A Station Eight Fan Web Site

Gargoyles

The Phoenix Gate

Ask Greg Archives

Ramblings

Archive Index


: « First : « 1000 : « 100 : « 10 : Displaying #1571 - #1580 of 1656 records. : 10 » : Last » :


Posts Per Page: 1 : 10 : 25 : 50 : 100 : All :


Bookmark Link

Bad news...

Because of the server crash the SUPER-LONG ramble on "Reawakening" which I posted last night was lost. The thought of recreating it is miserable and intimidating. But I'll get to it eventually. Maybe tomorrow.

Also lost was an answer to a Todd Jensen question about iron. Sorry Todd, but you'll have to repost the question.

ANd meanwhile, the queue is once again empty, which may also be a result of the crash or may be because Gore doesn't have time to fill it up right now.


Bookmark Link

Max Update...

Queue is still empty...

Meanwhile, Max Steel episode #7 airs this Saturday. It's called "Snow-Blind" and was written by Mike Ryan. This continues Sony/WB's current tradition of airing the durn things in REVERSE order.

For those keeping track, the following episodes have aired in the following bizarre order:

#1 - "Strangers"
#3 - "Shadows"
#2 - "Sacrifices"
#4 - "Sportsmen"
#9 - "Sabres"
#8 - "Sharks"
#7 - "Snow-Blind"

#10 should follow shortly. It features the villain Dragonelle. After that #5 will air, which INTRODUCES Dragonelle.

This is how my life is running these days.

Maybe someday the WB will air them all in order.

But I wouldn't count on it.


Bookmark Link

Poor Gorebash...

He's working so hard -- probably much harder than me these days -- and I just keep answering ASK GREG questions.

The Queue is empty again...


Bookmark Link

Thank you Blaise

Blaise wrote:

In the end, two things above all others IMHO should be remembered in ANY debate of Goliath vs. Brooklyn:
1) Brooklyn admires and looks up to Goliath, despite any disagreements.
2) Goliath made Brooklyn Second-in-command because he felt Brooklyn was best suited for the job.
To put down one is actually indirectly putting down the other.

That bears repeating:

TO PUT DOWN ONE IS ACTUALLY INDIRECTLY PUTTING DOWN THE OTHER.

You guys can do what you want, of course.

And I certainly don't mind in depth discussions of either character. I thought Toku Kaioto's essay on Brooklyn was fantastic.

And I don't mind a fun poll like: "Ladies, which garg-hunk do you prefer?"

But I don't really see what you get by putting the characters' natures in opposition debate, as if they were or are in some competition with each other.

Now I promise, that was my last word on the subject.


Bookmark Link

Pet Peeves

More a rant, than a ramble...

One thing I'm less than fond of is people who seem to think that the only way to praise someone or something is to attack someone or something else in order to make the quote-unquote praiseworthy object more praiseworthy by comparison.

Look, if a thing is worth praising, then praise it. It doesn't matter how good, better or awful something else is.

I hear this all the time with movies and tv shows, music, etc.

Worse, in the business I'm in, I hear it all the time with people.

And I've heard my share of it regarding the characters of Gargoyles.

FOR EXAMPLE:
Someone's a huge Brooklyn fan. Can't figure out why Angela chose Broadway or whey "the clan puts up with Goliath". It's not enough to praise Brooklyn, the Brook-fan feels the need to attack BW or Goliath -- slinging mud on them so that Brooklyn's light shines brighter.

Or the reverse. People determined to defend Goliath or. Outraged by the tactic outlined above, praise Goliath not with actual praise for Goliath, but by attacking Brooklyn, i.e. by utilizing the same tactic. It just makes me nuts.

Now, I'm not saying that you have to like every character equally. (I pretty much do, but I'm daddy.) You're all welcome to have your favorites. And it's even fine with me if there are some characters you just HATE. Either because you think they're ill-conceived, or because you think they're unpleasant or whatever.

