icemann writes...

Don`t think this ones been asked be for

Is there any way that technology in the future (2158 and beyond) could bypass the Gargoyles turning to stone? Cause if magic can do it, I can`t see why technology couldn`t replicate the same effect in some way.

Phil writes...

Greg,

I recently re-watched "Legion" and it sparked some questions in my mind about "Reawakening."

1) Was Coldstone suffering from multiple-personality problems when he first awoke, or did that not start until "Legion" with the Xanatos program or the virus?

2) Was Othello the only one in control through "Reawakening"? He is confused, but only generally. He doesn't forget moment by moment where he is and what he's doing. Also, Desdemona's reaction to the mirror made it seem as though she was "awakening" for the first time in "Legion."

Thanks

Lord Sloth writes...

Enter Mcbeth:

1) Why does McBeth's stone dungen floor burn so easily? I've never seen Stone burn so well.

2) Did McBeth loose much of importance in the fire, I'd imagin there would be a lot of old magic relics, and the like. b) Did the fire burn Everything he owned? c) Did he build his new house on the ruins of his old one? d)Do you now the history of his old house, is it relivant and will you tell us?

3) Why didn't Owen call Bruno's group, or summon the steel clan, or do something more, when Hudson and Broadway took the Grimorum?

5) Did Mcbeth put Bronx in a seprate cage on purpose cause he thought they would figue out how to get him out? Was he testing them?

6) What did Macbeth tell Xanatos he planed to do with the Gargoyles? b) What did he plan to do with them once he had found their "queen"? c)Did Demona tell Macbeth about Goliath and the spell on him? And then he figured out where she was in NY when the castle was brought there, and know she must be behind it?

6) I just want to be sure this is correct. Lex and Brooklyn didn't think Bronx was strong enough to break open their cage, and Bronx only did it the second time because he had an order from Goliath. Is that all right?

Thank you.

Gipdac writes...

1) Did Titania ever really have any of the fairy attendants like she did in A Midsummer Night's Dream?
2) If so, what happened to them
3) Are any/all of them still alive?
4) Were any/all of them fae?
(My favorite is Mustard Seed)

Justin writes...

Do you have the names of the leaders of these clan's in 2198?

London

Manhattan

Loch Ness

Korea

Japan

Labyrinth

China

Guatemala

Thanks

matt writes...

what does Demona's forehead look like behind that tiara thing she wears? are her brow ridges the same shape as the jewelry or like Angela's brow? Goliath has two small horns over each of his brows and Angela has one, so i'd assume that Demona also has one, am i wrong?

Airportman writes...

Hey, Greg

This is my first post here, and it's quite lengthy. I've been looking through the archives, and I'm pretty sure this question has never been asked before. But if it has, I honestly don't know what category it would be filed under. It's mainly about who knows what throughout the course of the Gargoyles story.

Nobody in the audience knew anything about Demona and Macbeth's relationship and former lives prior to "City of Stone," but who in the Gargoyles universe, if anyone, knew anything? I've been watching my taped episodes recently and this really stood out at me this time. It's always been the one thing about the show that bothers me.

It really sticks out in "The Price," when Hudson says, "Believe it lads, Macbeth's dead." Later in the episode, Lexington seems genuinely convinced that Macbeth actually is dead, which leads me to believe that he doesn't know about Macbeth's background by that point. However, later in the same episode, Hudson explains to Xanatos, "Demona and Macbeth are immortal. Has it brought them happiness?" Was Hudson simply feeding a line to Lexington? Was Lex not supposed to know about the whole Demona/Macbeth thing? It's wierd, because Elisa also knows about it by the time of "Sanctuary."

That leads me to another question: how does Hudson know? And Goliath for that matter? Who was it that told them about Demona's history? It couldn't have been Xanatos, because he didn't know either until "City of Stone," or he wouldn't have been fooled by Demona's excuse for living so long. I'm actually not too sure Xanatos ever finds out.

