Keskustelujen arkisto

Per wrote:
> Among the new subscribers are a couple of pros of the field, btw:
> David Cody Weiss & Bobbi JG Weiss.

Ehm... I don't want to seem ignorant or anything, but... who are these
people? The names do sound familiar...

> Should I post some member statistics once in a while,
> like the number of subscribers and how they are distributed
> geographically once in a while

YES!

> (or even the whole list of
> subscribers?)

Well, in that case, you should first offer each member the opportunity
to remain anonymous. After all, we don't want to intrude on anyone's
privacy, do we?

> Should I encourage new members to introduce themselves to the list?

Yes and no. It is kind of interesting to know who everyone is, but I
don't care much for the silent mass of lurkers. On the other hand, they
probably wouldn't write any introductions anyway.

/F

A while back Harry Fluks <H.W.Fluks at research.ptt.nl> wrote:
>I bought some USA comics in various Texas cities. I even couldn't resist
>buying some comics solely because of their Rosa covers. And I bought Uncle
>Scrooge #116, which reprints the only non-Barks story Rosa based a Life
>of Scrooge fact on: the 'shoe shining' story from U$ 50 by Tony Strobl.

A few people have mentioned that Tony Strobl came up with the idea of
Scrooge being a shoe-shine boy in his youth, but I seem to remember a
Barks story where we see Scrooge as a youthful shoe-shine boy. I
believe that this was "The Invisible Intruder", so I don't know just
how much authority it has :-) Or is it something else that Tony
Strobl came up with that is in this story? Or did the Strobl story
come before the Barks one?

The subject that wouldn't die:
==============================
>An article in The Duckburg Times #21 about slang
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Mark, give us some of that, at least the part where BopBop is explained!

Well, the article itself is rather long (and I would certainly
recommend it to anyone even *remotely* interested in the ducks'
dialogue - back issues of the "Duckburg Times" are available from Dana
Gabbard) but the "Bop, bop" line was quoted as one of the examples of
Donald referring to jazz musicians *not* by name but by turning their
jazzy sounds into nicknames. (Like addressing a bee as "buzz
bomber" or a plumber as "wrench wrangler", Donald referred to the
musician by quoting his "bop, bop" beats.)

In short, "Bop, bop" is not a name, but just one of Donald's many
off-the-cuff, wise-guy methods of greeting.

Unfortunately, I haven't actually *seen* the "Bop, bop" story so I
can't judge whether I agree or not, but the article made a pretty
convincing case for this approach.

Bror!

Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding regarding
your identitification of that now much mentioned
mysterious (or not so much after all this discussion?)
character in Lo$3!
I thought your mentioning of buffaloes was something
you found typical of that "guy" (and therefore that you
had got the identity wrong). I see now you were right,
even if the buffalo extermination may have been a bit
more incidential than typical for this person (he was
quite young at the time).

I guess the nice thing about such discussions is that
they may confirm Don's opinion on Europeans not being
so ignorant on details in American history.

By the way: One of the really great thinks about Don's
stories (and that other guy's, called Barks or something)
is that they stimulate thoughts and discussions on
details, sources, plots, persons and world views (like
that praiseworthy scene on the last page og Lo$9!).
In fact, it's almost like REAL literature...

Bj|rn Are

P.S. Are the length of my lines better now?

(Bjorn-Are.Davidsen at s.televerket.tele.no)

Bjorn-Are Davidsen wrote:
>By the way: One of the really great thinks about Don's
>stories (and that other guy's, called Barks or something)
>is that they stimulate thoughts and discussions on
>details, sources, plots, persons and world views (like
>that praiseworthy scene on the last page og Lo$9!).
>In fact, it's almost like REAL literature...

So, what's so unreal about comics? Why _shouldn't_ comics
be this way? After all, the only major difference between
comics and other litterature is that comics have pictures.
This shouldn't stop writers from making interesting/funny/
exciting/philosophical/litterary (pick any one or substitute
for your favourite) stories. Or..?

/F

About what Bjorn-Are and Fredrik wrote on the subject of comics/literature
comparisons - yeah! I most certainly agree with Fredrik!

This is, to my mind, one of the basic misconceptions when dealing with comics:
to compare them to literature, or to any other medium for that part. Comics, or
rather, to use Will Eisner's terminology, sequential art, is an artform as
separate from literature as is film or pictorial art. There are of course
similarities as well, in that any medium can be used for practically any
content, and that the same thing might be equally eloquently said in any
medium, at least in theory.