But what's the fortune in comparisons? It's all subjective anyway. In High School, in my AP English class (days of yore) I remember a long debate about Othello vs. Iago. Most of the class seemed determined to prove that Iago was a great villain by arguing that Othello was a feeble hero. But I didn't buy it. (Well, I did for about five minutes, but the mind rebelled.) If Othello is feeble, than Iago's villainy achieved nothing. A triumph over a feeble leader. Big Deal.

End of rant.


Bookmark Link

Theseus Addendum

One more thing, Aris,

About the Helen thing. I'm not trying to defend it, but I think the motivation wasn't any desire to possess a barely-pubescent Helen. I can't believe a guy who loved Antiope, wanting that. I think he was trying to stick it to all those young heroes of the new generation. I don't approve of his methods, and he wasn't able to pull it off even. But it was an act of rebellion. An act of societal perversion (as opposed to sexual perversion).

Anyway, that's my take.


Bookmark Link

Aris Katsaris writes...

Well if *you* can ramble about Theseus, so can I. :-)

I think that his lifepath began even before his conception. Childless Aegeus, goes to the Delphi to ask how he may get children - the oracle warns him *not* to drink wine; tells him how *not* to have children (which implies that it predicts either Aegeus's own death due to Theseus or Theseus' other deeds)

Aegeus doesn't understand the oracle, but Pittheus does - he gets him drunk and has him sleep with Aethra, Pitheus's daughter. It seems he desires to have his grandson on the throne of Athens - and for that cause he doesn't mind using his daughter. So Theseus is a "bastard" - but not the bastard of a love relationship, not even a bastard caused by lust such as Arthur was. He is a bastard whose birth was just a means to an end, a product of politics.

This *has* to screw him up in some ways. His father figure Pittheus is using him. Aethra never cared for Aegeus, and was herself used by her father in the worst way imaginable - could she subconsciously resent her own son because of that? And his relationship with his real father Aegeus begins through the test he places on him to see if he's worthy - talk about conditional love! Given the relationships which created him, it's no wonder that all the relationship he gets into are twisted and diseased in some way.

Then there's his idol: Heracles. While Theseus is still a kid Hercules comes to Troezen - among the children Theseus is the only one who is not terrified by the lion-skin that Hercules is wearing. He has to have noticed the admiration that everyone was giving to Hercules.

And even if Theseus can't know love, he *can* know admiration. So, when he grows up he goes out of his way to do heroic deeds - most other heroes of antiquity (Jason, Bellerophon, even Hercules to a large extent) had their quests forced on them - others like Odysseus simply stumbled upon heroism. But Theseus pursues heroism. He kills the robbers. But his sickened sense of relationships manifests itself: He 'ravishes' the daughters of both Sinis and Cercyon. One could think of a version where this is consentual - but in my mind it seems more reasonable to think that he saw them as trophies and rewards and didn't care what they thought.

He goes to Athens and once again pursues heroism by going to Crete: so as to kill the Minotaur, he doesn't hesitate to promise marriage to Ariadne - manipulation through lust once again - even though he already had a lover (Periboea) among the young women on the ship. He kills Ariadne's half-brother (the Minotaur) and her full brother Deucalion. And then he abandons her because of the wishes of the gods - but even if it was his own idea I don't mind that one - a woman who'd cause her brothers' death isn't one I'd like sleeping next to me - after all Medea was the last famous woman who did that, and Jason would have been better off if he had abandoned her also...

I agree that Antiope is the most 'equal' relationship he gets into, the most genuine one - Antiope seems to truly love or atleast be attracted to Theseus. But we can't forget that Theseus' mission to the Amazons was originally nothing more than another of his heroic quests: He went with the goal of kidnapping their queen - she was (in the beginning atleast) just another trophy... And in one version of the story he treats her as such abandoning her and marrying Phaedra (though in most versions Hippolyta dies
fighting on his side)

His wedding with Phaedra is once again loveless - no need to expand on that. And after his son's death he has to simply not know what to do but fall back to his own habits seeking something he can't have, vainly pursuing happiness through "heroism": And in the case of Helen, all his negative traits, his lovelessness, his rashness, his viewing women as trophies all manifest themselves...

