A Station Eight Fan Web Site

Gargoyles

The Phoenix Gate

Comment Room Archive

Comments for the week ending April 12, 2004

Index : Hide Images

hello!

Patrick: I didn't get any email from you yet. could you please resend the email?
I've sent you -the staff- a scan of the recipe of the postal warrant sent wednesday. Should arrive any day, now.

Denis - [d.deplaen@lft.be]
Sunday, April 11, 2004 05:51:20 PM
IP: 81.242.246.246

Whoops, wrong Image in the last post! :-)
Airwalker - [airwalker9999@yahoo.com]
Brooklyn, NY
Sunday, April 11, 2004 09:28:58 AM
IP: 12.75.156.15

CKAYOTE - You wrote: [Prehaps it was because they were traveling 'light' - no siege equipment, just guys with swords.]

Actually they did have some seige equipment; they had the catapult that was leveling huge parts of the castle wall. I could believe that the Vikings tried to start a seige of the Castle that morning and had kept it up until the Gargoyles woke up. It just that after the Clan woke up they completely defeat the Vikings and drive them away. So if they aren't surrounding the castle and beseiging it then is it still a seige anymore?


PAUL - You wrote: [Hudson made his views very clear on protecting the castle.]

Yes he did but that was part of the debate that was going on; he had one view and Demona had another. That doesn't particularly mean that he'd make the jump in logic and say that because she disagreed with him, she must have conspired with the Captain to have the Castle sacked. In the end there isn't any real hard evidence that she was involved at all, only that the Castle was betrayed by someone. If the plan was successful and she never said anything about her role in it then there really is no way to suspect anything. Most people would have just simply dismissed her fervent appeals to take the Clan out of the Castle as a difference in Strategy rather than as some sort of devious plan. Even with the events in the series where the plan was unsuccessful, thats how it was seen. The only reason any of them knew anything is that she spilled her guts in AWAKENINGS 5; if she hadn't said anything then they would never have come near to suspecting her.

You wrote: [But wasn't it late afternoon before Hakon got around to smashing the Gargoyles into rubble. I doubt the Vikings could cover the distance needed to clear the Gargoyles' flight range.]

Thats why they wouldn't have time to stop; they would need to move twice as fast if they knew a Clan of Gargoyles was going to be following them. They would have to march into the night nostop rather than sit around some caves eating and drinking. (Plus they would have had an extra hour or so to run since they wouldn't have spent the time destroying the Clan.)

Airwalker - [airwalker9999@yahoo.com]
Brooklyn, NY
Sunday, April 11, 2004 09:27:46 AM
IP: 12.75.156.15

Denis > I've e-mailed you. Please reply there so we can figure out what you're looking for.

Just a general note to everyone... this comment room is not the best place to leave messages for the Gathering staff. It's better to e-mail us so your message doesn't get lost in the shuffle. For registration questions, the e-mail is posted below. For other questions, contact info is available on the web site.

118 days left until The Gathering 2004 in Montreal, Quebec!

Patrick - [registration@gatheringofthegargoyles.com]
Saturday, April 10, 2004 10:28:55 PM
IP: 65.43.162.204

Airwalker You Wrote: [Why? After all they weren't that concerned about it in the episodes. Why would they, in the event the plan had been successful, have suddenly put two and two together to figure out that she was part of a conspiracy to have the Castle sacked and all the Humans dragged off?]

Hudson was, in the flashbacks in Ep 13, the Reawakening, Hudson made his views very clear on protecting the castle. Also, Coldstone was a fence sitter on the issue, but he was about to ask to join Goliath and Hudson in hunting for the Vikings when the Magus interrupted them and was a jerk.

[Probably not. Hakon and his Vikings camped out not far from the Castle because Hakon was convinced that with the Clan destroyed, he had nothing to worry about. But if the plan had been successful, he would have been expecting something to happen, that odds might be good that the Clan would head out after him and his army. So chances are that the Vikings wouldn't have hung around and that there probably wouldn't have been a confrontation at the cliff.]

You make a very good point. But wasn't it late afternoon before Hakon got around to smashing the Gargoyles into rubble. I doubt the Vikings could cover the distance needed to clear the Gargoyles' flight range.

CKayote You Wrote: [That said, I have to side with Airwalker; 994 just didn't come off as a siege. I figured the vikings more of a band of maruading opportunists than a dedicated army. Prehaps it was because they were traveling 'light' - no siege equipment, just guys with swords. But that might have been the animation department, not the writers.]

It is possible that it was a Viking raiding party that landed their boats near the castle (within a 20 mile range of the castle.)

I mean that was probably their first attack because they were suprised by the Gargoyles. If it was a siege (meaning several attempts to take the castle) then they would have already known about the Gargoyles.
Paul Cousins
GA, USA
Saturday, April 10, 2004 03:35:45 PM
IP: 68.220.13.249

Greg W: Thanks for interjecting your expert opinion. Always nice to hear from the master.

That said, I have to side with Airwalker; 994 just didn't come off as a siege. I figured the vikings more of a band of maruading opportunists than a dedicated army. Prehaps it was because they were traveling 'light' - no siege equipment, just guys with swords. But that might have been the animation department, not the writers.

And I'm also getting you're specifiying it was a siege because there's some untold story here.

Thanks Again!


CKayote - [CKayote@worldnet.att.net]
Orlando, FL
Saturday, April 10, 2004 02:54:35 PM
IP: 132.170.35.195

Heck of a discussion... wish I could add to it, but everyone's pretty much got the angles covered I think. ^_^

And, as of 10:20am today... I will be officially 35... and there was much rejoycing. (yaaaay...)

Maintain and Check Six!

Stephen R. Sobotka Jr. - [ssobotka33616_AT_yahoo.com]
Tampa, FL, USA
Saturday, April 10, 2004 05:34:22 AM
IP: 24.164.32.253

GREG - You wrote: [I understand that you only have what's on screen to go by, but I can't help feeling you are still making assumptions on very little evidence.]

I freely admit that I am making a lot of assumptions based off of the episodes. But I'm not married to my position and I imagine that my thinking on all this would change greatly if DARK AGES ever made it out in some format. I don't want to at all in this debate clear Demona or damn Goliath. But after all this time when going over the episodes some things stick out to me more than others.

You wrote: [You are judging Goliath's long term plans on the basis of how he handled things during an ONGOING VIKING SIEGE.]

You know, that is an element that I tend to completely overlook when I think about the scenario in AWAKENINGS 1-2. I think that its because the episode doesn't give me the impression of a classic seige (you know with the enemy army constantly encircling the city/castle) - after all we start the show off with the Vikings being routed and driven off. The defeat and the absence of the Vikings from the immediate vicinity of the Castle make me think of the battle as a hit and run attack on the part of the Vikings, making them a little bit less of a threat than if they were the Babylonians beseiging Jerusalem.

You wrote: [To me, it's not the time to create or allow greater rifts to form between Scotsmen and Gargoyles. Not the time for a confrontation.]

On the one hand, in the context of a seige, you do make a good point. There isn't much Goliath can do. On the other hand, something must be terribly wrong in how Goliath is and was handling the situation if its come to the point that during a seige his human allies are openly behaving in the manner that they were.

You wrote: [And comparing Goliath's leadership in 994 to his leadership in 1994 also seems unfair.]

It is a little unfair. But even considering everything Golaith had to deal with emotionally and mentally (I am willing to cut him a lot of slack all things considered) he is still a leader and leaders have to be judged to a higher and harsher standard.

You wrote: [The situations were entirely different. And Goliath was WAY off-balance a thousand years later.]

I never said that the situations were the same, only that in some respects they do seem eeriely similar to each other. Some of what I see in 994 AWAKENINGS does seem to be paralleled by some behavior in the THRILL OF THE HUNT to ENTER MACBETH period. The Elisa/Demona parallel is what I personally focused on in my mind when I first started thinking about parallels.


PAUL - You wrote: [Hudson and Goliath would have still liked to have known WHY Demona was so forceful on getting the clan to leave the castle on that particular night.]

Why? After all they weren't that concerned about it in the episodes. Why would they, in the event the plan had been successful, have suddenly put two and two together to figure out that she was part of a conspiracy to have the Castle sacked and all the Humans dragged off?

You wrote: [There we have the possiblity of the cliff scene again.]

Probably not. Hakon and his Vikings camped out not far from the Castle because Hakon was convinced that with the Clan destroyed, he had nothing to worry about. But if the plan had been successful, he would have been expecting something to happen, that odds might be good that the Clan would head out after him and his army. So chances are that the Vikings wouldn't have hung around and that there probably wouldn't have been a confrontation at the cliff.

Airwalker - [airwalker9999@yahoo.com]
Brooklyn, NY
Saturday, April 10, 2004 12:21:07 AM
IP: 12.75.155.103

DPH & Denis>> Well then, it would seem that the error is in my Yahoo account. I actually got your e-mail, Denis, just a day late. I've responded but it would be best to reply to my Hotmail account from now on.

And, DPH, if you could send your e-mail to me there as well, we'll be all set.

So, in hoping that communicating with me is all good, back to the main conversation.

(Allaine and Leo, also got your e-mails and have responded - again, reply back to my Hotmail addy)

Alex Garg - [beltwaywdc@hotmail.com]
VA, USA
Friday, April 9, 2004 03:30:01 PM
IP: 138.88.28.103

Alex Garg> You didn't get my email? again! bummer! I'll have to check it out. In the meanwhile, we can use my hotmail addy.

Gathering Staff: In regard to what happened, email-wise, with Alex Garg, I'm starting to wonder. Wednesday eve, I send you guys an email with the scan of the receipt of the payments for the registration. Did you receive this email?

Gotta jet! see you guys after work!

Denis - [malkavien666@hotmail.com]
Friday, April 9, 2004 01:03:34 AM
IP: 81.242.216.9

Alex Garg - You never did respond to a private email I sent you over a week ago.
DPH
AR, USA
Thursday, April 8, 2004 11:31:53 PM
IP: 67.14.195.11

*emerges once again from lurking*

I always enjoy a visit from Greg, even if I'm not participating in the discussion at hand.

On that...

*steps around the main conversation*

Denis>> Sorry, I'm just not getting your e-mails for some reason. Do you have another one you could try to use? I'm not sure what else would work if I'm not getting your messages on either of my accounts.

*resumes lurking*

Alex Garg
VA, USA
Thursday, April 8, 2004 08:54:49 PM
IP: 138.88.109.156

Thanks for stopping by, Greg! It was certainly an unexpected treat to hear from you on the debate.
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Thursday, April 8, 2004 07:12:35 PM
IP: 4.244.12.18

Mr. Weisman there so much to your masterpiece left untold before the rest of us could begin to understand it.

Seven years later and people are still debating various parts and characters of your series.

Take a bow man, you deserve it.

Also, there is one major difference between Goliath's leadership abilites in 994 AD and 1994 AD (onward), besides the betrayal at the castle and meeting Elisa. That is that in 1994 AD, you hinted that Goliath is an avid book reader; reading Dostoyevsky's work is a deep subject. All this reading and learning about various political and social philosophies probably refined his leadership abilities greatly.

Paul Cousins
GA, USA
Thursday, April 8, 2004 05:14:56 PM
IP: 68.220.13.249

Hello!

Demona and the Virus: Actually I think that Demona would have been infected by the virus, herself...as soon as the Sun rises. The virus attacks the human and not the gargoyles, right? Then it must look in the DNA, and destroy the part that define the human being from, say the Great White Shark or the Grey Gorilla. And then, since she becomes human, she becomes sensible to the virus.
I don't think she would die, no, but she'd be constantly ill and sick, and temporary die, then comes back, turns human at day, gets infected and so on. Finally, she'd seek Macbeth out of dispair to end her torment.

Alex Garg: send you a new mail to the addy you gave me earlier. did you get it, this time?

Denis - [d.deplaen@lft.be]
Thursday, April 8, 2004 04:57:48 PM
IP: 81.243.228.59

Wow!

Did a little skimming. Interesting stuff. Just a few thoughts (beyond generally agreeing -- no surprise -- with Ellen).

Punchinello - If all you felt for Demona was pity and not sympathy, then obviously we failed in some way. In fact, I wasn't even going for sympathy but rather for full-on audience complicity. I wanted the audience to find themselves rooting for Demona -- and then to be stunned (a double-take of sorts) when they refocused on what the actual actions they were rooting for were. That was the plan anyway.

And no, I don't think that violence is NEVER justified, but I also can't defend what Demona did, the choices she made. Her plan WAS a betrayal. If you don't beleive in how your leader is leading there are many legitimate ways to challenge his or her authority. Going behind his back to traffic with an enemy in the vague hope that it all turns out all right doesn't seem to be one of them. And clearly DEMONA herself knows this. She knew it then. She knows it now. But she refuses to admit it to herself. And as someone said, if you cannot admit your mistakes, you cannot learn from them.