In practice, sequential art (I'll fortwith call it "comics" for short) has only
been exploited as an artistic medium to a fraction of it's capacities, because
of various social and/or cultural phenomenae and stigmae that has been attached
to it, and of course this gives us all the more reason to be grateful that
people like Don Rosa and Los Bros. Hernandez and Neil Gaiman and many more are
chosing comics as their medium par preferance, as their artistic outlet.

But I also think that we, who see and appreciate this, should consciously
refrain from reverting to riding the hobby-horse of the 1960's and 70's fandom,
the one that goes "oh, if we only could get comics accepted as REAL literature"
because comics ain't that, nor will they ever be!

Also, Bjorn-Are: Yes, your lines are beautiful now - thank you very much! It
makes your postings much easier to read, and even if I disagree with what you
seemed to say about comics and literature, your points of view are always very
interesting, so...

Quack, quack, goes

Mattias

Mattias (and everyone)!

I seem to have a problem here. I tried to be a bit amusing/subtle
and talk as if comics should not be considered as "real literature",
when I VERY MUCH mean that it should. This seems to have been
somewhat misunderstood.

I therefore want to make make clear that comics, sequensial art,
bandes dessinee (or how it is written in French), graphical stories
and so on are to be concideres, evaluated and read as REAL
LITERATURE. I read every comic book and graphical novel by Alan
Moore, Neil Gaiman, Milton Caniff, Hugo Pratt, Moebius and all the
other great ARTIST.

In fact, together with a certain other Norwegian member of the
Digest (well known for his views on sex in Barks), I founded a
literary magazine way back in 1980 dedicated to showing that
comics, rock music, western stories, Science Fiction, Fantasy
and so on should be read (or listened to) both for the pure joy/fun
of it and taken seriously as art forms (based on different techniques,
expressions, criteria for evaluation a.s.o).

We wrote with equal vigour on Donald and Dostojevski, on rock
music (e.g. ELP, Gentle Giant etc) and religious hymns.

So a final warning: I may also in the future attempt to use a
kind of (more or less) subtle irony in my writing. Please do not always
take me on "face value" (if that is the expression). I contain multitudes.

Bj|rn Are

Mark:
Who came up with the idea that $crooge was once a shoeshine boy
in his youth? In UNCLE $CROOGE #44 was "The Invisible Intruder", a very
silly story illustrated by Barks but NOT WRITTEN by Barks, where it is
mentioned that $crooge was once a shoeshine boy. Then, in #50 was "That
Healthy, Wealthy Feeling", drawn by Strobl and written by who-knows,
where it is said that $crooge earned his first dime as a shoeshine lad.
Neither of these stories seemed to be aware that $crooge was born in
Scotland, and even though I adopted the very logical notion that
$crooge started out shining shoes, it remained for me to figure out WHY
his first coin, earned in Glasgow, is an American dime. I ignored every
other aspect of these tales (particularly all that nonsense about BEDS
in the first'n). I did not entirely figure out where the American dime
came from in the Lo$, but did so more fully in "Of Ducks and Dimes and
Destinies", a story I did 2 1/2 years ago but, because its subject
matter is so close to that in Lo$, it is still being kept on stand-by
until some later date.

(Sigh) Go ahead with this discussion about "Comics are
literature! Comics are literature!", but I'll just watch. Frankly, I'm
puzzled why people are so concerned what sort of label we put on
funnybooks. Are they art? Are they literature? Neither? Both? So what?
What does it prove? What you wanna call them will never make them more
or less than what they are, which is simple escapist entertainment. If
the general public or scholars look down on comics, that's their
problem -- why should I care, as long as I'm not prevented from
enjoying them. The fact is, in America, comics are so SOLIDLY
considered to be juvenile junk that the notion will never be changed,
and considering modern American comics, it's a pretty darned accurate
idea. The only publicity and notice the average American sees about
comics nowadays is as "collector's items" that they can buy and sell at
a profit, and THAT is what modern Americans consider to be High Art.
But whatever you say about other people's work, MY stuff is
simply entertainment. Thanks so much for telling me otherwise, but my
comics are just funnybooks.

Per:
This business about "who are we"... I would VERY MUCH like to
have access to a list of the readers of these digests! I now see that
there are folks of the Disney corporation "lurking" here (as the saying
goes). If I am to continue to be willing to speak my mind freely, I'd
like to be able to know who I'm speaking to. Actually, I have NEVER
spoken my mind freely here, sorry to say, as I am always aware that
there are SO many things that I should not discuss or disclose, and I
always handle myself accordingly. Disney (as a corporation, not
referring to the folks who have joined us here) gives one just cause to
be cynical and paranoid, as much as I wish it were otherwise, and we
bugs can be squashed very easilly.