So in my opinion he *is* a tragic character - His deeds seem to have been sprung through the situation which bore him - I can have pity and understanding for him as the product of an extremely disfunctional family. And he's a fascinating character: But if he's a hero, then I see him as providing a dark vision of what heroism can do when it's sought after, rather than stumbled upon.

Greg responds...

Aris, as always, please ramble all you like...

You're version of the myth however, includes things that mine doesn't. This creates two obvious possibilities:

1) My version is whitewashed.

2) Your version is biased.

Either way, we've got some propaganda going.

Now it would be easy to assume that 1 is more likely than 2. After all, most of what we know from Greek myth, we know via the Athenian culture, where Theseus was a hero. One would tend to think that they'd want to present their guy in the best possible light -- thus the whitewashing. It's also possible that the Athenians told the story straight, and that the whitewashing came down the centuries as people tried to make Theseus more of a roll model than he really was.

But I'm going to argue (from a pro-Thesean bias that I'll admit up-front) for #2. Because I think both versions of the myth come from Athens. Take the negative slant on Pittheus, for example. That sounds like propaganda to me. Aegeus has a kid out of wedlock. Don't blame the Athenian king, blame that Troezen trickster Pittheus. But the trickster (or villain label) doesn't sit with the old man that well. There's no hint of godly justice taking him down for that bit of nefarious business. No hint in the myths that he was trying to push young Theseus to claim the throne of Athens or to unite the kingdoms under Troezen control. So I prefer to assume something different. I prefer to think that there was something real between Aethra and Aegeus. I won't necessarily say love, since they hardly knew each other. But I'd like to think they made a real connection. And they made love. I'd also like to think that after Aegeus left, Poseidon showed up in Aegeus' form, and that he and Aethra made love too. That way NONE of them (including Poseidon) really know whether Theseus is the son of a king or of a god.

At any rate, Aegeus and Aethra didn't marry. Marrying a king is big business. Again, I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt. He was straight with her. She still wanted him. They swam out to the island. Shared a sweet night together. And he swam off, but not before leaving provisions as to what to do in the UNLIKELY event that the union resulted in issue. (Remember, he thought he was sterile.)

She didn't throw a fit. And even after she discovered she was pregnant, she let things ride. Pittheus raises the boy without complaint. Teaches him to be a man. At any rate, I don't believe he grew up not knowing love. I think his mother loved him. I think his grandfather loved him. So I won't give him that excuse for anything he did, good or bad.

As for the Herakles stuff... Well, sure young Theseus might have been impressed, but he always took Herc with a grain of salt. Yes, Herc inspired him to "Great Deeds", but I'm not sure that's as bad as you make it sound. And Theseus was always the thinking man's hero. Always using brains as often as -- or more often than -- brawn. And always in control of his faculties, never going mad and slaughtering loved ones mindlessly. Later, when Herc and Theseus went on a few adventures together, he helped keep the big man from going berserker.

Did he rape the bandits' daughters? I hope not. I'm not sure they ever existed. They're not IN every version of the myth. Again, keep in mind, Athens (or at least Athenians) would have been of two minds on Theseus. Yes, he was their hero. But he also abandoned them. Do you love him for the good days? Or do you revile him for the bad? Maybe, a little of both. And maybe both sides twist his story a bit to suit their interpretations. I can't help thinking the truth is in the middle.

Because, NO, I don't think Theseus is a good roll model. He's clearly more fascinating than flat-out heroic. And he didn't end nearly as well as he began. And there's no divine redemption either. No Herculean ascent to Olympus. No godhood. He is human right until the end. And probably after. He is a bastard. In all the negative and misunderstood and put-upon and over-coming connotations of the term. ALL OF THEM.

But back to the narrative...

Was it rape? Were they even the bandits' daughters? Or might they have been slaves that he set free (after a party)? I don't know. But again, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Because, I see this YOUNG Theseus as a guy struggling to be Lancelot. He's not like Lancelot. He's too damn clever for his own good to really play the Lancelot roll. Too much of a bastard. But he's trying, I think. Inspired not by the true Herakles but by the big man's press, he's setting out as a knight errant to do right. So that he can walk into Athens as a MAN. As someone who DESERVES his birthright. That's the kind of boy that I think Pittheus and Aethra raised. (As I've mentioned before, my thinking is heavily influenced by Mary Renault.)