Airwalker - I understand that you only have what's on screen to go by, but I can't help feeling you are still making assumptions on very little evidence. You are judging Goliath's long term plans on the basis of how he handled things during an ONGOING VIKING SIEGE. To me, it's not the time to create or allow greater rifts to form between Scotsmen and Gargoyles. Not the time for a confrontation.

And comparing Goliath's leadership in 994 to his leadership in 1994 also seems unfair. The situations were entirely different. And Goliath was WAY off-balance a thousand years later. Plus Elisa was trying to explain twentieth century concepts to him, that he didn't understand. (Granted he didn't want to understand them -- but that goes back to the lack of balance.)

All of the above are, of course, just my opinions. I respect the debate a lot. (And when I attempt to defend the work I almost ALWAYS get myself in trouble. But here I go again.)
Greg Weisman
Thursday, April 8, 2004 04:26:14 PM
IP: 209.178.131.254

Guys, you are making a lot of good points, and it could have gone the ways you have stated. I am enjoying the this nice discussion on the possibilities.

Todd: You Wrote [Would Demona have cared about the fact that if she'd released that virus in "Hunter's Moon", she'd probably (Greg Weisman himself admits that it's an iffy question over whether it would have killed Macbeth or not) have died as a result? I doubt it.]

The problem is that it is iffy, it all depends on exactly how the Weird Sisters' spell work.

Airwalker: You wrote: [But killing the Captain would be necessary to make sure that he didn't spill the beans on her role in the betrayal.]

There we have the possiblity of the cliff scene again.

Airwalker: You wrote: [After all he is the only one who knows she was involved. With him dead, Goliath and the others can simply figure that the Captain betrayed the Castle on his own.]

Hudson and Goliath would have still liked to have known WHY Demona was so forceful on getting the clan to leave the castle on that particular night. It would be coincidental for them.

Z: You Wrote: [Please tell me you're not blaming everything on Hudson.]

No, not at all, I am not blaming Hudson for everything. He's one of my favorite characters. It is just everyone dropped the ball on this in one way of another. Hindsight being 20/20 and all.

Z: You Wrote: [There is absolutely no guarantee that the Magus would have turned them all to stone, and it is absurd to think otherwise. The fact that all the gargoyles are missing from Castle Wyvern means that Hakon does not spend any time smashing them all, which means that there is no guarantee (in fact, it is quite unlikely) that every action following that would be the same as what actually happened.]

True, but still Hakon may want to come back the day after to make sure. And he still might want his revenge for the Gargoyles defeating him and his army two nights ago.

Paul Cousins
GA, USA
Thursday, April 8, 2004 03:07:05 PM
IP: 68.220.13.249

Well, I've missed a fair amount in the last few days.

Paul Cousins -
<if Hudson had not put Goliath in charge of the clan, then Demona would not have been second-in-command and she would have not dared try this plan.>

Please tell me you're not blaming everything on Hudson.

<Then, to redeem their honor, the clan goes to save the survivers from the Vikings, and the entire clan, save for Demona, ALL end-up being turned to stone for a 1000 years.>

There is absolutely no guarantee that the Magus would have turned them all to stone, and it is absurd to think otherwise. The fact that all the gargoyles are missing from Castle Wyvern means that Hakon does not spend any time smashing them all, which means that there is no guarantee (in fact, it is quite unlikely) that every action following that would be the same as what actually happened.

Beyond that, I'll just be lazy and say that I agree with pretty much everything Todd (as usual) and matt have said.

Peace

Z
Thursday, April 8, 2004 01:34:19 PM
IP: 67.67.114.123

PAUL - You wrote: [Well, the castle in ruins would be a start, neither Hudson or Goliath are stupid, they can put two and two together.]

At most they would have figured exactly what they figured when the plan didn't work out - that there was some sort of a betrayal. But how exactly would they have figured out that Demona was involved in any way in the sack of the Castle at that point? They never actually did figure that out in the series - she had to come out and tell them about it.

You wrote: [So, Demona ends up being the one to confront them at the cliff, while the rest are turned to stone. Now that would be a interesting twist.]

That would be an interesting twist; although I'm not so sure that the circumstances of the curse would have been the same as they were in the series. The Magus managed to curse Hudson and the Trio because all of them gathered in one spot and were standing still due to the confusion of the moment. Its still possible that some of the Clan would have been in that circumstance and thus have gotten cursed. But with more survivors its possible that not everyone would have been standing still near the Magus. And when he started the curse, its entirely possible either while he was casting it or after he finished, that one of the other Gargoyles might have killed him.

You wrote: [Also, why would Demona try to kill the Captain or the Hakon, as far as she felt, she was doing the right thing.]

Killing Hakon wouldn't be so important at that point although it would be a good way to make sure that his Vikings don't come back to the area again. But killing the Captain would be necessary to make sure that he didn't spill the beans on her role in the betrayal. After all he is the only one who knows she was involved. With him dead, Goliath and the others can simply figure that the Captain betrayed the Castle on his own.

You wrote: [She'd probably gloat about how she had planned to get rid of the humans from the castle.]

Don't confuse 994 Demona with 1994 Demona. Why exactly would she have gloated about her part in the betrayal if it had succeeded? What would be the point? After all if she could keep quiet about having been an apprentice to the Archmage then she could also keep quiet in the event of a successful betrayal scenario.

You wrote: [Except maybe for Demona's rookery brother, Iago/Coldsteel, I feel the rest of the clan would have gone after the Vikings to save the castle surviors. It's a matter or honor.]

I don't think that its so cut and dry and I don't think that Coldsteel would have been the only member of the Clan a bit reluctant to go after the Humans. Coldstone after all was willing a few hours before to quit the castle over the behavior of the Magus. And Demona could have started arguing. With divided leadership, its not so clear that they would have gone after the Humans.

And even if they did, it would have taken them longer to get around to it which opens up the possibility that Hakon might have killed Katharine or the Magus (or both) in that time. After all he was threatening them both when the Clan survivors showed up in AWAKENINGS 2.

You wrote: [Remember that it is stated many times in the series that Gargoyles are meant to PROTECT]

Gargoyles choose to protect. Protection isn't a genetic compulsion that they have no say in. They built their culture around the idea but they aren't physically bound to it. They can choose not to. (And in fact they spend a good chunk of the first season not actually protecting anything.)


TODD - You wrote: [Would Demona have cared about the fact that if she'd released that virus in "Hunter's Moon", she'd probably have died as a result? I doubt it.]

I wonder if that whole attitude is something she really believes or if its just another thing that she has convinced herself to believe. After all the only successful thing she has done in a thousand years of life is to survive. While she might rationally say that she is willing to die, I have to wonder if subconsciously and if emotionally she was so ready to die - could she be so willing because she knows that the possibility is so slim?

You wrote: [Not to mention that, with all the humans gone, she no longer has them to use as a handy scapegoat to blame for all the suffering in her life that she brought about.]

She could still find ways to blame them for her troubles. Just being wiped out doesn't mean that they still can't be used as a scapegoat. It just means that she has to be more creative about making excuses. (Just because the people you hate are gone doesn't mean that you stop hating them - look at Poland or Egypt as examples. There are no Jews left in those countries at all but there is still Anti-Semtism. And its a little known fact but Hitler was planning that after he finished killing of all the Jews that he would open up a "Museum of the Lost Jewish Race" so that people could continue to be educated that all problems that Europe and Germany ever faced and will face was the fault of the Jews. Hate doesn't die so easily.)

You wrote: [Would she be pleased that they were all gone, or angry because she wasn't the one who'd done it, and now she'd been forever cheated out of her revenge?]

I think that she'd have mixed feelings; it would be sort of like if the Human race wiped itself out. She'd be happy but there'd be this twinge of regret that she didn't get to do it herself. (I keep hearing Homer Simpson's voice when I think about that - "Awwww, but I wanted to do that!...." :-) )

You wrote: [A year later, Constantine, after usurping the throne, decides that it's time to reoccupy that deserted castle on the western coast and sends an army to take it in the daytime, which is able to slaughter the entire clan in their stone sleep.]

Its not a bad scenario but I don't think that its that simple; first I think that Wyvern is not easily held and not worth occupying unless you have the aid of a Gargoyle Clan. Second it really all depends on if Katharine would have survived the encounter with Hakon or not. If she didn't then I don't think Constantine would have bothered or have even been alerted about Wyvern. (His interest in Gargoyles started mainly due to Katharine being around with the Eggs and his ability to use them as leverage to threaten her.) But if she had, if she had to be ransomed, then its possible that her attitude to Constantine would have been different. And that with less opposition to marrying him, she could have been a driving force behind forcing him to reoccupy Wyvern and getting rid of the Clan.

You wrote: [One likely possibility is that the ghosts of Hakon and the Captain might have scared would-be re-occupiers away]

On the other hand, could they really stray that far from that cave? After all one of their complaints against Goliath was being trapped there; I forgot how they described it - did Hakon call it a "stinking pit" or something to that extent?

I personally think that without Gargoyles, Wyvern wouldn't be an ideal location to hold given its isolation and that it would largely be overlooked by Kings looking to create fortifications. (Especially once the threat of Vikings vanished in the next century or two after the massacre.) As for the stories of the castle being haunted, it possible that some of it might have been Hakon and the Captain but it might have been more likely to be Demona visiting a few times as well as residual memories of the fact that Gargoyle has lived in the area.

Airwalker - [airwalker9999@yahoo.com]
Brooklyn, NY
Thursday, April 8, 2004 10:23:55 AM
IP: 12.75.154.186

Would Demona have cared about the fact that if she'd released that virus in "Hunter's Moon", she'd probably (Greg Weisman himself admits that it's an iffy question over whether it would have killed Macbeth or not) have died as a result? I doubt it.

For one thing, I believe that Demona hates humans so much that she'd be willing to die if it meant wiping out the entire species in the process. And for another, the advantage of whatever method that she used to wipe out the humans killing her too is that it means that she wouldn't have to face the problem of what she'd do after destroying the human race. Humanity has been her obsession for the last thousand years to such an extent that if they were all gone, she'd now be having to look frantically for a new purpose in life. (Not to mention that, with all the humans gone, she no longer has them to use as a handy scapegoat to blame for all the suffering in her life that she brought about.)

I find myself, incidentally, reminded of my little speculation over how Demona would respond if somebody else were to wipe out humanity; would she be pleased that they were all gone, or angry because she wasn't the one who'd done it, and now she'd been forever cheated out of her revenge?

One other possible consequence of "What if the Captain and Demona's plan had succeeded?" Let's assume that Goliath and the other gargoyles don't, for some reason, go after the Vikings to rescue the humans (and the Captain and Demona's plan obviously counted on their not doing this). The gargoyles now have no humans in the castle and are unprotected in the daytime. A year later, Constantine, after usurping the throne, decides that it's time to reoccupy that deserted castle on the western coast and sends an army to take it in the daytime, which is able to slaughter the entire clan in their stone sleep. (That raises the question as to why something like that didn't happen anyway after the massacre to the surviving gargoyles. One likely possibility is that the ghosts of Hakon and the Captain might have scared would-be re-occupiers away; Owen did mention in "Awakening Part Two" that the castle had a reputation for being haunted.)

Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Thursday, April 8, 2004 07:13:16 AM
IP: 4.244.12.72

Airwalker: You wrote [Actually if the plan had succeeded then how would the Clan have known that there was any plan at all?]

Well, the castle in ruins would be a start, neither Hudson or Goliath are stupid, they can put two and two together.

[They might have gone after the Wyvern Humans but that is still no guarantee that anyone would find out because odds are good that Demona would have made straight for killing Hakon and maybe even the Captain to keep everything quiet.]

So, Demona ends up being the one to confront them at the cliff, while the rest are turned to stone. Now that would be a interesting twist. I don't know how that would play out for the eggs. It depends on if Goliath is cursed before or after confronting Demona.

Also, why would Demona try to kill the Captain or the Hakon, as far as she felt, she was doing the right thing. She'd probably gloat about how she had planned to get rid of the humans from the castle. Then Goliath would have outcasted her, instead of killing her because he still loves her.

[And there is no guarantee they would have gone after the Humans; Goliath might want to but its also possible that Demona could have marshalled a good number of the Clan to force him not to do so.]

Except maybe for Demona's ruckery brother, Iago/Coldsteel, I feel the rest of the clan would have gone after the Vikings to save the castle surviors. It's a matter or honor. Remember that it is stated many times in the series that Gargoyles are meant to PROTECT and Demona broke that very major taboo by being a party to the betrayal of the castle.

