GEIR:
I placed that display of Croesus' treasure in the museum in "The
Son of the Sun" for two reasons. First, I had something different in
that panel which Byron had me remove, though I can't recall why he
didn't like it -- I had a freezer with a window in it showing it
contained the Bombastium ball. To fill the emptied panel I stuck in a
treasure that I planned to do a story about. Was there a reference for
it? In "Back to Long Ago" $crooge daydreams of the two greatest
treasures of antiquity that he hoped to find -- King Solomon's Mines and
the Treasury of Croesus. He never found the second one. But really,
after waiting 8 years, I wish I'd done a better story -- mine is okay,
but no "Son of the Sun".
If they reprint "SotS", I don't think I'd ever redraw any part
of it -- I'd rather redraw the WHOLE MESS! Can you imagine how
embarrassing it is for me to look back at the art on that story!? I
can't believe they published it! I'd feel like redrawing the whole thing
someday, but I probably never will since there are always more
completely new stories to tell!
How carefully did you reread it? I bet even I don't remember all
the hidden details in it. For instance, did you notice in the first view
of the Temple of Manco Capac, you can see the wing of $crooge's airplane
leaning against one of the rear towers where it had crashed on the back
side?
Why did you mention the fact that Gladstone was reading MICKEY
and PLUTO comics in "Nobody's Business". I have NO fond memories of that
story -- I think it was quite a come-down from "SotS", very forced and
contrived. But as to those comics -- you noticed they were Dells? And
you notice there were no Disney DUCK comics? That was to show my idea
that in the Duck Universe, Mickey Mouse and the other non-Duck
characters are simply fictitious comic characters... only the Ducks are
"real".
MARK:
Mark Worden's Barks index is not available as far as I know. It
was never sold, only given to friends -- in fact, when he saw dealers
selling it, his second printing carried the title "NOT FOR SALE" in huge
letters as if that were the booklet's title.
Is it better than Barrier's index? No, it doesn't try to be
complete. It doesn't try to include all the descriptions and
commentaries that Barrier's does. It's simply an index to identify where
stories appeared, what the titles were, page counts, characters
appearing, etc. It's a handbook of data. If I need to know more, I then
reach for the actual comic or a Barks Library. I have the Barrier book
and I have never used it. I use Worden's index practically every single
day!
JOHN BAKER:
So you're the guy that had me do that complete WDC&S index? I
had already done a complete $crooge index and a DONALD DUCK index,
hadn't I?
Anyway, I'm quite familiar with the hollow-earth theories, but
as they are not actually theories but simply silly fantasies, they play
no part in my story. I'm amazed when I read about anyone later than the
18th century believing stuff like that, but I know some do, including
the UFO fans (which says a lot).
PER:
Someone named "Ana B. Watson" just asked me to take her off the
mailing list. Maybe you can do that for me?
GEIR AGAIN:
I was asked to keep this secret, but I guess I can mention it
now. A few hours ago I was hosting a TV documentary crew from Norway who
came here to interview me. They are doing a hour-show about Barks. The
director was the TV director of the Olympics opening ceremonies, and the
interviewer was a Henry Notaker if that's a familiar name. They spent 18
days out west, 8 days visiting Grant's Pass... and I was their last stop
before going back home. They seemed rather fascinated by all the stuff I
have around here, and they said they might later do a shorter piece
about me during my next trip to Norway.
I'm not sure why Svein Erik asked me months ago not to mention
their visit to me, but I'm wondering if it wasn't for fear Barks would
not react pleasantly if he knew they were going to visit me for his
documentary.
Which might bring us to my next visit to Norway: As I said, I'll
be in Germany in June. It looks like MAYBE I'll be in Sweden in late
Oct.-early november, so I'll probably end up in Oslo for a few days
then. But I haven't actually been invited yet, though I've heard from
lots of people who already know about my visit. Maybe they should ask me
before they start telling people I'm coming?
Author
Topic: 199403
(153 messages)
Don Rosa
Disney-comics digest #283.
