couldn't look at this group and reasonably expect that they even have the same number of vertebrae, let alone be members of the same species. They are unlike anything in nature. But that's not bad. It's fascinating. It gets me speculating about what cicumstances such a creature could emerge from.

One region of speculation I've been entertaining, is that if you had a species with these characteristics, it might be because their genes are arranged into a hierarchy which is different from other organisms.There could be a level of organization to the passing down of their genes beyond just sexual recombination. I'm wondering if genes could be organized into a hierarchy of sets of discrete packages. Sort of like a kit of parts. So that their genes might actually contain blueprints for morphologies for each organ, but have these blueprints disassociated from one another.

From a gene's eye view, it might appear that they were not using gargoyles as a vehicle to perpetuate themselves, but rather, a certain variety of gargoyle tails. Or a certain variety of gargoyle skulls. And each package of genes was pursuing it's reproductive agenda independently of the others, even while multiple packages end up becoming the blueprint for a single gargate.

So I'm thinking... maybe... if external pressures can be a determinant in how genes get expressed in an animal, leading to different tissue distribution in a persons nose or something, then maybe external pressures can have an effect on which "package" gets used for a tail or a set of horns in gargates. Maybe the spiked ball on the end of that clones tail (assuming I was not imagining it) is an alternate package for a tail structure which is as much a part of Lexington as the one we're used to seeing.

The point is that for tissue to take on structure as sophisticated as a spiked ball or a pair of ibex like horns, there would need to something predicating it. It couldn't just happen by accident. So I would be inclined to suppose that some feature of gargate physiology is responsible for such major morphological changes, when cloned, and that their physiology would be unique in that the expression of genes for such radical changes are as much a matter of chance as the extremely minor variations other organisms are subject to.

I have not even begun to consider how a species can exhibit morphological features which seem to be specific replicas of other creatures which they are not related to. How do you get a lion headed gargoyle?

That's sure to be an interesting thought experiment.