Paul Cousins
GA, USA
Thursday, April 8, 2004 12:07:29 AM
IP: 68.220.11.222

MATT - You wrote: [Ok Airwalker lets say YOU are Goliath, its 994 and everything is getting ugly. What would you have done to save the situation that you KNOW for a FACT that Goliath wasn't doing?]

I'm not saying that I had a better solution; the situation that the Wyvern Clan were in was truly and completely crap with very little reason to be optimistic. I can't completely blame Goliath for being in a holding position given that most of his options range from bad to worse. I think that if I have any criticism at all its that Goliath allowed it to reach that bad a situation. By 994 there are few good answers. But what the hell was he doing in 993? :-)

You wrote: [And if you don't think the situation could be solved, what would you have done? Run away?]

By 994 its possible that the only way most of the Gargoyles were going to get out of the situation alive was if they moved. Yes it is running away and yes it is a terrible choice to have to make but the alternative is to remain increasingly under threat while they are consistantly vulnerable. Other than accept the situation as it was and hope for the best (or that things at least wouldn't get any worse) thats the only thing I can come up with as an answer.

You wrote: [I firmly believe that Goliath knew that the tension was high, knew that things were in bad shape and knew that he had to act. I also believe that he was doing something.]

I believe that he did realize that the situation was not good and that sooner or later he would have to do something about it. But I don't believe he was doing anything about it. Just like all the excuses he gave Elisa when she would mention that Xanatos would be returning to claim the Castle in X amount of weeks, I think he took a similar attitude. "You worry too much" or something to that extent. He just kept putting it off and unlike ENTER MACBETH he didn't end up with someone who was willing to wait until his Clan was awake to deal with them.

You wrote: [His one mistake is that he made Demona his Second without considering how that would affect their relationship and the Clan.]

Having Demona as his second was a mistake although I do wonder, did he ever officially appoint her or did she just end up in the role unofficially because he simply never took the time to look for anyone else? (After all he was reluctant to name a Second in the 20th century; who's to say that he had really named a Second in the 10th century?)


JJ GREGARIUS - You wrote: [However, first note that Brooklyn is much more willing to talk to the lad than Lex, who IIRC is visibly worried at first.]

True; but I always took this to be more of an example of Brooklyn's outgoing nature than anything else. He was approached by someone who clearly didn't mean any harm and so Brooklyn was willing to take a chance and deal with him.

You wrote: [More tellingly, listen to what Jeff Bennet(sp?) does with Brooklyn's voice as he addresses Mary. Suddenly, Brooklyn sounds pleading and very gentle, almost childlike.]

I didn't take that tone as trying to be childlike as much as he was trying to be as non-threatening as possible. He is pleading with her, pleading for her to calm down.

You wrote: [Brooklyn was the garg that really wanted friendship.]

I don't doubt that once Tom approached him, Brooklyn was willing to be friends with him. But I don't think that Brooklyn would have approached him first or that he was looking that desperately for friendship, as if he were some lost, friendless child.

You wrote: [If she didn't trust the "bear" before, why should a few words change her mind? Words mean nothing without respect, IMHO.]

True; but still I think the fact that he was calmly talking should have given her pause of some sort. At the very least I would have thought that upon hearing him talk, rather than attack him she would have just grabbed Tom and run away.

You wrote: [But did she feel that they were not dangerous? Remember when her father died/was dying, she suddenly feared that Hudson would bother his corpse/near-dead body (can't remember which at that point), and basically ran him off.]

Exactly - she ran him off. She wasn't so much afraid of him as we might think. I think that she was always less afraid of the Gargoyles than she was angry with them. (Also I think that a little bit of snobbery gets into the equation as well.)

You wrote: [Such a sudden change raises significant questions about her frame-of-mind. Indeed, Airwalker, you mention that she had conflict within her heart. Could some part of her have liked gargoyles all along?]

Its possible; I think that logically she knew she needed Gargoyles and that they weren't evil animals as she was trying to make them seem but that until the shock of falling off the cliff and being saved by Goliath directly she couldn't let logic overcome emotion.


PAUL - You wrote: [That they would have been so disgusted in what Demona had tricked them into being a part of that they would have actually outcasted her from the clan.]

Actually if the plan had succeeded then how would the Clan have known that there was any plan at all? They might have gone after the Wyvern Humans but that is still no guarantee that anyone would find out because odds are good that Demona would have made straight for killing Hakon and maybe even the Captain to keep everything quiet. And there is no guarantee they would have gone after the Humans; Goliath might want to but its also possible that Demona could have marshalled a good number of the Clan to force him not to do so.

Airwalker - [airwalker9999@yahoo.com]
Brooklyn, NY
Wednesday, April 7, 2004 11:42:39 PM
IP: 12.75.158.252

Hello everyone.

There are so many people that dropped the ball on this that it is tragic. For example, if Hudson had not put Goliath in charge of the clan, then Demona would not have been second-in-command and she would have not dared try this plan.

And even if her plan to trick the rest of the clan out of the castle the night before the betrayal of the Captain of the Guard had worked, the night after, when they all awoke, returned to castle and realized what had happened. That they would have been so disgusted in what Demona had tricked them into being a part of that they would have actually outcasted her from the clan. Then, to redeem their honor, the clan goes to save the survivers from the Vikings, and the entire clan, save for Demona, ALL end-up being turned to stone for a 1000 years.

The only difference between this and what actually happens in the series, is that more Gargoyles are awaken in modern time, Demona may reveal that she is immortal right after the clan is reawakened and they give her a second chance for freeing them from the curse. But she still betrays them later in 'The Awakening'.

Goliath still meets Elisa and the series still plays itself out mostly like it originally did, other than there being no Coldstone story arc, as we know it.

So basically, either way, Demona's plan still screws up her life in the end.

Also, Demona may have started out being like Shylock from Shakespeare's 'The Merchant of Venice' but by the 'Hunter's Moon Trilogy', she was like Captain Ahab from Moby Dick, with humanity being her collective "White Whale". If she had succeeded in releasing that virus, the praying Gargoyle Statue would not have protected her. Because since she released the virus with her own hand, the virus would have killed Macbeth, thus killing herself.

I wonder if after 'Hunter's Moon', if someone had sat her down and explained to her how close she came to killing HERSELF, the shock from that realization might have started her on the path to changing her desire to destroy all of humanity.

Paul Cousins - [van_will_324ebay@bellsouth.net]
Jesup, GA, USA
Wednesday, April 7, 2004 10:52:08 PM
IP: 68.220.11.222

121 days left until The Gathering 2004 in Montreal, Quebec!
Patrick - [<-- le Gathering]
Wednesday, April 7, 2004 10:51:15 PM
IP: 65.43.162.204

*stepping around the main conversation*

Denis>> I didn't get your e-mail, but I've replied to your post. Hope this time it all works.

*returns to lurking*

Alex Garg - [alex_garg@yahoo.com]
VA, USA
Wednesday, April 7, 2004 10:10:58 PM
IP: 216.145.68.130

Airwalker>>
I knew I was going to get in some trouble by using the word "play." Thank you for giving me the chance to address the topic.

You said:
[Actually at first it seemed to me to start off with alertness on the part of Brooklyn and Lex, followed by curiousity. I can't say that they wanted to play with Tom as much as it was Tom who wanted to ask them questions which they answered in a bemused and friendly manner]

Yes, that is how the situation starts. However, first note that Brooklyn is much more willing to talk to the lad than Lex, who IIRC is visibly worried at first. (Side note: Lex can see how the scenario can disintegrate, but Brook can't.... Fascinating....)

More tellingly, listen to what Jeff Bennet(sp?) does with Brooklyn's voice as he addresses Mary. Suddenly, Brooklyn sounds pleading and very gentle, almost childlike. It is a somewhat subtle effect; I only picked up on it this year. Yet, when combined with Brooklyn's friendly overtures (The "friend" line, for instance) and body language toward Tom, it seemed that Brooklyn had come to want Tom's company by the time Mary stepped in.

The term "play" suggests childhood activities, and I can only apply to this situation with trepidation. If Brooklyn didn't sound like so much like a pleading overgrown puppy that could talk (!??), I probably would have avoided the term. However, I cannot ignore the notion that Brooklyn wanted to befriend Tom, if only for the duration of the siege.

Notice that I have talked mainly about Brooklyn. Lexington, to my mind, was really drawn in by Brooklyn's charisma. Brooklyn was the garg that really wanted friendship.

You said:
[When dealing with an animal, I don't particularly think that her reaction would have been that much off. But she got a worded response from Brooklyn essentially saying outright that he meant no harm. It was at that point that she actually attacked him. ]
If she didn't trust the "bear" before, why should a few words change her mind? Words mean nothing without respect, IMHO. Also, I think she might have known that the creature could talk.

You said:
[As for Katharine, I still don't think the analogy you list works; she's lived with Gargoyles her entire life and she knows that Gargoyles are intelligent and not dangerous to her.]
She doesn't quake with fear when meeting gargoyles, I agree. But did she feel that they were not dangerous? Remember when her father died/was dying, she suddenly feared that Hudson would bother his corpse/near-dead body (can't remember which at that point), and basically ran him off. After the Massacre, though, she suddenly feel sympathy for the creatures and those who loved them. She even wants to raise the eggs!

Such a sudden change raises significant questions about her frame-of-mind. Indeed, Airwalker, you mention that she had conflict within her heart. Could some part of her have liked gargoyles all along?

Punchinello>>
Demona and the Captain pursued actions that had little chance at success and great chance of hurting, even killing, the people they knew, the people of both intelligent species.

The Vikings were untrustworthy, to start. In addition, the existence of a plot against Wyvern would have been evident to any survivors. Now, if their was a gargoyle leader who constantly talked about wanting the land for gargoyles only, and the gargoyles had left on the night of the attack, is it not likely that said survivors would put two and two together and wage revenge on the gargoyles during their stone slumber?

I ask again: is this plan worth it?

JJ Gregarius
Orlando, FL
Wednesday, April 7, 2004 06:54:40 PM
IP: 65.244.170.163

Hello!

Quick update on gathering presence.
It's done. The flight tickets are purchased, and registration form and money have been sent this morning.
I will be there! woohoo !
Alex Garg, did you get my email? if not, then I was saying that I'm taking you up to your offer (hope it's spelled right!) could email me the line-up of our roomies, please?
btw, would it be possible to send you the money for the room in advance, by international mendat?

Gargoyles related: I think I might have converted one of my co-workers to Gargoyles. I'm gonna lend her one of the italian dubbed Garg tapes. I'll see what she'll say about it :)

all for now!

laters!

Denis - [d.deplaen@lft.be]
Wednesday, April 7, 2004 02:39:13 PM
IP: 81.242.254.221

Blaise:

"actually I think Demona generates tremendous sympathy."
"The pass code is...alone."

I had honestly considered this. It's one of the most perfectly crafted moments in the whole series I think. And certainly, it plays a role in the picture of D that I possess. If you look at what I submitted to the forum though, you will see that I was careful to specify that we are never given license to feel sympathy for Demona's _actions_. The distinction that I'm trying to make here is that the narrative never gives us license to recognize D's methods or her agenda as one that _might_ have some moral justification. The narrative only allows us to (or intends to allow us to) see D as the adversary. The golden moment I had sought during the whole series where D elaborates her position and emphasizes her own moral outrage never comes. I think I need to disagree with you on the face of this statement though if we are going to adhere to the strict sense of the word sympathy. I concede that we are given license to feel _pity_ for demona at the point of that exchange, but that's not quite the same thing. We're allowed to see her weakened, vulnerable. But the narrative does not provide an opening for the viewer to understand D's methods or to identify with her. Understanding and indentification are internal to the quality of sympathy that I'm referring to. Sympathy connotes a moral affirmation of her actions in her situation. Pity does not possess the same kind of merit. I found the scene powerful, but it never treats Demona's case as tragic, just pitiable. I think we're given license to suppose that if she would just abandon her own agenda (and nevermind whatever merit it might possess) then she would not be so sad. And that should be her objective, right? Nevermind the moral indignation. Happiness should be everyone's goal.

But not really.

I'm glad you made explicit the issue that Tom would have suffered the consequences of the betrayal if it had worked as planned. I'm not oblivious to this, and it is one of the reasons that I have emphasized that I am not persuaded of the morality of D's actions. I'd like to elaborate on this butI would like to take the time to think some more about it first.

