A Station Eight Fan Web Site
i have a question about the process of gargs turning to stone, i've noticed that they turn to stone differently at different times. sometimes they convert to stone all at once, sometimes they do this fast and sometimes they do it slowly, and sometimes they turn to stone from the ground up or from one direction to another. my question is, why do they turn to stone different ways? is it because of their mindset at dawn or is it just random? i've noticed that they turn to stone slowly from the ground up when they don't want to turn to stone, like when Goliath and Hudson were returning to Wyvern the night of the massacre, or when Goliath was told Elisa was shot, or when Broadway was caught in midair at dawn. in a way are they trying to to forstall the change to stone and this causes the change to happen in a different way? am i looking at this way too hard, i don't think i am, the stone changing process just seems slower and more "forced" when the gargs are in distress or don't want it to be dawn...
i think thats all i have to say...
Well, the obvious real world answer is that we're using artistic license all over the damn place.
But in the garg universe, I think you've answered your own question. If they don't want to change, they can fight it for a few seconds. Slow the process a bit. But just a bit.
I loved the show, especialy the Goliath/Elisa story. But I have a question, I heard that gargoyles age at half the rate that humans do. Would that affect Goliath and Elisa's relationship as the years whent on?
(Oh yeah, and just a daft one...do gargoyles shave? Hudson is the only one with facial hair of any description, I just wondered...)
OK. That you very much. How are you today?
Some gargs shave, some don't.
And yes, the difference in their age rate would of course effect their relationship. But I'm not saying how.
Hello Mr. Weisman.
I don't come here often, but occasionally I'm struck by the urge to quiz you on something. I was browsing the questions you're fielding, and I was struck again by something I notice every time I visit this page. There seems to be some preoccupation here with "the mind of the other." I noticed another poster make reference to your interest in it (although I cannot find any record of your having initiated the discussion).
While the series was still active I saw you invoke this theme frequently whenever you emphasized the cultural shock that the gargoyles experienced in modern America, and I appreciated the fact that you treated our linguistic tendencies to "name everything" as a curious human social construction. It helped to push the idea that these creatures were _not_ human and that we could not understand their natures or their motivations from within the context of human sensibilities. I see there is some similar talk here of the fay, and the notion that their essential nature might be something that is sufficiently far removed from humans so as to be outside our understanding. All of this puts me in mind of the anthropomorphic problem that the SETI administration outlined for dealing with the idea of extraterrestrial intelligence's. Human beings have a tendency to ascribe human values to non human species, and beyond that have considerable difficulty in contextualizing "the mind of the other" without unconsciously resorting to the context of human sensibilities.
Which brings me to the reason for this post; because being a student of the sciences (and probably less attached to my humanity than most people), I have found reason to be extremely critical of some of the aspects of the way the anthropomorphic problem is treated within the natural sciences as it applies to non-human animals. Generally speaking, my problem is that some of the more archaic ethical distinctions that are made between humans and other animals have their foundation in the premise that the ascription of certain mental capacities ( reflection, emotion, etc.) are the ascription of _uniquely human_ qualities. The fact that this premise, itself, is socially constructed rather than informed by data, seems to be lost on at least most _social_ scientists. What is troubling me is that I have begun to observe this kind of thinking migrate into the popular domain through science fiction. I don't really follow sci fi, but I've seen star trek, and I have had occasion to see the half-dozen or so other popular sci fi programs that one can find on television. I see a trend wherein the heroes casual disintegration of a planet is commonly justified with the hazily defined and indistinct ethics of "It did not harbor any sentient life."
This trend is scaring the hell out of me; because the expression "sentient" is not really used within the scientific community, so it does not have any agreed upon definition attached to it and there is no objective data informing the idea of it. The word seems to have infiltrated popular culture, however, where it finds frequent expression. That's what's bothering me. I see a lot of the same hazy ethical reasoning on this board. A number of messages expressing the confusion that humans in your story were subject to when they "mistook the gargoyles for animals rather than sentient beings" and in doing so, justified a campaign to exterminate them.
I would hope that a reasonable group of people would be given pause by the almost casual disregard for life that is being demonstrated with the prioritization of one life over another based upon the presence or non-presence of this seemingly magical endowment. Because if I am reading the intentions of the contributors to this board accurately, then it would appear their position is that if the occupants of that clock tower had been a group of stray dogs or a family of polar bears, then annihilating them with a wire guided missile would have been perfectly reasonable. "It's all right. It didn't harbor any sentient life." I would encourage the fans that come to this site to give some thought to what it is they mean by "sentience." What is the content of this sentience? If it entails that a creature can react to it's environment, anticipate, reflect and emote, then it should be pointed out that what available data exists indicates that this capacity is only about as exclusive a domain as most land based vertebrates.