I could only think of one way that it could work. Here goes:

In "Temptation," Demona says to Brooklyn, "It's a long story, centuries long." I was thinking that Demona may have told her story to Brooklyn at that point, and that he later told Goliath, who told Hudson and Elisa. In that case, was this privelidged information that Goliath only trusted Elisa, Hudson, and Brooklyn with? This would explain Hudson's behavior in "The Edge," and give Brooklyn a shoe-in for Second in command, but it would not explain Brooklyn's puzzlement about Macbeth's identity in "Enter Macbeth," unless Goliath had told him not to tell Lex and Broadway. However, Goliath clearly has no clue who Macbeth is at that point. Could Brooklyn have told him later? Lex clearly knows about Demona's immortality by the time "Hunter's Moon" rolls around, so I was thinking that Brooklyn may have decided that it was necessary to tell Broadway and Lex everything when he was leader.

I don't think Macbeth would have told Broadway his story in "A Lighthouse in the Sea of Time," when Broadway was tied up in his jet or at his mansion; the timing seemed all wrong.

So I guess what my question boils down to is this:

When did the clan first learn about Demona's past, and her relationship with Macbeth, and am I on the right track with the whole Brooklyn idea?

By the way, Gargoyles is my favorite show. It still amazes me how you were able to weave such an intricate story about such real characters, and teach real life lessons about vengeance, tolerance, family, reconciliation, and so much more, all within the confines of a childrens' cartoon. This was truly a story that made full use of its own medium, and made strong points about life. I believe that Gargoyles is probably the most beneficial and educational childrens' programming I have ever seen, in terms of teaching life lessons, and I too am completely disgusted that Toon Disney won't air "Deadly Force." Thank you for reading this long ramble of mine, and also for providing the best television program to date.

matt writes...

both Proto-Mammals and Dinosaurs evolved from Reptiles. Proto-Mammals were very reptilian, but with some very Mammalian characteristics. they laid eggs, but probably nursed their young sometimes too. they lived at the beginning of the age of dinosaurs and most are considered "dinosaurs' in a very broad way, though scientifically they are not. Proto-Mammals would go on to evolve into mammals and what i'm wondering is if they also went to evolve into Gargates. from everything i know and you've told us, they fit the profile. some, like Dimetrodon, even had primative solar radiaters which could have evolved into the ability to store solar energy. in fact, Dimetrodon looks very similar to a garg beast to me, with a sail. i once asked you if gargs were related to Platypus cause of the varied similarities they have, and if Gargates did evolve from Proto-mammals than they were related since platypus is one of the few remaining Proto-Mammals not extinct. are proto-mammals the ancestors of gargates?

Denis writes...

Hello, Greg!
First thing first, thank you for your explanation about OTS.

Now to the "main course", I'm wondering, since Team Atlantis got axed, can you answer question related to the series?

Anonymous writes...

Did Mab have any children besides Oberon? If so are they more or less powerful than Oberon?

Anonymous writes...

Was it intentional to make Nick Maza similar to Captain of the Guard since both are described by you in the Garg bible and the 2198 contest as much like a gargoyle as a human can be?

matt writes...

since Fox has twice as much Children of Oberon blood in her as Alex and Alex has managed to live til 2198 would Fox herself still be alive in 2198?

Punchinello writes...

Mr. Weisman,

I'm sorry I did not acknowledge your response before now. I only realized that you had addressed my post on sentience a moment ago.

I did not really think that you condoned the obliteration of a family of polar bears (anthropomorphic or otherwise). I was raising the issue because I think I am observing a trend wherein people are only assigning value to a life based upon an inference of anthropomorphism. That is to say, some people are investing their ethical concern in something based upon how much it resembles a human being; and this is hardly an objective premise to begin with. Semblance to human beings, mental or otherwise, can not constitute a requirement for being worthy of consideration or protection. However I do believe that it is reasonable to assign values based upon certain criteria from within our own perspectives (it's the only thing we can assign values from) as long as we make a concerted effort to avoid an obviously centrist sentiment like using ourselves as a template for what is worth consideration.

If someone were to ask me what criteria I thought were appropriate, I would probably return to what has already been implied. Intelligence. Emotional intuition. Volition. And a whole host of perceptual characteristics. Those things from which emerge a picture of mental life. Perhaps an ability to suffer and to anticipate conditions which cause or alleviate suffering, and to desire to distance ones self from a cause of it. However, if we are going to determine the presence of those capacities with nothing but purely verifiable data, then we fall in league with the evolutionary psychologists foundation of mental within the biological. And the biological machinery necessary to mediate these abilities is certainly not the exclusive domain of Homo Sapiens. (I _do_ subscribe to the evolutionary psychologist foundation by the way. I like to have data I can verify beyond "it is true because it is so.")

