Ian writes...

Aren't Shan's well written questions just a delight to read?

Shan writes...

The following is in response to a question you answered for me.

Greg wrote:

Claw was mute. Renard was confined to a wheelchair. I'm not tooting my own horn here, I just think that maybe you're overlooking characters because they fit so naturally into the series that you forgot they were disabled.

Shan responds:

I'm beyond exhausted at the moment, so other than Garrett from the show I worked on I can't think of anyone else who has have appeared in every other show (except Brutto if ROUGHNECKS continued). I think you may be right about characters at the supporting level -- the Robbins and Renards of the animated universe -- but most do seem to be one shots, sometimes even in storylines where their disability is "repaired" by the end of the episode (such as an injury-created blindness that surgery or something else corrects), which usually seems a cop-out. IMNSHO.

And while I do like Renard, particularly as Fox's father, he is older than most of the characters we're talking about and from what Puck shows with his images in "Gathering Part Two," wasn't always in a chair, was he? (Again, beyond exhaustion, I might be wrong) It's a combination of age and illness, or at least that's the impression I've had. But then again, Robbins was blinded in Viet Nam and he's even younger. Showing ability with disability at all ages and stages of life -- and that it isn't always congenital -- is a good thing.

I have no clue why this is such a personal springboard for me, but I'm not embarrassed about it. I can tell you it predates my seizure disorder (circa 1992). On that note, I know that seizures are usually used to comic effect in film and TV and living it isn't funny to me. I close my eyes and let it be though. I'm not going to tell people what they can and can't do. I just don't have to like it.

(Now jumping off soapbox...)

Greg also wrote:

I also would love to do a hearing impaired animated character with Marlee Matlin doing the voice. She used to come into Rockets and I once had such a big crush on her that I swore that if she came in one more time, I'd ask her to marry me. (She must have sensed that cause she never came back.)

Shan replies:

:) If you did the character as a lip-reader, it would probably work in limited animation. Sign language is a whole different ball of wax, though I do know I saw it done once as a kid (I want to say on DEFENDERS OF THE EARTH, but I am so tired right now). Christy Marx and I talked about this waaaay back when I first met her, though it's become public knowledge on the TRULY OUTRAGEOUS! JEM Mailing List over the years. Hasbro had Christy developing a JEM feature that never really went past treatment since the TRANSFORMERS and GI JOE movies did so poorly. They were going to have a deaf girl in that movie, which was integral to the plot. Later on, Christy had dinner with a woman who taught her there are many variants of sign language; ASA (American Sign Language) is just one of several so it might not be understood well in some markets that aren't familiar with ASA and thereby not translate internationally. Also the complexity of the hand gestures just might not come out right in limited animation. So she told me at that time she wasn't sure if it ultimately would have worked out it.

Just FYI...

Shan writes...

Ian>Um... thank you, I think, for complementing my questions. (I was passing through to see what other questions had been posted as long as I was online and saw your comment).

Greg>I hope my questions better exemplify your preferences, but you and I both know I can be error prone on occasion. I can think of instances both where I was your student and not proofing myself well enough as an interviewer (the latter being the greater embarrassment) where that was the case.

(And I just had to go look up embarrassment. I always have to stop and think about the "r"s and "s"s...)

Todd Jensen writes...

One thing that I thought that I'd mention here today, now that the question queue has gotten started up again, is on Goliath's smashing the Praying Gargoyle and foiling Operation Clean Slate in "Hunter's Moon".

I think that it's obvious to us all that Goliath was taking a big risk there, since if Demona had smashed the vial after that, all the gargoyles would have died alongside all the humans. But I wonder how many of us have noticed something else, that foiling Demona's genocide scheme entirely (as indeed happened here) could be almost as fatal to the gargoyle race. After all, at this point, the existence of gargoyles has been revealed to the world, and the public wasn't too thrilled with that. At the time that Goliath was confronting Demona, St. Damien's Cathedral was surrounded by an angry crowd practically howling for the gargoyles' blood, which was even prepared to charge in vigilante-style if the police didn't do anything. And even afterwards, as we saw in "The Journey", the public attitude towards gargoyles remained hostile; people were eagerly joining the Quarrymen when Castaway set it up, Margot Yale was openly calling for the capture and incarceration of the entire species on television, etc. We know, of course, from your "Gargoyles 2198" announcement that eventually humans do learn to recognize gargoyles' right to exist, and that by 2198, the days of near-universal attempts on humanity's part to hunt down and kill gargoyles are over - but Goliath, obviously, couldn't have known that.

I don't know whether Goliath had time to realize when he smashed the Praying Gargoyle (he took action extremely quickly, after all) that he was thus potentially endangering his species twice over, and that by saving humanity he was potentially dooming his race to brutal massacres (and I'm sure that even if he did know it, he'd have felt that there are just certain things that you have to do that are more important than mere survival and that wiping out one race so that another can survive is wrong - not to mention that he also knew that not all humans were crazed anti-gargoyle zealots), but I still think that that action of his was probably one of the most courageous and altruistic deeds that he performed in the entire series. I just thought that I'd give my thoughts on that here.

Virginia writes...

Are you going to be able to make any kind of art gallery in the near future? I love your work and would be interested to be able to purchase picutres from the gargoyle and Max Steel series. My 3 year old son loves the show too, btw.

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.

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.

Punchinello writes...

______________________________________________________________________________
It brings me to another distinction: the one between sentience and artificial intelligence. Coyote, for instance, can throw a zinger, but is he self-aware? I don't think he is. Xanatos hasn't achieved (or would wish to achieve) that much, has he?
______________________________________________________________________________

I don't know anything about computer technology past it's relationship to cognitive studies into artificial intelligence. There is a lot of dispute about the possibility of an actual computer intelligence. I'm not competent to say if the possibility is real but I would not discount it. I can see numerous avenues for foundations for intelligence besides the neurochemical variety. Incidentally, I once took a Turing test...and failed. I was delighted.

Todd Jensen writes...

Many mythological scholars believe that in the early days of the myths, humanity was matriarchal, worshipping some sort of "Great Goddess"-figure, but as time went on, it underwent a shift to a more patriarchal culture, producing male gods such as Zeus who toppled the "Great Goddess" and replaced her. Did such theories (assuming that you're aware of them) influence your vision of Oberon overthrowing his mother Mab and replacing her?

Chris J. writes...

Greg:

I have a million questions, but I would prefer to leave them unaswered. However, I would like to thank you (and all those others involved) for creating such a magical series. Gargoyles is truly a work that raises that bar when it comes to storytelling in an animated series.

So, regardless of whatever happens in the future with Goliath and the gang, thank you for producing some of best storytelling this fan has seen in any medium.