I guess they shouldn't have disintegrated that planet after all. I hope to encourage others to give this issue the thought that it requires. I am also hoping to elicit some commentary from you, on the matter of how you perceive "the mind of the other." What mental distinctions do you draw between humans and gargates or faeries. I would be interested in hearing you address the notion.
Thank you for writing. It certainly gets me thinking.
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.
Certainly, I don't want to see a family of polar bears, anthropomorphic or otherwise, blown up by a guided missile.
I don't much like the idea of destroying planets. In science fiction or otherwise.
As to this "mind of the other" concept...
Well for starters, I don't believe I did initiate the discussion of it -- unless you're including my constant admonishments to posters here that they are thinking like a human.
The previous post by Demoness and my response are a perfect example. She thinks Oberon is out of line. But she's thinking like a human, and a biased one at that. (I don't mean to pick on you, Demoness.) Oberon has a valid point of view. We may not like it, but it seems justifiable to me.
But the question of the mind of the other, was posted here initially by someone else. ( I can't remember who it was at this moment. ) I only just answered it in the last few days. Since you posted YOUR question, hopefully you've seen my response to that one.
And to reiterate, my response was that I'm still (in our universe) interested in the mind of US. Not the OTHER. But one way to explore that is to put ourselves in the shoes of the OTHER. Finding and describing and bringing the OTHER to life, whether as a Gargoyle or as a Child of Oberon, is for me an exercise in EXTRAPOLATION.
For example: If I was me, BUT I turned to stone every day AND I aged at half the rate I currently do PLUS most of my species had been exterminated 1000 years ago, ETC. -- then WHAT WOULD I BE LIKE?
For me, it's less about investing in species then in individual characters. Each with his or her own UNIQUE LIST of "extrapalatory parameters" (I just made that phrase up.)
It's really no different with a character like Elisa. After all, I'm a white Jewish male from California who has spent his entire adult life working in fiction. Elisa is an African-American/Native-American female from New York who's spent her adult life fighting crime. To understand her, I need to extrapolate.
However, in order to understand individuals of another species, I need to know more about that species. I need to envision the parameters that I will use to fully create their characters. So I've done that. In many ways, to me, gargoyle culture represent a kind of ideal. Not perfection, which doesn't personally interest me. But an ideal. Purpose. Loyalty. Oneness with the world they live in. Etc. I've borrowed things that I admired from multiple cultures and from my imagination, and I've tried to weave it into a coherent whole that fits the biology that I assigned them. These biological limits also create parameters for extrapolating character. Yes, the turning to stone thing. But also the group egg laying on a twenty year cycle. This naturally leads into the group child rearing thing. One is biological. One is cultural. But they are linked by extrapolation.
[Or... and I know this sounds silly but... perhaps they are linked by truth. By the fact that they exist in the Gargoyle Universe. As I've said many times before, sometimes this show flowed so well and easily, that it just seemed like I was tapping into something that existed. (But that's got nothing to do with this discussion, so let's ignore it.)]
And yet, from my point of view, all this is used to further illustrate the human condition. I don't think Oberon does or should think like us. But don't we all know a couple people with a little Oberon in them.
Keith David has said, as recently as seven days ago, that when he grows up he hopes to be like Goliath. And I personally think, that flawed as he is, Goliath is a wonderful role model. So we, as humans, can learn from Gargoyles. And we, as humans, can learn from Margot Yale as well. Maybe as a negative example. Maybe as something more down the road.
Ending Hunter's Moon with Jon Canmore becoming the human equivalent of Demona, was not an accident. They arrived at that point in two very different ways -- each, I hope, well informed by his or her species. (Or well extrapolated.) Nevertheless, the similarities between them are obvious and represent a "lesson" for us all.
All that stuff interests me MUCH, MUCH more than the exercise of creating something fully OTHER, just for the sake of achieving that.
Someday that may not be true. Aliens could land in Washington D.C. tomorrow and then comprehending the OTHER for the sake of understanding the OTHER will become a BIG priority fast. But for the time being, the human race is effectively alone in the universe. And before the aliens land, I'd like us all to get to know ourselves MUCH, MUCH better. In that sense, an Oberon, a Goliath, a Nokkar, are all just tools to that end.
The concept of sentience, comes in again, as I said, as a crutch. A convenient distinction between Bronx and Goliath, for example. Let's say you're from Russia. You don't speak English, and Goliath doesn't speak Russian. Still you have a hope that one or both of you may learn to speak the other's language. Dialogue is possible.
Bronx isn't ever going to speak Russian or English. That's the distinction. For what it's worth. In a moral sense, I'd say it's not worth MUCH at all. In a PRAGMATIC sense, we're not being honest if we don't admit it MEANS a lot.