For a lot of people though, these emergent mental properties are always considered as something transcendent of biology, immeasurable, even inviolate, because I have observed others react with hostility to the reduction of mental qualities to biology. On numerous occasions. Thinking that way leads to all kinds of misunderstandings, however. Another contributor to this board, Entity, had taken the position that humans and gorillas were intelligent but dogs were not. I found this extremely interesting because even outside the realm of biological architectures in the brain I could use as a foundation for taking the evolutionary psychologist position, it needs to be acknowledged that even within social psychology dogs are attributed a measurable intelligence. It's not extraordinary. My dog has an IQ of 12 or so for instance. And of course these kinds of figures are disputable, because it really requires the participation of the test subject past his simple presence to get accurate results. I would submit that the whole concept of IQ as it is accepted within the social sciences borders on being fraudulent anyway. The point is that the ascription of non-intelligence that was made about the dog was arbitrary. It was not informed by the physical _or_ social sciences. It was just an assumption. And that kind of casual valuization can be dangerous when it functions as the basis for how much respect we offer another. This is not a slight against this Entity. I'm just using this as an example to outline the stated purpose of my original post. If people are going to hold these positions they maintain, then they need to ask themselves why they have that particular belief. If they have this mental dialogue with themselves and they cannot answer that first question, then it is time to evaluate how much their beliefs represent reality.

____________________________________________________________________________
I'm probably as guilty as anyone of overusing, or rather overbilling the issue of "sentience". I think the concept has its uses. But it's probably used as a crutch too often.
____________________________________________________________________________

I would agree. I think of it as a crutch of language. Some people subscribe to an ideology that is a holdover from religious impulses. It maintains that the mantle of "human" is sacred and unapproachable. They need to define what the quality of "human" is that makes it thus, without any background knowledge of cognitive science so that it fits their sensibilities. They can adopt the hazily defined expression, "sentience", imported from popular culture, via star trek, to articulate their position. For some others, the mental capacities of non human animals may be very well understood. They may acknowledge capacities for reflection and emotion, but they still need a convenient means of distinguishing various abilities. So an imprecise language becomes common.

matt writes...

in the gargoyles universe, why did the chicken cross the road?

i'm not telling a joke, i'm looking for an answer. i swear theres a good one here somewhere... and this will keep me busy til the next contest!

Lacey writes...

Which character do you feel is most like you, or closely resembles you physically and/or mentally?

Yttrium writes...

You mentioned you were in a play called THE WARRIOR'S HUSBAND and played Theseus. Could you tell us what it was about?

---Ytt

matt writes...

in The Mirror when the are in that plaza and battling Demona as humans, why is there a shop selling medieval weopons? Demona breaks a store window and all of a sudden the clan starts grabbing swords, sheilds, maces, spears, axes... why are those in NYC?

matt writes...

Legion questions:

1. when Recap downloaded the computer virus through the taser line from Coldstone, why didn't the virus destroy recaps programming?

2. when Coldstone first arrives at the Clocktower with Goliath and Lex, Bronx is growling at him. why? Iago has yet to take control of Coldstone. does Bronx just hate the cybernetics of Coldstone or does he sense the evil one or something?

matt writes...

Broadway bring back Maggie's Genutech bracelet after they first encounter her and Elisa says its a tracking device. doesn't that mean that Genutech knows where they went with it? is this how Xanatos found their new home? why wasn't the clan worried about bringing a tracking device into their home? seems kinda foolish to me, esspecially in light of what would happen with a tracking device in Hunters Moon!

matt writes...

in Metamorphosis Elisa and Matt show up at Genutech to investigate a kidnapping. whose kidnapping are they investigateing? i wouldn't think it was Maggie cuz i don't know who would report her as missing, and why would they think to look for anyone at Genutech anyway?

matt writes...

why did you decide to redo the look of the Mutates after Metamorphosis? esspecially Talon, his hair got smoother and darker, he lost his tail, and all the Mutates gained retinas in their eyes, not just white like Bronx's. and yes, he did have a tail!