One issue relative to the moral status of D's actions that I must disagree with you stongly on however, is what you refer to as the problem with a preemptive strike. You're explicit in the position that the humans of Wyvern had taken no violent action with the gargoyles. Here is where I disagree. The action of marginalizing a community, the erosion of dignity and the rejection of intrinsic rights that correspond to that, are themselves, a form of violence. And not a subtle form either. There is an alarming corollary to our real world experience here, in that there are numerous peoples subject to this type of discrimination as well as more explicity violent persecution by another community, who are dubiously assigned the title of "terrorist" for fighting back.

I can't fault Demona for reacting to persecution with organized violence on principle. I can't condone her indiscriminate application of that violence on principle either.

Something that troubles me here, in the assumption that violent action is just intrinsically bad, is that it seems to advance a model of human action that encourages passivity to persecution.

Punchinello
Rome, Italy
Wednesday, April 7, 2004 01:53:53 PM
IP: 217.220.254.159

ok Airwalker (or anyone in support of Airwalker's position) lets say YOU are Goliath, its 994 and everything is getting ugly. what would you have done to save the situation that you KNOW for a FACT that Goliath wasn't doing? and if you don't think the situation could be solved, what would you have done? run away?

i firmly believe that Goliath knew that the tension was high, knew that things were in bad shape and knew that he had to act. i also believe that he was doing something. he was doing what he felt he should do. he was not doing nothing. (read my last post and Ellen's)
his one mistake is that he made Demona his Second without considering how that would affect their relationship and the Clan. Demona was a loose cannon that would not follow the leader, she was a bad Second, and Goliath's love for her made it very difficult for him to tell her no or discipline her. putting her in an authoritive position was a terrible mistake. but besides that mistake, i believe that Goliath was doing the best he could.


*creativity demon* it occurs to me that Desdemona would've been a much better Second for Goliath. maybe it occured to Goliath also, but he was afraid of Othello and Demona's reaction. maybe Demona pressured Goliath to pick her... something to ask Greg about...

matt
Wednesday, April 7, 2004 01:13:44 PM
IP: 207.230.48.86

JJ GREGARIUS - You wrote: [Many other places in Scotland survived without gargoyles. Should the gargoyles threaten to leave, Princess Katharine might just say "Good riddance!"]

The thing here that makes me think that Wyvern would be unable to function without the Gargoyles is that immediately following the destruction of the Clan, Katharine packs her bags and leaves, saying something to the effect of "We can no longer remain in this place". I personally don't think that was an emotional response to what had happened but rather evidence that without the Clan, having a Human settlement in that area would be near impossible to defend. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense for her to risk her life as well as the Eggs on a long and dangerous journey when she could just pick up where she left off in the same location.

You wrote: [Remember Brooklyn's response to Mary concerning her son? Didn't it sound like he was pleading to play with him, or at least keep company with him?]

Actually at first it seemed to me to start off with alertness on the part of Brooklyn and Lex, followed by curiousity. I can't say that they wanted to play with Tom as much as it was Tom who wanted to ask them questions which they answered in a bemused and friendly manner.

You wrote: [Would that change your attitude? I am thinking about Princess Katharine's attitudes towards gargoyles now;]

I'm not saying that Mary didn't have a right to be afraid; but the situation your describing doesn't work for me for one reason - Gargoyles can talk. Mary approached Brooklyn with a good motive; she thought her son was in danger and wanted to save him. When dealing with an animal, I don't particularly think that her reaction would have been that much off. But she got a worded response from Brooklyn essentially saying outright that he meant no harm. It was at that point that she actually attacked him.

As for Katharine, I still don't think the analogy you list works; she's lived with Gargoyles her entire life and she knows that Gargoyles are intelligent and not dangerous to her. She knows that they are not animals and at the same time wants to believe they are and treat them that way. She wants to justify the hate she felt in her heart but that simple logic tells her is wrong. After the massacre she finally realizes the contradiction she was trying to hold up was untenable and so her thinking changes towards Gargoyles in general. As for her love for the Eggs, well she raised them as her own children. Its difficult not to start loving someone when you invest so much time and effort and nerves and happiness and etc in them. The Eggs were her children so why wouldn't she love them?

You wrote: [The gargoyles must demonstrate their rare ability to live in human society in order to be accepted. How do you propose they do this, other than by living with the humans?]

But they were doing this; they were living with Humans and it was failing miserably. Living together requires effort from both sides. If you only have one side willing to live in peace and the other side is constantly generating hatred, bitterness, and is unwilling to compromise then you have a recipe for disaster.

You wrote: [I got the feeling that Brook and Lex were merely taunting the stupid, fearful bumpkins]

I have no doubt that they meant no harm to the Human Refugees. In fact if I remember correctly, they didn't even start trying to frighten the refugees until Demona showed up. They were shocked and passive in response to Mary's assault. It was Demona arriving that sort of gives "permission" to them to behave the way they did. (And given the Demona was the Second at the time, I have to wonder why Goliath didn't say a word to her about what happened while he punishes the Trio? After all as Second she had the same power as him to stop what was happening. Love blinding him or flawed Leadership skills? After all I'm not saying he had to punish her but he didn't even rebuke her for what happened.)

You wrote: [Bingo. Brooklyn was so unbelievably naive in this situation, showing that Goliath did not prepare him, or the rest of the Trio, well.]

I don't think Brooklyn was naive in his behavior; he was actually sanctioned since Demona as Second not only didn't say anything but gave permission to his behavior with her silence. (In fact Brooklyn was sort of pre-empting a response from Demona towards Mary. His actions could be considered a way to lower the tension slightly considering the possibility that Demona might have gotten outright violent in her response. She was angry and he tried to change the situation with humor. And if it wasn't amusing to the refugees then it did calm down Demona and cheer up Lex a bit. At least until Goliath showed up.)

The problem here is that Goliath exercised leadership in dealing with the Trio but at that point, it comes too late. He didn't set guidelines earlier or show leadership earlier with Demona which would have set a standard which would have avoided this situation. He does this later in the series too - until someone forces his hand, he is reluctant to act. I'm not saying that when dealing with Katharine that he had to get angry or make everyone afraid. But he was passive in the face of her disrespect. He acted like a wet rag and got treated like one. It may have been noble but its not good leadership. It leaves the impression to all sides that he is incapable of doing anything - Katharine understands she can act how she likes and Demona sees that Goliath isn't functioning properly.


ELLEN - You wrote: [Overall, while Goliath held fast to his principles once his world blew up, Demona held fast to her anger and bitterness (not to mention her denial), and grew increasingly destructive as time went on.]

The thing is that Goliath had the luxury of holding onto his principles. He effectively escaped dealing with anything by asking to be turned to stone. And when he woke up the world had changed enough that he and what he believed were no longer so out of step with reality. Demona on the other hand had to continue to live in the drek of the real world without the luxury of going to sleep and not waking up, not have to come up with excuses, not get increasingly bitter and frustrated as time went on and as her youth left her. I'm not trying to excuse her or what she did or the fact that she made excuses for herself. But I think that it should be pointed out that Goliath bypassed all that with stone sleep and that in the 20th century the situation between Goliath and Demona is reversed. Now she is out of step with reality and he is not.

You wrote: [I agree with the theory that aggression toward Katherine would likely have prompted the situation to deteriorate even further, perhaps persuading her and her cabal to carry out a pre-emptive strike of their own.]

I agree and I'm not arguing for aggression against Katharine; the problem is that his diplomatic tone and stance is improper. Goliath was right to restrain Demona who's response was unacceptable in that situation but he didn't have to be so subservient. There is a lot of diplomatic space in between where he was in AWAKENINGS and open hostility and aggression.

You wrote: [Bargaining chips exist only upon the tacit mutual consent of the parties doing the bargaining, and if the humans don't see the protection of the gargoyles as something of value, then the threat of its discontinuance will not be a factor in negotiations.]

True; but on the other hand there is something to be said for unilateral measures when diplomacy is completely deadlocked. If the situation with Katharine reaches the point where they is no mutual deterence and Katharine can terrorize the Clan at will then the Clan could take steps independent of her. They are not her serfs but her allies. And alliances can be brought to an end.

You wrote: [A clan with Hudson and Goliath as leaders would have to have more than a few members who shared their sense of protective duty (Desdemona/Coldfire did, for example). And there were probably additional members who were thinking, "Why should we have to be the ones to leave? We were here first"]

Leaving is not a perfect solution and there would have been debate over it. The question really is who can make a stronger argument for which case. (As for Coldstone/Coldfire, lets clarify that a bit - Coldfire was more into the whole Protection business while Coldstone was the one to suggest that they quit the Castle and go somewhere else. Coldstone's protective duty in the series seems to appear mainly when he's prodded to it by Coldfire.)

You wrote: [On top of this, do we really have enough evidence that Goliath was seeking to *maintain* the status quo? Could he instead have been seeking to *restore* the status quo - i.e., trying to stabilize the situation and return it to some semblance of the way it was under the rule of Malcolm?]

Doing nothing is not stabilizing the situation. He was doing the same thing that he would do in the 20th century; cling stubbornly to his way of thinking/doing things and drifting until someone in the clan finally confronted him and forced him to change his thinking. That's what happened with Lex in THRILL OF THE HUNT and with Elisa and Broadway in ENTER MACBETH. He only really started to shift from this way of leading/managing by the time of REAWAKENINGS when he decided that his Clan was losing focus and decided to declare Manhattan a protectorate to fix this.

You wrote: [I do not disagree with Airwalker willingly, but I question whether we're given enough evidence to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that a "leadership vacuum" truly existed.]

I lean towards the "leadership vacuum" idea mainly because things seem so out of control on his side. He seems so detatched from what is going on around him and gives a little of the impression that he is struggling to think of something but since he hasn't yet, he's in a holding pattern. After the confrontation with Katharine, when he's talking to Demona and the Captain, its like he can't see how angry and disappointed they are. He tries to reassure them with the whole "There ways are not our ways" speech but he doesn't seem to follow that they need some forcefullness and an appearance of strength from him to ally nerves rather than calming words. He could have altered his attack on the Vikings to include Demona at that point on the idea that some fighting outside might calm tensions and let members of his clan let off some steam. Instead he holds the lid down on the pressure cooker.

You wrote: [As a result, I disagree with the assumption that the situation, as Airwalker said, "got to the point where Demona and the captain *had to* (emphasis mine) develop a plan of some sort." This assumes that the plan was something of a last resort, and we never have any evidence of it being such.]

Even if the characters don't know it, the audience was let in on the Magus searching the Grimorium for a spell to use against the Gargoyles. The impression being given by the first episode is really one where everything is about to boil over. The main obstacle I have when thinking about this situation is that we don't know if the Captain was alone as the last ally of the Clan or if there were still others among the army and castle population if not the nobility. If the Captain is the last ally, the last line of defense and appeal, and he has just been removed from power (downgraded in position to be more specific) then from the perspective of someone expecting a massacre, it may seem like zero hour, like it may happen at any moment and that something has to be done. It may not be a last resort moment but it may feel like it especially to Demona.


MATT - You wrote: [Leave the castle and he abandons his ancestral home and his PROTECTORATE? Unthinkable to a gargoyle.]

Is it really that unthinkable? We know that Wyvern was creating "colony" clans once its population got too large. If they could send some of their Clan off occassionally to a new area to found a new Clan, then it isn't unimaginable that they could move themselves completely if the situation demanded it. (And once Goliath woke up in Manhattan, he didn't particularly show any desire to return to Wyvern and resume control over his old protectorate. He redefined it to mean the Castle. This shows that he could adapt if needed. And if a move was needed, he could have done it.)

You wrote: [Betray the humans and he risks a war between his Clan and the humans, not to mention he loses the only people the Clan can trust, even if only a little.]

I'm not saying he should have betrayed the castle to the Vikings or invite another group into the castle to be in alliance with. But alliances are not always forever. And ending an alliance is not a betrayal, its politics. Goliath was relating to Katharine as a friend (or potential friend or at least the daughter of a friend) when he should be relating to her as a political leader he is in alliance with.

