Shadowspawn are corrupted versions of real living creatures - humans/trollocs, wolves/darkhounds, etc. They breed and create their own offspring, hence the word spawn.
Draghkar? Jumara? Any number of nameless creatures in the blight? Only some shadowspawn fit that description...
A case can be made as to why gholams might be immune to gateway death, but that would require them being an exception to a rule that no artificial life-forms (constructs) can travel. Rand only says that shadowspawn are affected, but RJ extended that to all constructs.
A point here may be that constructs can't travel through Traveling Gateways because even though they don't feel the sensation Traveling may be essentially an unmaking and remaking process, you are transmitting your pattern through the pattern. Skimming on the other hand might well be different because the gateway is transmitting you into a different dimension just like the Ways do. And shadowspawn can travel the Ways. If Mat and Elayne were knowledgeable they might have put an end to the gholam with a traveling gateway instead of a Skimming one.
An annoying gateway error.
- 24/12/2010 04:52:54 AM
2037 Views
Re: An annoying gateway error.
- 24/12/2010 10:23:23 AM
1258 Views
Re: An annoying gateway error.
- 24/12/2010 03:41:10 PM
1091 Views
I dissagree
- 24/12/2010 07:09:41 PM
1066 Views
Yes, RJ confirmed that Shadowspawn can't survive gateways. *NM*
- 24/12/2010 07:39:02 PM
465 Views
And then BS confirmed that gholam are "more perfected" Shadowspawn which can. 
*NM*
- 24/12/2010 08:35:34 PM
467 Views
*NM*
- 24/12/2010 08:35:34 PM
467 Views
Re: An annoying gateway error.
- 24/12/2010 11:29:33 AM
995 Views
"They had not known where-or if-the gholam would attack him"
- 25/12/2010 12:27:02 AM
904 Views
Re: "They had not known where-or if-the gholam would attack him"
- 25/12/2010 02:05:07 AM
898 Views
They prepared a place, and it just happened to be within walking distance of the attack?
- 25/12/2010 09:44:34 AM
867 Views
Please re-read the chapter. It expalins a lot.
- 25/12/2010 04:05:50 PM
936 Views
Your quote shows what happened.
- 26/12/2010 05:33:44 AM
849 Views
Likely picked from a handful of pre-determined locations based on where and when the attack occurred
- 31/12/2010 08:47:20 PM
921 Views
Perhaps, but I don't think so.
- 01/01/2011 01:19:12 AM
747 Views
Not realty. Caemlyn is huge by the standards of the time but realistically it's tiny
- 01/01/2011 06:05:06 AM
793 Views
The sizes I proposed are not huge (well, they would be by standards in the middle ages but not now)
- 04/01/2011 06:37:50 AM
725 Views
I believe Caemlyn is less than 300k people .... That's what .05% the size of London?
- 30/01/2011 06:02:50 PM
764 Views
You aren't seriously comparing modern population densities to medieval ones, are you? *NM*
- 30/01/2011 09:23:57 PM
442 Views
That would be an error if it hadn't been Skimming (the platform and what not) they were using.
- 25/12/2010 02:29:39 AM
831 Views
It is an error because they opened a skimming gateway to the house (from the skimming place)
- 25/12/2010 09:47:08 AM
825 Views
I'm confused now as to what you're arguing. They knew the location of the house.
- 26/12/2010 08:54:17 PM
808 Views
You need to know more than just where you are going
- 27/12/2010 06:59:21 AM
838 Views
Please find me a supporting quote in one of the books.
- 27/12/2010 12:48:45 PM
849 Views
Well, from Encyclopaedia WOT, and aCoS
- 28/12/2010 01:02:42 AM
932 Views
I stand corrected. Though I will say that the uses in the books don't match the definition.
- 28/12/2010 02:17:43 PM
889 Views
Re: An annoying gateway error.
- 24/12/2010 12:22:38 PM
974 Views