2. in the garg universe do you have an explanation for the change in appearence? like perhaps they were still mutating? i don't know how that explains gaining a tail then losing it...

Punchinello writes...

I just reviewed what I have written here. It's so formal it's almost offensive. I'm sorry. I don't think one can talk about issues like this without sounding (obtuse? Stuffy? Something like that.) And not a word about Gargoyles.

Let me leave the realm of animal intelligence's for a minute and consider the intelligence of some of the more fantastical characters in your story. The fae. When I think about this kind of (ethereal?) character, these are the kinds of associations that I make.

-The thought of angels moves faster than human thought. (I don't recall where that comes from)

-A four dimensional object or being will cast a three dimensional shadow. (That's an observation Buckminster Fuller made.)

-A being that cannot die will have no concept of death, and certainly will not attach values, positive or negative, to the ending of a life. (This is a condensed and bastardized summary of some of the speculation of extraterrestrial intelligence's that participants of the SETI program publicized.)

I hope some of the above makes sense. My thinking is this. That the content of fae thought/mentality may be fundamentally different from homo sapiens thinking. Not just an accelerated or enhanced analogue of human thought, but structurally different. Our mental world is the emergent condition of innumerable biological systems interacting with one another. I have no reason to conclude that the fae's intelligence emerges from anything reductionist in nature. It is a condition that exists without origin in biology (potentially). Everything that we think of as intelligence rests on an evolutionary foundation of connections to allow us to successfully distinguish between things we can eat and things that will eat us. It would be absurd to think that the fae (who I don't think were subject to natural selection through predation) would have an intelligence structured upon the same principles. Simple alternative concepts like "either or" may not have the same meaning to them. This could go far towards explaining why they are so damned irritating.

My second thought on the matter, in reference to the three dimensional shadow concept, is that the visual representation we get of the fae in the story may be a poor representation of the reality. I use the concept of a hypothetical four dimensional being to illustrate. A two dimensional being could be aware of my presence if I allowed it to, although it would be a simple matter to remove myself from it's perception with a minor movement. However it's awareness could not give it a complete representation of what I am. It could only understand me as a fragment that can be translated into something comprehensible within the context of it's world. I can easily attribute an extra dimensional quality to beings like Oberon and Puck who seem o appear and disappear at will. We might not be able to understand completely, what they are. Only that the portion of them that is represented in three dimensions resembles a group of tall, angular, oddly complexioned people in period costume.

My third observation of the fae, and in particular of Oberon who has demonstrated a dispassionate distance to killing his rivals in certain instances, is that he may have no concept of murder because he may have no concept of death. (Yes I know that he reacted to the iron bell in such a way that would indicate it was harmful to him. Even lethal.) However, even if he were to express a concept of death we would not be able to be certain that his concept was anything like our concept. Does death mean an end for him? If it does not, then the gravity we attach to it may be lost on him and the other fae.

I think my point is that while it would certainly not be appropriate to think of a creature like this in human terms, i'm not even certain you can extrapolate "human" from him. There could be creatures, so far removed from human experience that it would be impossible. Of course, the associations that I make with the fae are not going to be the same ones that you make. Your concept of them may fall within human experience. You have other creatures though. Your space spawn. They would certainly have been subject to mental dispositions grounded in a different biology. We're conditioned with the genetic remainders of our hunter gatherer ancestors. They would be conditioned with something else. I dont know what. Something spawny probably.

Lord Sloth writes...

Do you think that the the music in "the Green" was a bit over done when we first saw the pyramid? I think they had seen seen a few other more impressive sights, like egypt's pyramids, and Easter Island's heads. I'm not complaining, just wondering why the music was so dramatic.

matt writes...

1. from where did Gabriel inherit his chin horns and strange brow ridges? neither Othello or Desdemona have them, are these traits recessive from a biological grandparent(s)?

2. any reason why Iago is the only other garg to have the chin horns besides Gabriel?

3. what does Ophelia find physically attractive about Gabriel?

4. doesn't Gabriel have any close male friends?

5. is the reason Gabriel was the only male garg we were introduced to on Avalon because so many of the main characters up til "Avalon" were male, esspecially gargoyles?