Airwalker - [airwalker9999@yahoo.com]
Brooklyn, NY
Wednesday, April 7, 2004 12:33:25 PM
IP: 12.75.156.249

Ellen> great points, and wonderfully written. i agree with you 99%!

put me in the camp of people who say that there is nothing to say that Goliath wasn't doing all he could. he was continuing in his duty of protection, he was respectful to the Princess (even bowed to her), he disciplined the Trio for making things worse, he even encouraged his Clan and the humans to look at their relationship as a partnership. watch Awakenings and you'll see what i mean. at every oppurtunity, Goliath points out to the gargs and humans at Wyvern that they help each other out. he never tries to hide or be mysterious to the humans, he clearly fights along side them and makes an effort to be recognized by them, even going outside his culture of and accepting a name! as Ellen pointed out, there was strong evidence that Goliath HAD spoken to his Clan about what to do in a confrontation with humans. Brook and Lex were polite and respectful and honest to Mary and open to communication with Tom. Mary was afraid and attacked Brook and that set off Brook's temper, which encouraged Lex and lit Demona's fuse.
i'm sure like many fans in this room Demona and probably others in the Clan didn't feel like Goliath was doing enough. but what more could he do? he was between a rock and a hard place. leave the castle and he abandons his ancestral home and his PROTECTORATE. unthinkable to a gargoyle. betray the humans and he risks a war between his Clan and the humans, not to mention he loses the only people the Clan can trust, even if only a little. go on strike and stop protecting the castle but refuse to leave is extremely un-gargoyle like, and if they did that the humans could retaliate by threatening them or the eggs during the day. another war. Goliath was doing the least risky thing. he was trying to live peacefully with the humans, teach his Clan to respect the humans and encourage the humans to respect and trust the Clan as they once had. he was trying to do the same thing he will try to do in New York in 1000 years. its harder to try to live in peace than it is to declare war.
even without Demona and the Captain betraying their people would Goliath's peacemaking have worked? maybe not. but at least he was trying. Demona and the Captain refused to see the long term picture. they couldn't see the benefits of the struggle for peace. they wanted a quick solution. and it didn't work...
when Goliath decided to take only Hudson with him to scare off the Vikings and leave the rest of the Clan behind, he was doing the right thing. when Demona ran away from the Vikings and left her Clan to die, she was doing the wrong thing. enough said.

matt
Wednesday, April 7, 2004 09:56:51 AM
IP: 207.230.48.57

Ah, yes...responsibility, blame, and the cast of "Gargoyles." Can't resist throwing in my two cents and a subway token.

Looking over all of the posts so far, I can't help wondering if part of the debate hinges upon a lack of agreement regarding terms. I'll pick on Greg Bishansky as my primary example, with his implication that minors and adults are in an equal state of (lack of) innocence. Obviously he does not define the word as I do. In addition to the matter of self-defense that Airwalker points out, innocence, in my view, implies lack of malicious intent. This is at the heart of the reason minors and adults are treated differently by the law. Children are assumed to be incapable of intellectually assessing situations the way adults (theoretically) can, and should not realistically be expected to have this capability. Hence they can't be held responsible for their actions -- at least, not in the same way as adults, who ought to know better by the age of majority. So, in this case anyway, east is east and west is west...

As for Demona, I'm so fond of the insight, articulateness, and intelligence of Punchinello's defense of her and her actions (let alone her motives) that it almost seems a shame to me to fundamentally disagree with so much of what he says. And if I'm focusing too closely on sheer semantics, then I encourage him to clarify his points (and I'm not being sarcastic). Nevertheless, it seems abundantly clear to me that deviousness and duplicity are *not* noble behavior. Failings of any kind, and certainly ones resulting from personal weakness, *are* a source of blame. Otherwise, why have any concept of responsibility at all? Retaliation and self-defense are *not* the same thing. Counteroffensives do *not* have the same moral leg to stand on when they go beyond self-defense (although I'll be the first to admit that the line of demarcation can be awfully blurred). I subscribe to the evolution of the principle of "an eye for an eye" into the belief that it makes us all blind, but even if we discount the validity of this belief by ascribing it to personal preference, I have yet to see sufficient empirical evidence to convince me that retaliation is *pragmatically* valid. In other words, moral judgments aside, while retaliation is a perfectly understandable *emotional* response, it's not necessarily a *reasonable* one, and its chances of being so are lessened considerably when the one doing the retaliating fails to consider the potential ramifications of the retaliation.

The effectiveness of Demona in the role of villain, antagonist, or whatever negative term we assign to her (and her function in the overall story arc *is* a negative one) stems precisely from the fact that her motives (as opposed to her actions) *do* engender a sympathetic response from us viewers. It's exactly the perceived righteousness of her fundamental and primary indignation that prevent her from being marginalized as a black-and-white, formula villain. Let's completely forget about the concept of crime and punishment here. The basic premise of the Wyvern massacre, and its basic lesson, go well beyond determining who brought it about. Its primary lesson is that even the best of intentions can have unforeseen adverse results. In short, manure happens. The real issue is of how we cope with the results when life blows up in our faces. Overall, while Goliath held fast to his principles once his world blew up, Demona held fast to her anger and bitterness (not to mention her denial), and grew increasingly destructive as time went on. And real life really does work that way, and this is why the Wyvern Massacre fascinates us so.

I heartily agree that there's responsibility and blame to spare in the wake of the Wyvern massacre; no one's immune. As a result, I consider it entirely valid to examine Goliath's responsibility at the same time we examine Demona's. Over the course of a discussion of this subject not too long ago in another online forum, I surprised myself when I realized that I agreed with someone who argued that Goliath's culpability regarding the massacre was equal to Demona's. However, my agreement was based on entirely different reasons. Rather than fault Goliath for being a defective leader, I fault him for being a defective manager -- and yes, there *is* a difference.

I agree with the theory that aggression toward Katherine would likely have prompted the situation to deteriorate even further, perhaps persuading her and her cabal to carry out a pre-emptive strike of their own. The unfortunate reality was that the gargoyles were dependent upon the humans for protection during the daylight hours, tenuous as it was (and it very likely could have depended solely upon the captain at that point). As for the gargoyles threatening to abandon the castle and leave the humans to their own devices, I'm not so sure that the humans of the castle (at least the ones in decision-making/decision-influencing positions) *did* fully comprehend the value of the protection of the gargoyles, or hold it in any appreciable regard (e.g., the captain is freely given credit for successes brought about not by him but by the gargoyles). I agree with JJ Gregarius; bargaining chips exist only upon the tacit mutual consent of the parties doing the bargaining, and if the humans don't see the protection of the gargoyles as something of value, then the threat of its discontinuance will not be a factor in negotiations. As for the clan threatening to leave with or without the humans realizing that they'd be up the River Tay without a paddle if that happened, a clan with Hudson and Goliath as leaders would have to have more than a few members who shared their sense of protective duty (Desdemona/Coldfire did, for example). And there were probably additional members who were thinking, "Why should we have to be the ones to leave? We were here first (and here I reference the information in the "Ask Greg" archives)." Coldstone, on the other hand, expresses agreement with the idea of departing and letting the humans have the castle. As Rac says below, it's hard to believe that only he and Demona would be in agreement on this. But are we shown beyond a reasonable doubt that this was the *majority* opinion? On top of this, do we really have enough evidence that Goliath was seeking to *maintain* the status quo? Could he instead have been seeking to *restore* the status quo - i.e., trying to stabilize the situation and return it to some semblance of the way it was under the rule of Malcolm? We do see him trying to maintain peaceful relations between his clan and the humans, by addressing his actions (appropriately so) to those over whom he has direct authority (viz., his clan, as exemplified by his disciplining of the trio and Bronx). (I hasten to add that he was not always successful in this particular discharge of his office; see below.) And are we *certain* that Goliath neglected to instruct his charges how to behave around humans? The trio started off civil in the scene with Tom and Mary, then allowed themselves to be goaded into inappropriate behavior. Is this evidence of Goliath's failure or of a few teenaged friends acting up? Also, despite his own simmering anger, Goliath behaves entirely graciously to the princess in the banquet hall. I do not disagree with Airwalker willingly, but I question whether we're given enough evidence to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that a "leadership vacuum" truly existed.

Instead, I find myself casting a jaundiced eye upon Goliath not for his failings in the way he dealt with Katherine and the humans, but his failings in the way he dealt with those who were his direct responsibility -- namely, and first and foremost, Demona. Obviously, he was crazy about her, and he also had the highest regard for her abilities as a warrior. He therefore had two roles to play -- one as her mate, and one as the clan's leader -- that unfortunately likely bled into each other to some extent. As a result, it's easy to understand that he likely would have turned a blind eye to her duplicity and hotheadedness, been in denial over it, etc. But that doesn't excuse him of the responsibility to keep his two roles separate, remain mindful of the proclivities of those under his leadership, and to put the welfare of his clan above everything else. If he was that close to Demona, physically, psychologically, and emotionally, he had to have recognized in her the potential for treachery that she had, and do whatever he could to keep this potential from being realized (short of appeasing her to the detriment of the good of the clan as a whole). Instead, he put her in a position of authority, of all things, which enabled the captain to view her, and rightly so, as one with influence over the rest of the clan. (Perhaps he even saw this as a failsafe, and assumed that, in the absence of an evacuation order by Goliath, she would issue one to the clan herself.) And I refuse to let Demona off the hook for this much: As his mate, she should have been the *last* to go behind his back, not the first. This was not a matter of her feeling as though the collective will of her clan left her with no choice but to betray her mate (and this is where the *primary* betrayal on her part took place); storytellers as attentive to detail as Greg Weisman and his team would not neglect to give us that crucial a piece of the puzzle. Instead, they established, through the time travel in "Vows," that the main impetus behind Demona's agreement to the captain's plan was within her own mind. As a result, I disagree with the assumption that the situation, as Airwalker said, "got to the point where Demona and the captain *had to* (emphasis mine) develop a plan of some sort." This assumes that the plan was something of a last resort, and we never have any evidence of it being such. There was plenty of tension, to be sure, but if we take away Demona's rashness and fear (engendered by the visit of her future self), I have to wonder how much urgency would have existed in the situation beyond the captain's own desire for retaliation against Katherine and her sycophants.

*Breathes* OK, I'm through. Carry on.

Ellen
Chicago
Wednesday, April 7, 2004 04:10:13 AM
IP: 205.188.116.144

That was me.
JJ Gregarius
Orlando, FL
Wednesday, April 7, 2004 12:31:48 AM
IP: 65.244.170.163

Airwalker >> Didn't see your post. Sorry. :(
Why were the Trio so ready to respond the way they did ....
Well, remember that Brooklyn didn't even expect the reaction he got from Mary. He even tried to ease her nerves, not realizing that she perceived him as a dangerous animal.

Also, given the Brook's and Lex's body language during their " threats" against the villagers, and Brook's dialogue afterwards, I got the feeling that Brook and Lex were merely taunting the stupid, fearful bumpkins, the way a "bad" housecat can torment a visitor uncomfortable around felines who refuses to play with Kitty.

It is a rather stupid thing to do, both for gargoyles and felines!

Then again, I think Brooklyn's feelings were hurt worse than Kitty's, as he can reason out what the humans are thinking, and how far such feelings can go. Also, this doesn't take the nobles' attitude towards gargoyles into account. Did Brooklyn have reason to think that the nobles' disdain didn't extend to the general populace?

Airwalker also said, "...Did Goliath ever tell anyone how they should deal with the Humans if they get into a confrontation?"

Bingo. Brooklyn was so unbelievably naive in this situation, showing that Goliath did not prepare him, or the rest of the Trio, well. (Even though they had gotten into trouble before!??!)

However, I still have problems with Brooklyn's naiveté, which generated my question to Weisman whether Brooklyn had early pleasant exposure to humans (that was the intent, anyways). It seems hard to understand his attitudes otherwise.
Anonymous
Wednesday, April 7, 2004 12:31:19 AM
IP: 65.244.170.163

Gargoyles leaving>> Rac, many other places in Scotland survived without gargoyles. Should the gargoyles threaten to leave, Princess Katharine might just say "Good riddance!"

Gargoyles ability to rend flesh and the Trio>> This just reopened one of themes that is most entrenched in my mind. It almost hurts me to imagine the Trio, who have dangerous bodies like lions and bears, but attitudes more like those of overgrown cubs. Remember Brooklyn's response to Mary concerning her son? Didn't it sound like he was pleading to play with him, or at least keep company with him?

Picture this: a grizzly approaches you, and starts gently coaxing you to play. Even if you could see how friendly this playful beast is, could you trust him? Now, imagine he were a cub under the supervision of an expert (in other words, you don't need to fear mama!). Would that change your attitude? I am thinking about Princess Katharine's attitudes towards gargoyles now; in particular, how she could suddenly begin to love them. In light of my thought experiment, is it possible that she could stand the "cubs" -- young hatchlings -- but feared the adults until being convinced that adult gargoyles are far more noble and trustworthy than adult bears? (For instance, by Goliath's nobility in the face of his clan's punishment)

After all, Gargoyles do seem more trustworthy than bears (Weisman's statements about gargoyles' dangerous edge notwithstanding). The gargoyles must demonstrate their rare ability to live in human society in order to be accepted. How do you propose they do this, other than by living with the humans?

