Anonymous writes...

Does the Lady of the Lake have any biological children? Have you mentioned the name of any of her children on Askgreg?

Entity writes...

Hi Greg,

Don't let the death of Team Atlantis get you down, true brilliance is never recognized in its own time.

Anyway, I was wondering about your personal opinion on something: pop Arthurian Legend. First there was the "Merlin" miniseries, now there's another one on TNT called "The Mists of Avalon." Both take the traditional story of King Arthur and try to present its elements of magic to contemporary TV audiences in the guise of religion. Instead of accepting magic as a part of the legend, which I guess TV execs think is too "silly" or maybe even "controversial," they turn the Arthur legend into a morality tale about the old verse the new, Paganism verse Christianity, imagination verse logic, etc... take your pick.

What's your take? Do you think this is a constructive and innovative approach to telling the story, or a distracting and childish one?

Todd Jensen writes...

One question which I'll confess I've occasionally found myself asking about Arthur's quest for Merlin. Why does Arthur feel that he really needs Merlin by his side again? After all, in the traditional legends, he spent the majority of his reign without Merlin being there (Merlin's departure in the "Arthurian canon" took place almost directly after Arthur married Guinevere and set up the knights of the Round Table), and fared well enough on his own (not to mention that I don't think that Merlin could have seriously prevented the fall of Camelot even if he had been there, seeing that it was brought about through the one thing that his magic could not overcome, the human heart, as Macbeth pointed out in "A Lighthouse in the Sea of Time"). Furthermore, at least some versions of the legend (including T. H. White and Roger Lancelyn Green) indicate that part of the reason why Merlin left Arthur's court (ultimately to wind up in the Crystal Cave) was because Arthur needed to stand on his own rather than constantly leaning on the wizard for help.

So why does Arthur feel that he still needs Merlin's help? (Admittedly, he does seem in a rather vulnerable situation at present, given that he's now in a world that's unfamiliar to him and very different from 6th century Britain - and he hasn't had the advantage that Macbeth had of being able to watch it change gradually and adjust accordingly - it's all been thrown upon him at once, just the way that it was on Goliath and his clan).

Greg "Xanatos" Bishansky writes...

DrFaust> Oh come ON! You don't think Greg is going to say anything about that episode until it actually airs, do you?

DrFaust writes...

So what happened in Paris, 1920 that was so significant to the Atlantis and Gargoyles universes?

Greg "Xanatos" Bishansky writes...

I might as well jump on the bandwagon here.

1. What did Titania whisper to Fox at the end of "The Gathering"?

I know you're not going to answer this, but in four years of posting here, I have never asked this, and figured I might as well at least once. Personally, I like not knowing the answer, and filling it in for myself.

Greg "Xanatos" Bishansky writes...

Now that he has made peace with the Manhattan Clan, would Xanatos have continued to make use of the Steel Clan, or his Steel Clan exo-armor?

zakhur writes...

I'm confused about something. If in th Avalon Clan, there are three gargoyle beasts one is Boudicca, and there 2 more, one female and one male, if the male and female beasts are probably mates, shouldn't they have had a child together, seeing as gargoyle beast can mate one generation before gargoyles?

Aris Katsaris writes...

A couple weeks ago, you posted a ramble in an interesting exchange of ideas with Punchinello, about the subject of "sentience" and how it's used in science fiction and fantasy, about whether it's a wall or not, etc, etc...

I thought to chime in, contributing with the concepts that Orson Scott Card introduces in "Speaker for the Dead" (an excellent book btw - I encourage everyone to read it). There he uses different words to differentiate between different kinds of 'alienness'... Let me quote:

"The Nordic language recognizes four orders of foreigness. The first is the otherlander, or 'utlanning', the stranger that we recognize as being a human of our world, but of another city or country. The second is the 'framling' [...]. This is the stranger that we recognize as human, but of another world. The third is the 'raman', the stranger that we recognize as human, but of another species. The fourth is the true alien, the 'varelse', which includes all the animals, for with them no conversation is possible. They live, but we cannot guess what purposes or causes make them act. They might be intelligent, they might be self-aware, but we cannot know it."

Obviously here the most important concepts are that of the 'raman' and of the 'varelse'. These can be useful, over and beyond the concept of 'sentience', because they refer to how much of an understanding can exist between different species - unlike 'non-sentient' for a species to be 'varelse' doesn't necessarily make it "inferior"... Only non-understandable.

On the other hand I find these concepts also intriguing because they *do* carry a moral judgment within them, even if it's a more subtle one. To recognize an alien as "raman" is to recognize him as basically human, to recognize that his fundamental motivations are the same as yours. It's the beginning of understanding and tolerance...

Now in the gargoyles universe, it's clear that both gargoyles and fae (and Nokkar's people also) are all "ramen": Other species which despite all their difference with our own, we can recognize as fundamentally 'human'. I'd also go on to say that this is what people like Jon Castaway refuse to see. By declaring that all gargoyles are monsters he doesn't necessarily refuse them their 'sentience' - he does refuse though to see that they are 'ramen'... and as such he can say things such as 'they are all evil', 'they must be destroyed', etc, etc...

And with that let me conclude with another quote from the book:
"Since we are not yet fully comfortable with the idea that people from the next village are as human as ourselves, it is presumptuous in the extreme to suppose we could ever look at sociable, tool-making creatures who arose from other evolutionary paths and see not beasts but brothers, not rivals but fellow pilgrim journeying to the shrine of intelligence.
Yet that is what I see or yearn to see. The difference between raman and varelse is not in the creature judged, but in the creature judging. When we declare an alien species to be raman, it does not mean that they have passed a threshold of moral maturity. It means that *we* have."

Sorry for the length of this ramble... :-)