Todd Jensen writes...

My ramble-response on "City of Stone Part Two".

I very much enjoyed it (like the other parts of "City of Stone"). A few specific thoughts:

The 11th century flashbacks continued to be good ones. I particularly liked Macbeth and Gruoch's scene on the hill, the "villains-fall-out" part between Duncan and Gillecomgain, and Duncan's afterwards duping Macbeth into going against Gillecomgain. (One thing that I recently found myself wondering was whether Duncan was hoping to trick Macbeth into killing Gillecomgain for him as a means of disposing of a former henchman who was now becoming of a problem to him, as a means of forcing Gillecomgain into killing Macbeth by having Macbeth attack him, or maybe even whether he was hoping that they'd kill each other and get rid of two problems for him at once).

One thing that strikes me about the Duncan of "City of Stone" (here already in the first two parts and even more in Part Three): he's a lot closer to the Macbeth of Shakespeare than the Macbeth of "City of Stone" is. Duncan is here the one who ensures a clear path to the throne by murdering the opposition; furthermore, he moves against Macbeth in a manner almost evocative of Macbeth's moving against Banquo in the play, because of the fear that Macbeth will cheat him and his future lineage of the throne. (It strikes me as significant that Duncan renews his scheming against Macbeth after Canmore's birth, as if that was the catalyst for it: now he has a future dynasty to protect, rather than just his own personal ambitions). The one significant difference is that the Duncan of "Gargoyles" never shows any of the internal torment or remorse that the Macbeth of Shakespeare shows over his criminal deeds; apparently Prince Duncan is much more hardened and callous.

I also like the touch of Demona genuinely failing to recognize Gillecomgain as the boy she attacked back in 994, even after he spells it out to her. (Definitely fits Demona's character a lot).

For the present-day parts: I liked Jeffrey Robbins' return, and thought that it was well-integrated into the story. Demona's massacre was very chilling. As for Xanatos shutting off the broadcast, I picked up on later showings the notion that he initially thought that that would be enough to undo Demona's spell, but I'm not so certain that it occurred to me the first time around.

The thing that interests me most about the ending, actually, isn't so much Xanatos and Goliath calling a truce as the fact that it's Xanatos who brings up the need for a truce with the words "Do you want vengeance, or a solution?" Temporary truces between the hero and the villain over a common foe happen often in adventure cartoons - but how often is it the villain who realizes the need for it first and has to convince the hero of it? The line tells us a lot, I think, about Xanatos's uniqueness: he has common sense, and the clear understanding that finding a way to undo Demona's spell is a much greater priority than just looking for someone to punish.

Looking forward to the rambles on the remaining two parts.