JJ Gregarius
Orlando, FL
Wednesday, April 7, 2004 12:08:55 AM
IP: 65.244.170.163

MATT - You wrote: [All this talk of killing the young of another species has got me wondering about the Gargoyle Eggs at Wyvern during the Massacre. does anyone know what Greg has said about how/why they were spared?]

I don't know if Greg has commented on it but I personally think that Hakon just didn't have enough time to actually get to the rookery level of the castle. He had to defeat the Wyvern Army, sack the Clifflevel Castle, march out the Captured, and then smash a clan of 40 - all in 12 hours. (Less if this was happening in wintertime.) With the tight schedule, the Rookery (and the Trio) got very lucky and were overlooked.

You wrote: [The only people that saw the Massacre coming and could've done something about it were the Captain and Demona.]

I agree that ultimately responsibility for what happened rests with Demona and the Captain, and that this responsibility shouldn't be minimized no matter how much we might point out in hindsight other reasons that contributed to the situation. No matter how much of a vacuum Goliath left in his handling of the situation, it doesn't change the fact that ultimately the Vikings wouldn't have gotten into Castle and destroyed the Wyvern Clan without the actions of Demona and the Captain.

But just to play devils advocate, we can also bring up the hindsight is 20/20 in dealing with Demona and the Captain. We look at the plan they came up with and see Massacre as the only outcome. But thats not how the original plan looks to them. In fact if Goliath had played along, it would have been low risk. Its only when he didn't that things started to get out of control. But seeing that things would head that way is not as obvious then as it is in hindsight. (Again I'm not trying to take away any blame from Demona or the Captain - they bear the brunt of responsibility in this issue; but I'm just pointing out that we could just as easily use the hindsight arguement to deal with the actions of these two just as much as we can use it for anyone else.)

You wrote: [Demona betrayed her Clan numerous times.]

Defintely. She completely failed her Clan and has refused at all to take any responsibility for it. I don't think that anyone who has seen the show can deny that.

You wrote: [Second by not warning them when the danger became VERY real and third, by abandoning her Clan, her FAMILY to a dangerous fate.]

This was the worst aspect of the betrayal - not just that she had embarked on this plan but she could tell that it had got sour and she could have done something to save her clan but didn't. She was left in charge and could have saved most if not all the Clan. But instead she just saved herself. She didn't even head down to the Rookery and diminish but still share some risk. She completely left the entire area and abandoned everyone. And there is no excuse for this.

You wrote: [plotting behind her leader and her mate's back]

You mean like how Elisa went looking to find another home for the Clan despite Goliath explicitly saying that he was against it and she shouldn't do it? :-)

Its not a perfect analogy but I'd love to ask Greg if he was trying to create a sort of parallel situation between Goliath/Demona in AWAKENINGS and Goliath/Elisa in THRILL OF THE HUNT through ENTER MACBETH. Both situations have Goliath remaining blind, stubborn, and passive in the face of an extremely dangerous situation from the owner of the Castle. Both have Goliath hoping things will work out without any tangible plan for how it would or what to do if it didn't. Both have Goliath's significant other trying to alert him to this and do something about it. Both have Goliath's significant other head off to do something behind his back. And both try to marshall the Clan to some extent to convince Goliath. (Demona had the Coldstone encounter before Goliath left in AWAKENINGS while Elisa had Broadway in ENTER MACBETH. Admittedly Broadway was more involved in what Elisa was doing and was more forceful in confronting Golaith but the situations seem eeriely similar to each other.) In fact Goliath lucked out that Xanatos didn't want to destroy the Clan; otherwise they would have been smashed around the time of ENTER MACBETH.

You wrote: [Even after the Massacre she could've made sure that it didn't happen again, but she did the same thing with the Moray Clan.]

I still can't figure what she was thinking in 1057; the most I can figure is that she felt so shocked by what she heard and got so angry that she wasn't thinking straight. I just can't figure out rational logic in taking her clan to the Hunter's Camp. I can accept her abandoning/turning against Macbeth but I can't understand how she could take her Clan to the Hunter.


BATTLEBEAST 3 - You wrote: [Greg Weisman said in a post that he found it hard to belive that Demona WOULDN'T have known about Ishimura, and she definatly DID NOT know about Guatamala or Avalon. She did, however, know of the London clan.]

I never really considered that Demona knew about the Ishimuran Clan because I always figured that Demona was more focused on Europe and North America. Travel only became easy in the last century and half so I always thought that would have limited how far she could go. Getting to Japan in the Middle Ages is different from bumming around France and Italy in the 15th century.

You wrote: [However, I don't think Demona stood still between 1,100 and 1994.]

I defintely think that she was on the move; I just don't think that she was able to travel to every corner of the world until recently. I think that largely she'd probably have spent most of her time wandering around Europe and America. I don't think that she'd have an easy time travelling to Asia until at least the middle of the 19th century.

You wrote: [but remember that she DID say that she knew EVERY remaining Gargoyle.]

Well she knows what she thinks are all the remaining Gargoyles. That could mean anything - she could just be referring to the Manhattan Clan although I personally think that she was talking about the Manhattan and London Clans.


TODD - You wrote: [I think that it's worth raising the question as to exactly what Goliath *could* have done to solve the racism problem at Castle Wyvern in 994.]

That is a good point - there really wasn't that much that he could do aside from picking up the Clan and Rookery and just leaving. (Or threatening to do that; Katharine and her Nobles weren't stupid - they knew that without the Gargoyles, holding the Castle would be impossible.) The problem though is not what Goliath could have done to address Katharine's behavior but what he could have done to help his Clan deal with it. It seems clear that he didn't really do anything other than hope for the best, just like he was doing when Elisa kept warning him about Xanatos's return. Why was Demona so willing to try anything? Why were the Trio so ready to respond the way they did - Did Goliath ever tell anyone how they should deal with the Humans if they get into a confrontation? He knows something is wrong and doesn't know how to deal with it; thats not evil but events don't always wait for someone to come up with the perfect answers. Sometimes waiting can just make things worse.

(I know, I know, technically this still doesn't answer what the hell Goliath could have done practically to deal with the situation he was in; he seems to have been heading for a meltdown either way we look at it. Its too bad he didn't have the luxury of having to deal back then with someone like Xanatos, who is willing to play by a certain rule with them, i.e. not smash them into dust if things aren't/don't work out.)

Airwalker - [airwalker9999@yahoo.com]
Brooklyn, NY
Tuesday, April 6, 2004 11:37:00 PM
IP: 12.75.154.90

Wow, a lot of scholarly debate occured in the last week or so...

What could have Goliath done? Granted, having a discussion forum would be very difficult(mainly because the human leaders probably wouldn't cooperate). Why not say that there should be better treatment towards Gargoyles or Goliath would leave the castle with the rest of the clan? It looked to me that the only barrier keeping invaders from sacking the castle were the gargoyles themselves. Threaten to leave and the human leaders would have to compromise(though I don't know if "strikes" were invented then...).

After all the discussions, wonder what would have happened if Demona kept her cool for a bit and discussed with the other clan members who didn't care for protecting the humans(Coldstone voiced similar dissent in Reawakenings, had to be more than just 2 gargoyles), perhaps even get a large following to get Goliath to force changes(or do something) or maybe even have him step down as leader. I can understand why Goliath wanted to have a "status quo" relationship with the humans(maybe segregation is a better word...), but I think that could only work if neither side antagonizes the other(which both sides did do. So much for a stable relationship, much less an improving one). Not trying to knock Goliath, but he didn't seem in touch with the happenings with his own clan and only hoped that things got better instead of taking steps to make things better for the clan.

Rac
Troy, NY, USA
Tuesday, April 6, 2004 11:00:56 PM
IP: 24.194.33.62

I think that it's worth raising the question as to exactly what Goliath *could* have done to solve the racism problem at Castle Wyvern in 994.

For a start, the whole reason why the humans at Castle Wyvern were hostile towards the gargoyles was because they were afraid of them. Gargoyles are generally bigger and stronger than humans, are equipped with natural weaponry such as claws and fangs, could easily rip a human apart. (Add onto that the impact of leathery wings, horns, and turning to stone on the daytime on superstitious 10th century Scots, and you've really got a PR challenge.) Therefore, angrily protesting such treatment (as, say, Lexington and Brooklyn did in "Awakening Part One") would only make the situation worse by reinforcing the humans' reasons for fearing gargoyles.

And in the 10th century, the techniques of modern-day civil rights movements would be as yet unknown (and many of them would be impractical for the tech level of Scotland in 994, anyway; you can't have a bus boycott, for example, when the internal combustion engine hasn't been invented yet - not to mention that gargoyles don't even make use of human transportation but glide about on their wings instead).

So what options did Goliath have, really? Holding his temper in check (it's clear enough from the expression on his face at the end of the first act in "Awakening Part One" that he was aware of Princess Katharine's attitude towards himself and his clan and unhappy about it) and ordering the other gargoyles to do the same (even disciplining them when they tried fighting back) was about the only thing that he could do. (And Goliath was clearly aware, as Demona - I assume - was not, as to why humans were afraid of gargoyles. Demona seems to have viewed it as simply a case of "they're corrupt and vicious"; Goliath understood that humans fear and hate gargoyles because gargoyles are, from a human perspective, frightening and intimidating.)

Todd Jensen - [merlyn1@mindspring.com]
St. Louis, MO
Tuesday, April 6, 2004 06:38:29 PM
IP: 4.244.18.62

Airwalker> "I think that she really only knew about the London clan prior to THE RECKONING."

Greg Weisman said in a post that he found it hard to belive that Demona WOULDN'T have known about Ishimura, and she definatly DID NOT know about Guatamala or Avalon. She did, however, know of the London clan.

I tend to agree with you that she DIDN'T know about most of the clans before "The Reckoning." However, I don't think Demona stood still between 1,100 and 1994. We know she was in Italy in 1649 (?) to battle the Renaissance Hunter, but wouldn't she have traveled some? I don't know how she would have traveled to North America or Asia, but remeber that she DID say that she knew EVERY remaining Gargoyle. Demona must know that there are MORE gargoyles alive than just the Manhattan Clan and herself, or she wouldn't have made the statement.

On the other hand, she probably knows that their arn't THAT MANY left, either.

That is all I will say.


battlebeast3
CanadaTuesday, April 6, 2004 04:09:23 PM
IP: 142.179.227.73

hello, guys!

It's now official: I WILL be at the Gathering!
Just got 'green lighted'today by the HR boss.
Gonna send the registration money and form tomorrow, and book the flight.

Now I can watch the countdown with expectation, not dread of not being able to attend.
Montreal or Bust!



Denis - [d.deplaen@lft.be]
Tuesday, April 6, 2004 01:05:11 PM
IP: 81.243.225.187

JJ GREGARIUS - You wrote: [I always felt that the Sisters were only bringing out the self-guilt that Demona had repressed for so long.]

True; by their own admission, they can only bend rules, not break them. At that moment the only way to interfer with Demona's plan was to use something Demona already had - guilt. They had after all pretty much done the same thing to Macbeth a few minutes before. The only real difference is that Demona just got the dramatic line. :-)

You wrote: [The Massacre is almost symbolic WRT Demona as a convenient point in time to say that she had turned to the "dark side."]

Its a good point to mark off as a life changing moment for her although I still think that it was all those years of crap living that really transformed her more than the Massacre itself. All those years made her bitter and hyper-distrustful instead of the normal NYC level of distrust every normal person is supposed to have. :-)

Does anyone think she would have developed the way she did if she had arrived at the Castle and found Goliath awake?

You wrote: [You really think that the situation at Castle Wyvern was worth a shady alliance with untrustworthy people?]

But she didn't make an alliance with untrustworthy people; she worked with only the Captain. He is the one who actually made arrangements with Hakon and who was the driving force for amending the plan when Goliath didn't unknowingly play along with it.

As for the situation at the Castle, I'm putting alot of blame on Goliath. Demona defintely didn't go about fixing the situation in the right manner but the truth is that he wasn't doing a very good job leading his clan. Just drifting and hoping that everything will get better is a recipe for disaster in the long term. It was the same kind of thinking he had when Elisa kept begging him to leave the Castle; its just that when Elisa made a move against Goliath, she did the diplomatic work among the Clan to force a decision on him. Demona didn't.

You wrote: [The betrayal strikes me as a foolish, hotheaded error in judgement.]

The plan was deeply flawed, and not at all well planned out or thought through. It does almost feel like a spur of the moment thing on the part of the Captain with the permission of Demona. And it was the wrong way to go about a betrayal. The problem here though is that Goliath is leaving a leadership vacuum that everyone (Demona in particular) is trying to fill. It should never have gotten to the point where Demona and The Captain had to develop a plan of some sort.

You wrote: [She had no problem in Awakenings (remember the guard she threw off the airship?) and City of Stone (smashing the human statues).]