It's the noble Lancelot in him that sends him to Crete. And yes, of course he kills the Minotaur. The New Olympians may have gotten us to look at this another way, but from his point of view the Minotaur is an out-and-out monster, literally eating the youth of Athens. And the people of Crete, who keep their dirty secret locked up and feed it on the tribute children of their conquered enemies aren't much better (or are arguably worse) than the creature itself. So I shed no tears for Ariadne's brother. This was a rebellion of slaves against their evil masters. If Deucalion got in Theseus' way, so be it.

As for his Athenian lover, well, again, I'd like to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. I'm assuming, for starters, that by custom if not inclination, that Theseus was bisexual. That most of the Athenian youth were. That desperate people in a desperate situation reached out to each other for comfort doesn't trouble me. That they had multiple partners over (do I have this right?) seven years, doesn't bother me either. I think that Periboea may have been one of many lovers. And that she may have had many herself (of both sexes). This doesn't get in the way of him having sincere feelings for Ariadne. Feelings he believed at the time were true love. Romantic infatuation. A Lancelot looking for his Guinevere, and thinking he has found her.

And I don't need the "Medea-excuse" to justify him leaving her later. I've read enough versions of the myth where Dionysus didn't give Theseus a choice in the matter. And that was before I saw Renault's version wherein -- SPOILERS HERE -- Theseus is horrified to see what Ariadne does during the Dionysian rites. He does still love her. But he won't bring someone capable of that back to Athens as his bride.

And I'm not troubled that his intentions en route to battle the Amazons were less than honorable. After all, he was a king, setting out to conquer. It was part of the job description. Besides, it's what he ultimately did, not what he originally intended that truly frames his character. And I think here, as I've said before, he truly fell in love. A love of equals. One of the ONLY Greek heros to fall for a woman who truly was his equal. Instead of conquering the Amazons, he allies with them. He does right by Antiope, until she dies in battle, by his side. This is the true Theseus. Not the kid looking to be a hero. Not the bitter guy he'd become. This is the hero -- in fact, not by design or default, but defined by his actions. The man who loves equally. Who brings constitutional monarchy to his people. This is the great man. But then she dies. And so it can't last.

Phaedra. Yeah. A political marriage. I like to think he was, at least, fond of her. That maybe he hoped to see a bit of Ariadne in her. But she f**ked with his head. And, yes, he was open to it. He let himself be rashly used. He clearly sinned here. I refuse to absolve him for Hyppolytus' death. But that doesn't mean that I don't think he wasn't more sinned against than sinning. Antiope's death killed something in him. He didn't truly know how to raise Hyppolytus without her. I think he indulged the kid and wound up distanced from him. And he indulged his new young wife and wound up a stranger to her. And then he indulged his own bitter temper. And wound up broken.

Broken, but ironically not bent. He's no longer young. But he's still virile. And in a way, that works out very BADLY for him. No sitting back and enjoying the fruits of his labors. He's got too much damn energy for that. So the energy gets channeled into bad friends, stupid choices and wild schemes.

After Hyppolytus' death, well, I have to agree that it's all downhill. (Though I'd change the subconcious motivations, based on my interpretations.) He doesn't care any more. He's empty. This is the third Theseus. Not the young Lancelot. Not the true hero. But the guy left over. The good-looking, well-trained, virile, vital, empty wreck. He did some truly stupid stuff here. But even with the wildly nutty Helen stunt, I can't help loving him all the more for it.

But that's my problem, I guess. :)

Response recorded on April 03, 2000

Bookmark Link

Me and Erin

I'm here with my daughter, Erin, and we're gonna answer a few questions together.

Enjoy.


Bookmark Link

Todd Jensen writes...

A response to your "Awakening Part Three" ramble.

Hudson's bewildered comments on why humans seem so insistent on naming everything are among my favorite lines in "Gargoyles" (and express in particular one of the things that I most liked about the series; the way that it actually gave the gargoyles that feeling of having their own culture and outlook upon the world - I once commented on one of the Internet Gargoyles sites that the show did for gargoyles what "Watership Down" did for rabbits).

