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
2121 Views
Re: An annoying gateway error.
- 24/12/2010 10:23:23 AM
1334 Views
Re: An annoying gateway error.
- 24/12/2010 03:41:10 PM
1154 Views
I dissagree
- 24/12/2010 07:09:41 PM
1135 Views
Yes, RJ confirmed that Shadowspawn can't survive gateways. *NM*
- 24/12/2010 07:39:02 PM
495 Views
And then BS confirmed that gholam are "more perfected" Shadowspawn which can. 
*NM*
- 24/12/2010 08:35:34 PM
495 Views
*NM*
- 24/12/2010 08:35:34 PM
495 Views
Re: An annoying gateway error.
- 24/12/2010 11:29:33 AM
1062 Views
"They had not known where-or if-the gholam would attack him"
- 25/12/2010 12:27:02 AM
1000 Views
Re: "They had not known where-or if-the gholam would attack him"
- 25/12/2010 02:05:07 AM
967 Views
They prepared a place, and it just happened to be within walking distance of the attack?
- 25/12/2010 09:44:34 AM
943 Views
Please re-read the chapter. It expalins a lot.
- 25/12/2010 04:05:50 PM
1023 Views
Your quote shows what happened.
- 26/12/2010 05:33:44 AM
924 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
990 Views
Perhaps, but I don't think so.
- 01/01/2011 01:19:12 AM
819 Views
Not realty. Caemlyn is huge by the standards of the time but realistically it's tiny
- 01/01/2011 06:05:06 AM
864 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
797 Views
I believe Caemlyn is less than 300k people .... That's what .05% the size of London?
- 30/01/2011 06:02:50 PM
837 Views
You aren't seriously comparing modern population densities to medieval ones, are you? *NM*
- 30/01/2011 09:23:57 PM
465 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
899 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
911 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
882 Views
You need to know more than just where you are going
- 27/12/2010 06:59:21 AM
905 Views
Please find me a supporting quote in one of the books.
- 27/12/2010 12:48:45 PM
916 Views
Well, from Encyclopaedia WOT, and aCoS
- 28/12/2010 01:02:42 AM
1014 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
967 Views
Re: An annoying gateway error.
- 24/12/2010 12:22:38 PM
1050 Views