She didn't throw those guards off the airship - Goliath stopped her at the last minute. She did kill those people in CITY OF STONE but they were all adults. (That doesn't make it any better but the question started out asking if she would kill little children.)

Neither Goliath, Hudson, or Demona has a problem killing; they were all warriors who have killed on earlier occassions. Goliath was willing to kill John Canmore although he was stopped at the last second, and he thought that he killed the two Hunters right before he fled the Airship in HUNTERS MOON 2; that's why Brooklyn and Lex were so shocked. We've seen Demona directly kill in CITY OF STONE both in the past and present. And Hudson lived in the Middle Ages most of his life; its unreasonable to believe that he didn't kill a single person ever.


Z - You wrote: [So self-hatred is a more noble trait than forgiveness? :)]

Taking Responsibility for your actions is more noble than allowing yourself to be let off the hook easily. The Magus didn't hate himself as much as he hated what he had done. And he took responsibility rather than run away. He could have left Avalon once the Eggs became old enough to function themselves. Or he could have just rationalized and dismissed his guilt after a while. But he didn't.

You wrote: [Well, she did try to create a massive plague to wipe out all human life, including children.]

But that is kind of more abstract than if she were going to take a human baby and smash its skull against a wall or have some 4 year old baked for her Thanksgiving meal. She can rationalize that away. Has she ever killed a kid for fun with her bare hands or just tried to sniper shoot some kid from a short distance? I strongly doubt it.


BLAISE - You wrote: [Though, I also think she'd prefer to rule rather than die. Or at least that's what she keeps saying she wants.]

I think that for all the talk about ruling, she is more interested in the conquest part of the gig. Most "I want to rule the world/humans/etc" type people tend to enjoy the rush of planning and putting conquest schemes into action. If she were actually successful, she'd probably find a way to sabotage it just to start all over again.

You wrote: [I would also disagree with the suggestion that Demona would have fought on the side of the Axis in WWII. More likely, she would have viewed them as further evidence of humanity's "moral bankruptcy."]

I agree that she probably wouldn't have gotten directly involved in any of the World Wars. Besides the whole sort of "Plague of both Houses" mentality she was likely to have, its also worth bringing up that she wasn't able to transform into a Human at this point and could not directly get involved the same way Macbeth could. I've always pictured her spending the WW2 years in some villa in California, keeping track of what was going on but not really being THAT interested. After all its not like it would have been the first war she ever lived through.

You wrote: [I remember Greg saying that she had hoped the humans would wipe themselves out, but when she saw what the A-Bomb did she became scared.]

I could understand her becoming scared at the idea that the bomb might be something that could be more powerful than her immortality spell but I don't really see why else she would be scared by the A-Bomb. I can see shock and then interest given that its a way to wipe out large numbers of humans.

You wrote: [Psychoanalyzing Demona...a favored past-time. Ah, for the good old days.]

The room always gets lively when we do that. And after 10 years we still have plenty of material to work with. :-)


TODD - You wrote: [The motive for his turning the gargs to stone was his love for Princess Katharine; on Avalon, he had to watch as Katharine fell in love with Tom, knowing that his love for her would forever be unrequited, and could not even leave because of his duty to the young gargoyles.]

The problem here really is that he never made a move; I thought that it would be more likely that Katharine would end up with the Magus when they first arrived on the island. He had years during which Tom was just a kid to to try but didn't. Could that have been a sort of self-inflicted torment, that he didn't make a move on purpose so that he would suffer more? I'm just not sure about that. It fits the situation but something in my gut tells me that it might be more likely that he got the feeling that Katharine wouldn't respond to anything he did so he just did nothing.


CKAYOTE - You wrote: [WW2: I would imagine her with one of the foreign clans, fighting to keep them out of the humans' war.]

I think that she really only knew about the London clan prior to THE RECKONING. And I don't think that even with an immortality spell that she'd want to hang around Europe when she was still turning to stone and a bomb could land on her head at any moment. After all she still saw turning to stone as a vulnerability as late at THE MIRROR in 1995, so I don't think that she'd want to take the risk. I figure that unless she wanted to do a little looting in France or Italy, she probably would have headed off to the U.S. for a few years to wait out the war.

As for her relationship with the London Clan, I've always wondered - she might know about them but do they know about her? And if they do, how do they feel about the entire "destroy humanity" thing? Some of that Clan must rotate in and out of the Shop to make money to keep the Clan going but at the same time most of them would remain isolated in the countryside. Would they be as open a Clan as the Manhattan Clan or would there be some sympathy to Demona? If not for her plan then at least for her arguments? We only met three Londoners and two of them were while not anti-human, deeply reluctant to get involved in anything having to do with Humans as far back as 1940.


GREG BISHANSKY - You wrote: [Will someone please explain to me what this supposed huge "moral" difference between killing an adult and killing a child is?]

In principle the difference is supposed to be that an adult is considered to be capable of defending him or herself while a child is not.

You wrote: [She was willing to kill Canmore had Macbeth not ordered his life spared.]

Do we really know that? After all she said nothing when Macbeth was deciding or sentencing Canmore. If she had been deeply in favor of killing Canmore, she could have voiced her opinion just as Bodhe did. And as for sparing Canmore, she was well within her rights to kill him when he attacked her after Macbeth sentenced him to exile. She chose not to with the excuse being that Macbeth chose to spare her. But she could have just as easily killed him without anyone holding it against her.

You wrote: [And in the end, sparing the so-called "innocent" child's life proved to be a mistake of epic proportions.]

I agree 100 percent on that. Macbeth should have ordered Canmore killed. Demona should have killed the boy when he attacked her. Those who show mercy to the cruel end up being cruel to those who deserve mercy. Both Macbeth and Demona showed mercy when they shouldn't have and both of them ended up suffering for that.

You wrote: [Canmore was hardly innocent anyway.]

That is debatable; although Canmore's reaction to his father's death was not what we would consider sympathetic, we seem to expect him to remain soft spoken about the situation when being forced to his knees in front of the person who killed his father and who is taking what he has been raised to believe is his birthright. We would find him to be more innocent if he had started crying but just because he didn't and stood firm doesn't mean that he wasn't relatively innocent up to that point. It doesn't mean that he was glad his father was dead or that he wanted him dead. He simply and forcefully asserted his rights under threat of death. (Its even possible that he had witnessed Duncan's death; after all he was on or near the battlefield, otherwise how could Macbeth's army find and bring him to Macbeth so quickly?)

I think that he stopped being a relatively innocent child the moment his father got killed but that he wasn't some sort of evil incarnate from the very beginning. I think the moment his knees hit the ground, he was no longer a child but a dangerous adult, a contender for the throne who had to be dealt with. But before that I don't think that its fair to say that he was hardly innocent.

Airwalker - [airwalker9999@yahoo.com]
Brooklyn, NY
Tuesday, April 6, 2004 12:02:52 PM
IP: 12.75.158.72

at the risk of bringing in another topic... all this talk of killing the young of another species has got me wondering about the Gargoyle Eggs at Wyvern during the Massacre. does anyone know what Greg has said about how/why they were spared? did Hakon not know about them? did the Captain actually find a way to save them? i find it hard to believe that the Vikings (while pillaging and looting the Castle) would ignore the ornate doors to the Rookery...

as for Demona, there have always been some fans that have tried to prove that Demona didn't play a large part in the Massacre, some even try to push the blame unto others (Goliath, Katherine, Hudson, etc.) and to be honest, EVERYONE involved could've done something that would've averted the Massacre. but hindsight is 20/20. we need to remember that Goliath, Hudson, Katherine, Tom, Mary, the Magus and probably most the human and gargoyle inhabitants of Castle Wyvern felt the tension and knew that there was a bad situation, but none of them expected, wanted, planned or wished for what happened. the only people that saw the Massacre coming and could've done something about it were the Captain and Demona. Demona betrayed her Clan numerous times. first by plotting behind her leader and her mate's back, not to mention her Clan. second by not warning them when the danger became VERY real (when the plan changed from attacking during the night to attacking during the day). and third, by abandoning her Clan, her FAMILY to a dangerous fate.
Demona isn't stupid. she had many chances to try to make things right. and even after the Massacre she could've made sure that it didn't happen again, but she did the same thing with the Moray Clan. Demona refuses to admit she makes mistakes and because she can't admit she makes mistakes she can't learn from them. what Demona needs is a lesson in integrity from dear old Renard. not that she'd listen...

matt
Tuesday, April 6, 2004 11:39:32 AM
IP: 207.230.48.78

Okay, will someone please explain to me what this supposed huge "moral" difference between killing an adult and killing a child is? Because I really don't see one. My guess is it falls into the myth about the so called innocence of children.

And yes, Demona is willing to kill whenever she has to, whoever she has to. She was willing to kill Canmore had Macbeth not ordered his life spared. And in the end, sparing the so-called "innocent" child's life proved to be a mistake of epic proportions. Canmore was hardly innocent anyway.

Greg Bishansky
Tuesday, April 6, 2004 11:27:18 AM
IP: 216.179.3.186

Demona Killing People >> She had no problem in Awakenings (remember the guard she threw off the airship?) and City of Stone (smashing the human statues).
As for killing a child, well, I think people (human and gargoyle ;-) ) can actually harden their hearts to the point that the child would be merely so much flesh and sinew.
This reminds me of an editorial I read to day about the Fallujah incident. It suggested that people have a mental "switch" that alows them to ignore the life of living beings. This switch lets people think of these living beings objectively, allowing surgeons -- or butchers -- to do their jobs.
It also allows mobs to mutilate hated people.

Perhaps Demona could think of babies and children in that dark, objective manner. After all, they are just another evil creature that deserves to die.

JJ Gregarius
Orlando, FL
Tuesday, April 6, 2004 02:44:40 AM
IP: 65.244.170.163

Demona: Her evil is in how she reacted, and continues to react, to the event. The massacre isn't her fault in a moral sense (she had the best intentions), but more in legal liability way. She was just damn stupid to trust the Viking.

As for why she stays in New York, I think it's part of her antagonistic realtionship with Goliath. She trying prove herself to herself by prooving herslef to Goliath.
When she finally suceeds, Goliath HAS to be there so she can, for lack of a better word, gloat.


>I guess sometimes it's easier to kill someone when you don't see them, or even acknowledge their presence, but another matter when they're looking right at you. In other words.

That's the impression I got to.


>Does Gillecomgain count or was he more of a teenager?
He was old enough to defend himself. And he had a pitch fork. But I think the helpless infant would get a "You can die later with the rest of kind." But anything old enough to be a potential threat dies.


WW2: I would imagine her with one of the foreign clans, fighting to keep them out of the humans' war. "Let them kill themselves. We will remain and thrive."


I would like to here Greg W's opinion on this: how she came out vs. how he intended her.

CKayote - [CKayote@worldnet.att.net]
Orlando, FL
Monday, April 5, 2004 11:45:56 PM
IP: 132.170.40.139

According to Greg Weisman, Gillecomgain was twelve in 994, when Demona scarred him.
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Monday, April 5, 2004 10:00:45 PM
IP: 4.245.17.155

"I realize Demona is sort of understood to be a willing murderer of others who had _nothing to do_ with her misery, but have we ever actually seen her harm a child?"

Does Gillecomgain count or was he more of a teenager? Wasn't he about thirteen or fourteen?

Dernhelm - [springsprite@email.com]
Okla. City
Monday, April 5, 2004 09:52:08 PM
IP: 68.12.196.86

They call me the Count because I love to count!

26 days left before Gathering 2004 pre-registration prices increase.
27 days left to submit entries for the Gathering T-shirt contest (deadline is May 1).
88 days left to submit entries for the Music Video contest (deadline is July 1).
93 days left to reserve your hotel room at the Delta Centre-Ville (deadline is July 6 at noon).

And finally...

123 days left until The Gathering 2004 in Montreal, Quebec!

One-two-three! Ah-ha-ha! :: thunder and lightening ::

Count von Count - [<-- le Gathering!]
Monday, April 5, 2004 09:31:22 PM
IP: 65.43.158.69

It just occurred to me that there was an interesting additional dimension to the Magus's self-inflicted punishment of spending the rest of his life on Avalon, looking after the hatchlings. The motive for his turning the gargs to stone was his love for Princess Katharine (he thought that she had been killed by Hakon and blamed the gargoyles for inspiring the Viking leader to murder her); on Avalon, he had to watch as Katharine fell in love with Tom, knowing that his love for her would forever be unrequited, and could not even leave because of his duty to the young gargoyles.
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Monday, April 5, 2004 07:49:26 PM
IP: 4.245.17.155

****Blaise materializes in mid-air, floating in a lotus position, and wearing...some weird sort of metallic graduation cap.**** It's my thinking cap. I'm glad to be using it.