Now. I don't think sentience is a WALL. Koko the gorilla can communicate in sign language. And I've got to say, I'm not sure that whales and dolphins aren't squealing complex philosophical discussions every day of the week. (Which is confusing because Dolphins have an eight day week, and whales have a thirty-seven day week. But what are you going to do?)
But even including a Bronx or a Cagney has value in the show. How do we respond to them. How do they respond to us? It's fun to do "The Hound of Ulster" and try to understand how an "animal" responds to various stimuli. It's still extrapolation. Now, with Bronx, I can cheat. I can keep him a beast and anthropomorphize him to my heart's content, because that species doesn't truly exist. I can make him as intelligent as I want. My goal there is to simply be consistent. Bronx can't start responding like Scooby Doo one day. You get the idea.
It's still about us understanding us and our place in the world. If in my own small way, I'm helping to open minds, helping to pave a bit of a way for when the aliens DO LAND, then great. But first and foremost, I'm asking us to KNOW OURSELVES.
Anyway, I feel like I'm starting to get repetitive. But this whole thread intrigues me. Feel free to post again with a follow-up. And everyone's welcome to join in.
1. do either Broadway or Lexington shave their heads? do either have hairy heads if they wanted to let it grow?
2. do some beast have hair in the same way that some gargs have hair and some don't?
1. I don't think so. But maybe.
1. are beast egss different from regular garg eggs in any way? like size, color, markings, texture, etc.
2. are most gargoyle rookeries pretty similar? a dark, humid cave as we saw in "Awakening"?
3. what was that smily green stuff that who-would-be-Broadway find and eat on the rookery wall?
4. what was causing the rookery to glow? was it that grenn smily stuff?
5. do all gargoyle eggs look like each other among the different clans? would a wise gargoyle be able to tell the difference between a London garg egg and a Guatemalan garg egg for instance?
2. More or less.
3. Uh, mold?
5. I doubt it.
are there any gargs out there who can naturally fly or are there any that perhaps have a rare talent among gargs and are able to fly?
oh, and this excludes the Coldtrio, Goliath with the Eye of Odin, and any other gargoyles inhanced by science or magic, i mean fly under their own natural power!
geeez, with you i always have to cover my bases... you're a sly one.
Not that I know of.
Hi there. I just found out some time ago that I love the show Gargoyles, although I have yet to see the last 13 eps.
Looking through this site, a lot of questions started coming to my mind. I have a lot, but they are pretty differnt amd it says I shouldn't post them all at once, so here is my first.
When Sevarius gives his genetics slide show, he said that gargoyles get the energy they need to fly by soking up solar energy while asleep. If he is right, how does this apply to gargs who turn to stone underground or if it's a cloudy day?
Are they more weak when they wake up, or was severius just incorrect?
Thanks, and once again, great show.
Sevarius was basically correct. But turning to stone underground one day isn't going to weaken a gargoyle perceptibly. If he or she is underground, day after day after day, that's a different story.
As to clouds... Ever gotten a sunburn on a hazy day? I have.
My last question brought some others--what is the average biological age a male gargoyle first produces enough sperm to fertilize an egg? For that matter, what is the average biological age a gargoyle(male or female) start puberty? And do some gargoyle males experience something similar to _ahem_ "wet dreams?"(Their stone while they're asleep, so does something like that happen while they're awake?) Thanks, and I hope my questions were not too offensive.(You know how some people are...)
I'm not offended.
But I also don't have the info here at home I need to give you ages.
I will say that fertility in females is a combination of maturity (i.e. the period between puberty and menopause) and cycle (i.e. matching the bio-flow of the planet).
As for wet dreams? You've stumped me. But masturbation? Sure.
you said that the cross-generational love between Yama and Sora isn't the norm, but isn't unheard of, so:
1. are there gargoyles (esspecially among the Ishimura clan) that are against relationships between non-rookery siblings?
2. have Yama or Sora ever wondered if perhaps they are biologically closely related, like brother/sister, uncle/niece? are they ever insecure about having a non-traditional relationship?
3. will they still be able to have 3 children if they want to? obviously, Sora being younger should be able to concieve 3 times, but are male gargoyles able to fertilize an egg at any time in their life? if they have 3 eggs, Yama will be a generation older than most the other fathers in the clan...
1. It's not that much of a taboo. Certainly not when the individuals are only one generation apart.
2. This isn't really an issue. As I've stated before, gargoyles have scent markers that unconsciously discourage them from an unhealthy incestuous relationship.
3. It should work out, depending on how long Yama's away from the clan.
Can stone sleep heal damages done to the nervous system such as to the spine?