I don't think that I was all that bothered by Demona's outline (although I'm not sure that I even caught it first time around). Actually, I was probably sub-consciously expecting her to return, as I said in my "Awakening Part One" comments, given how much they explored her in the first episode. I didn't think that you'd build up a figure like that in Part One and then drop her for the rest of the series; that would be wasteful.

One thing that I definitely still enjoy about Part Three: the continuing coverage of Goliath's learning more about modern-day New York. I particularly liked his awed (and poetic) description of Xanatos's monitor screen as "like a living tapestry", comparing the streets of New York to the old Roman roads (I wonder if Goliath ever saw any Roman roads, of course, since Rome never did conquer Scotland), and asking Elisa the natural question that a 10th century person would ask about the city: why no walls to keep the invaders out?

One thing that I also noticed on later watchings of the episode in reruns and on tape: the bit where when Goliath prepares to go gliding off with Elisa and takes her in his arms, they exchange a little happy smile, then break off upon remembering that Hudson's there. I like to think of it as one of the first little hints that we get as to what's to come between them.

Greg responds...

Yep.

Yep.

Yep.

I agree with everything you wrote. Which makes this response pretty boring, but I don't mind if you don't.

Response recorded on March 31, 2000

Bookmark Link

Blaise writes...

RE: "Awakening Part 2" I agree, there is some real nice stuff in here.

I hadn't realized the problems you guys had with the Viking fight in regards to Broadway. Just so you know, I definitely got the idea that Broadway grabbed the meat soley for its value as a weapon (I was quite surprised in fact--when most animated shows introduce a character as an "eating machine" the audience is constantly reminded of that fact). I also noticed (and am glad) that Broadway's eating became down-played as the series progressed.
As for Hudson's sword...well, it took me a few viewings before I noticed that he didn't really have it until the Viking camp. I like the idea that the "character with the weapon" didn't start out with it.
Yeah, Lexington's admiration with the catapult would have been nice. Oh well, at least he was shown recognizing the helicoptor (sp?) as a contraption rather than a creature.
Personally, I never connected GARGOYLES with "Batman" so you'll be happy about that. And I didn't think that the laserbeam shot from Goliath's eyes (Xanatos was shown retrieving the laser in the previous scene).
On the subject of Xanatos, I knew he was at least tilted if not the outright villain. Mostly this is because he seemed like that in the "trailer" I saw on the "Nightmare Before Christmas" tape. However, there were also a couple of his lines. Whenever ANY character says the phrase "At last" in reference to a noun I tend to mark them down as untrustworthy. Then of course there's the wonderful line "Pay a man enough, and he'll walk barefoot into Hell." One of the coolest lines in the whole damn series, IMHO (I was surprised you guys got away with a character saying the ol' "H-E-double-hockey-sticks" word). But I did believe Xanatos when he said Goliath & co. were the last gargoyles on Earth (once again, it seemed the route so traveled I didn't expect it to change), and I thought the attack itself was for real.
Goliath's "suicide"--unfortunately I knew he was going to wake up in 1,000 years, and I never looked at it as a suicide until you pointed it out as such. I can be pretty thick-headed in some things. I did love their awakening in the 20th century, however. Definitely a sense there of the creatures of antiquity being reborn if you will.
As for Owen, there was definitely a mystique here--he only gets the one scene, yet he is so dignified and solemn, and seems more practical and level-headed than his "boss." How many other "villain's sidekicks" are like that?

Used WAY too much space. C'YA!

Greg responds...

Interesting observations. (By the way, the "barefoot into hell" line was all Michael Reaves.)

It's interesting about the "last Gargoyles on earth" thing. I mean, here you don't actually trust X, but you still are inclined to believe what he says. The next question is did you believe his story about Demona? And after David was fully revealed as a villain, did you think to reconsider what he had said about the eggs? Or did you just forget about them until Avalon?

Response recorded on March 31, 2000


: « First : « 1000 : « 100 : « 10 : Displaying #1571 - #1580 of 1656 records. : 10 » : Last » :