PUNCHINELLO> Actually, I think Demona generates tremendous sympathy. I mean, let's look at another CITY OF STONE moment, when Demona says "The access code is...'alone,'" and cries. I find that to be a pretty darn sympathetic moment. Heck, I think we're given full license to root for her at the end of THE RECKONING when she takes on Thailog (and I for one actually consider Thailog to be the greater of the two evils, and he's still largely a product of his upbringing). Demona is victim as well as villain--everyone will have an opinion of the exact balance between the two, but she is both.
Also, I suppose most of my problem with the betrayal at Wyvern (and this goes for the Captain as well as Demona) is that even Tom would have suffered--punishing the innocent along with the guilty, if you will. Then, too, there's the usual problem with a preemptive strike: the humans of Wyvern had not taken any violent action toward the clan...yet (that was Demona's main concern, and an understandable one).
At any rate, like you, I would also disagree with the suggestion that Demona would have fought on the side of the Axis in WWII. More likely, she would have viewed them as further evidence of humanity's "moral bankruptcy." Actually, I thought that she largely stayed out of the conflict--at least I remember Greg saying that she had hoped the humans would wipe themselves out, but when she saw what the A-Bomb did she became scared.
And as for killing children, well, her "Operation: Clean Slate" would definitely have done just that. However, I think that Greg said (somewhere in the old archives) that though Demona would like to believe she could easily bash in a human infant's skull, the reality of it would probably be very different. I guess sometimes it's easier to kill someone when you don't see them, or even acknowledge their presence, but another matter when they're looking right at you. In other words, Demona's good at denial.

Psychoanalyzing Demona...a favored past-time. Ah, for the good old days.

AIRWALKER> Right, "potential martyr." Though, I also think she'd prefer to rule rather than die. Or at least that's what she keeps saying she wants.

I'd better sign off--I've got errands finish today since I'm working tomorrow (back to the glory of working in the movies...as background). Later all! Until then, farewell. ****Blaise gets sucked up into his thinking cap, which flies like a minature space ship out through the window.****

Blaise
Monday, April 5, 2004 07:38:27 PM
IP: 209.178.171.117

Airwalker -
<He accepted that he had done something unforgivable and refused to allow anyone to take that from him>
<Then again maybe I read too much into the scene - after all Goliath doesn't actually say that he is forgiving the Magus; instead he only reminds him of the positive things he has done and implies forgiveness.>

So self-hatred is a more noble trait than forgiveness? :)


Punchinello -
<I realize Demona is sort of understood to be a willing murderer of others who had _nothing to do_ with her misery, but have we ever actually seen her harm a child?>

Well, she did try to create a massive plague to wipe out all human life, including children.


Peace


Z
Monday, April 5, 2004 07:36:03 PM
IP: 67.66.158.9

I'll only make a few short comments for now.

1) I always felt that the Sisters were only bringing out the self-guilt that Demona had repressed for so long.
2) In "City of Stone" we had learnt that Demona became increasingly destructive to all parties (even herself!) after the Massacre.
3) Ergo, there is more to this situation than just the Massacre. The Massacre is almost symbolic WRT Demona as a convenient point in time to say that she had turned to the "dark side."
4) Punchinello, you really think that the situation at Castle Wyvern was worth a shady alliance with untrustworthy people? The betrayal strikes me as a foolish, hotheaded error in judgement. Perhaps that is why Demona feels (repressed) guilt: she had erred, and erred mightily!

JJ Gregarius
Orlando, FL
Monday, April 5, 2004 06:50:32 PM
IP: 65.244.170.163

On the Demona exchange...

"The sisters weren't wrong in my opinion. I mean, who ever said that Demona's role in the Wyvern massacre warranted punishment"

Well, maybe it would help if I clarified my intent. When I say punishment in reference to D or the captain, I am referring not to some action taken to sanction them by any of the other characters, but rather to a license for the other characters (and the audience) to understand the character in a certain way. And I think the narrative of the story is very clear in giving us license to feel hostility to D. Never sympathy for her actions. You articulate the case yourself. The sisters little diologue with D where their first reaction to her justification for revenge is to ask "who betrayed the castle to the vikings," leads the audience to interpret her to be the origin of all the misery associated with that event. At one level I think it's supposed to be read as a confirmation of D as an evil person from the beginning of the series. We're supposed to understand her as the originator of the slaughter. It's very conspicuous to me that the sisters treat her as though she initiated the massacre, even though it seems clear on the face of the narrative that she is not the one who initiated the violence. She was on the reception of a pretty ubiquitous marginalization and violent persecution.

Why does this trouble me? Well, one reason is probably a concession to ethics or something. Or a sentimental gesture at the least. I don't like seeing someone unjustly maligned. Even a character in a work of fiction, as frivolous as that might sound. But there is something more troubling to me than this. It can be dangerous to interpret all moral action through a lens of good vs. evil, and to imagine violent action to be without possible merit. This is a myopic way of interpreting moral agents which treats their moral agendas as though they happen in a vacuum. What I mean to say is, Demona's violence is never treated in the story (I think) as though it emerged from an even more oppressive violence. We're never given that license by the narrative to say, "sometimes a counter offensive is morally just. There is only so much a tolerant people can be expected to tolerate." That's something I had sought in the narrative and always found absent. So now recently, while doing a little cursory reading of the archives here, I have come across posts from people who speculate about how Demona must have alligned herself with the Nazi's during WWII. Not because it follows that they would have had any agenda in common, but rather because those evil sorts just naturally must be working towards some similar sinister end. And look at how low we set the bar now. Demona, who undertook a campaign of retribution for a legitimate crime against her entire people, whose hostility emerges from real persecution, is now on par with what is probably the greatest evil in popular conciousness. People who murdered children. There is no room for rightous indignation in this picture. I realize Demona is sort of understood to be a willing murderer of others who had _nothing to do_ with her misery, but have we ever actually seen her harm a child? Is there some reason we should think that the moral character of a person who would harm a child is just synonomous with the character of a person indignant over their own persecution? And when did we ever see D complicit in _any_ action of violence on the scale of of the Nazi's? The comparison seems perverse to me.

It worries me because this treatment of a character (or real people) never interprets the _quality_ of violent action. It is obsessed with quantity. So, we could say, "that Xanatos, he's a pretty evil guy, but not as eveil as that Hitler fellow. He was much more evil."

Treating descriptions of human action like this have always seemed pretty meaningless to me. How can we possibly understand evil as something that can be measured as if it were assigned a number on a scale from one to ten. Moral actions are something qualitative. It's the context in which they exist that gives them meaning. Retaliation can never be treated the same way that the initiation of violence is. That's why we distinguish the phenomenon of self defense. Similarly, the issue of foresight has a _massive_ bearing upon the moral status of an action. If you poison a river you can reasonably forsee that it will have consequences for those downstream, but if you accidentally dump that barrel, (or if you inadvertantly put a lunatic in a position to destroy your entire clan through collossally inept planning) the kind of responsibility you harbor is qualitatively different then if you could forsee the malignant consequences of your actions.

You were right. This is getting thick. I cant think of any other cartoon shows that have compelled me to have these kinds of conversations.

Punchinello
Monday, April 5, 2004 04:54:56 PM
IP: 80.205.181.50

BLAISE - You wrote: [Actually, with the way the Magus acted in AVALON he seems to have achieved that sympathetic quality your friend said he lacked.]

You know, my thinking on the Magus really evolved over the last decade. :-) Seriously, when I originally watched the episodes I was angry at how easily Goliath and the others were willing to gloss over what he had done, at how it seemed that his punishment (living on a peaceful magical island and raising Gargoyle children) just didn't seem to fit the crime he had committed. But the one thing that he had going in his favor was his unwillingness to be let off the hook so easily. Everytime someone tried to let him move on, he would refuse to do so. He accepted that he had done something unforgivable and refused to allow anyone to take that from him. And on top of that, he remained at his post, trying to make up for what he had done. That raised my opinion of him a bit.

In fact these days when I watch AVALON I tend to be a bit more critical of Goliath; because while Goliath had the right to forgive the Magus for what the Magus had done to him personally, he had no right to forgive him for what he had done to Hudson, the Trio, and even Demona. Only they could forgive the Magus for what he had done to them.

(Then again maybe I read too much into the scene - after all Goliath doesn't actually say that he is forgiving the Magus; instead he only reminds him of the positive things he has done and implies forgiveness. I'm still uncomfortable with how easily Goliath is able to brush away the rights of his clanmates though.)

You wrote: [That one about the "multiculturalism" ruining the show sounds to me like it's coming from someone who'd prefer there be only one culture in the world, period.]

I haven't had a chance to read the site in detail but my impression is more that its another dig at the World Tour than anything else.


PATRICK - You wrote: [Goliath was a leader clueless to the impending doom and he's seen as a victim. Meanwhile, Dubya takes a media drubbing. I guess politics is funny that way.]

994 Goliath never had to deal with 24 News coverage. They have to find something to fill all that time. It can't all be Michael Jackson and Kobe Bryant. :-)


TODD - You wrote: [Xanatos's portrayal in "For It May Come True" was a bit iffy]

True; his motivation was defintely off (although it was a dream sequence so the episode does have a built in excuse for any inconsistancies in the Human Goliath scenario) but his tone (as I remember it; I haven't seen the episode in a long time) seemed right as a good fit for S1 Xanatos.

You wrote: [Perhaps if the series had lasted longer under Greg's leadership, Demona might have established bases outside of New York.]

I think that she already has numerious bases outside NYC; before Nightstone Unlimited was founded, she had to have homes in a few places - NYC for sure, probably Los Angeles, London and Paris also, Rome, Switzerland, Vienna, and Berlin maybe. The real question is why would she bother to set up all her destroy the world schemes in NYC where she has the most chance of facing opposition. I think you make some good points for why she would remain in NYC during most of the series but its still a curious flaw in her thinking - she'd be much more successful somewhere else rather than in Manhattan but she refuses to base herself anywhere else.

(Hell all she has to do is set up in Jersey and she'd probably have conquered at least half the world by now. France for sure. Its the most traditional villain oriented problem in the series - she's constantly refusing to outsource and thus gets thwarted by the heroes who tend to live a few blocks from her. :-) I can understand her a little bit; once you've lived in NYC, it ruins you for living anywhere else. But if she wants the destruction of Humanity and World Conquest then she's going to have to make a few sacrifices. Isn't a few years in Jersey worth that? :-) )

Airwalker - [airwalker9999@yahoo.com]
Brooklyn, NY
Monday, April 5, 2004 10:48:54 AM
IP: 12.75.155.168

10th?
JJ Gregarius
Orlando, FL
Monday, April 5, 2004 04:17:30 AM
IP: 65.244.170.163

Ninth!
Emperor Auladarr I
Anaheim, CA, 92807
Monday, April 5, 2004 03:54:25 AM
IP: 67.101.232.63

Oh, wow! Nice going, Greg!! [thumbs up]

Eighth!!

Demona Taina
Monday, April 5, 2004 01:46:10 AM
IP: 172.170.29.216

It's a good thing I came on here or else I would have forgot to change my clocks.
7th !!!
I got my job back !!, now kids yelling at your boss is bad and you might get fired, but if you take your problem to the head company you can get back in. :)

Babs
Philly, Pa
Monday, April 5, 2004 01:22:38 AM
IP: 68.80.222.40

..or 6th.
Leo
Monday, April 5, 2004 12:37:54 AM
IP: 68.231.241.236

*blinks* Did Greg Wiesman really post in a to 10 count? And first to boot??

heheh, anyway..

5th!

Leo
Monday, April 5, 2004 12:36:42 AM
IP: 68.231.241.236

Damn. I think that's the first time I've ever seen Greg enter the top 10.
Vash
Monday, April 5, 2004 12:36:16 AM
IP: 129.98.127.164

4th!

Howdy, Greg.

Alex Garg
VA, USA
Monday, April 5, 2004 12:27:07 AM
IP: 216.145.68.130

3rd, happy that Greg Weisman got 1st.
DPH
AR, USA
Monday, April 5, 2004 12:07:06 AM
IP: 67.14.195.34

Well, if I have to lose to anyone, glad it was Greg *bows*
make that Second!

Wingless
Monday, April 5, 2004 12:02:02 AM
IP: 24.157.218.68

I'm slow tonight...let's see if I actually make it
First! Woo!

Wingless
Monday, April 5, 2004 12:01:26 AM
IP: 24.157.218.68

Am I first?
Greg Weisman
Monday, April 5, 2004 12:01:00 AM
IP: 209.178.137.49