Message 136 -
1994-03-29 at 10:53:03
Harry Fluks
Disney-comics digest #283.
Message 137 -
1994-03-29 at 12:06:00
(Whew! A digest of old-fashioned size!)
I asked Fredrik about the Easter issue of Kalle Anka & Co.:
> > Could you describe this oil?
> (...) It depicts donald and the nephews in the car. (...)
You're describing the opening scene of Barks' first Vacation Parade story
(with the forest fire), so I know now which oil has been reproduced. Thank you.
Geir about Don's story "Nobody's Business":
> However, the visual gag with Gladstone in the last panel was lost in
> Norway, they simply removed the G and did nothing to the dialogue.
Same in Holland. But I think it is still a good gag, even if you don't have
the extra information of a publisher named Gladstone. There was no need to
change the dialogue.
Don about JACK CHALKER'S "INFORMAL BIOGRAPHY OF $CROOGE McDUCK":
> One might guess that he had the idea that the only $crooge stories that
> Barks did were those in U$, and that someone had told him that Barks
> wrote everything in the first 71 issues (..)
> I know the guy must have known better than this
The book also has a Scrooge bibliography by Kim Weston, who worked with
Mike Barrier on the most complete Barks bibliography. So he should have
known better.
Don again:
> The other book that is never more than a foor from my elbow is
> Mark Worden's similarly sized complete Barks index.
People who want a copy of that: wait for a while. As some of you may remember,
I am working on a Disney Comics Database. The first thing I am doing is to
compile a complete Carl Barks index, with a lot of data from Barrier (but not
the story descriptions) and as much reprint information as possible. In
one or two months, we should have a file on ftp that has all the information
about Barks' stories in any format you want.
Hm.. I better put NOT FOR SALE on the first lines of the files...
And yes Don, Dwight Decker is on this mailing list.
Fredrik replied to Geir about Don's Son of the Sun:
> "Son of the Sun" (with the possible exception of "Return to Xanadu") is
> absolutely my favourite Rosa.
Art has always been an important part of a comic story to me. I agree with Don
that his art on his first story is far from what it should be (and could have
been, if he had drawn it a few years later). That's one of the main reasons I
don't put "Son of the Sun" in my Rosa top-5.
Now "Return to Xanadu" is another thing. It is a very good story AND it has
beautiful art.
> (End of digest.)
Ah, finally 8-)
--Harry.
I asked Fredrik about the Easter issue of Kalle Anka & Co.:
> > Could you describe this oil?
> (...) It depicts donald and the nephews in the car. (...)
You're describing the opening scene of Barks' first Vacation Parade story
(with the forest fire), so I know now which oil has been reproduced. Thank you.
Geir about Don's story "Nobody's Business":
> However, the visual gag with Gladstone in the last panel was lost in
> Norway, they simply removed the G and did nothing to the dialogue.
Same in Holland. But I think it is still a good gag, even if you don't have
the extra information of a publisher named Gladstone. There was no need to
change the dialogue.
Don about JACK CHALKER'S "INFORMAL BIOGRAPHY OF $CROOGE McDUCK":
> One might guess that he had the idea that the only $crooge stories that
> Barks did were those in U$, and that someone had told him that Barks
> wrote everything in the first 71 issues (..)
> I know the guy must have known better than this
The book also has a Scrooge bibliography by Kim Weston, who worked with
Mike Barrier on the most complete Barks bibliography. So he should have
known better.
Don again:
> The other book that is never more than a foor from my elbow is
> Mark Worden's similarly sized complete Barks index.
People who want a copy of that: wait for a while. As some of you may remember,
I am working on a Disney Comics Database. The first thing I am doing is to
compile a complete Carl Barks index, with a lot of data from Barrier (but not
the story descriptions) and as much reprint information as possible. In
one or two months, we should have a file on ftp that has all the information
about Barks' stories in any format you want.
Hm.. I better put NOT FOR SALE on the first lines of the files...
And yes Don, Dwight Decker is on this mailing list.
Fredrik replied to Geir about Don's Son of the Sun:
> "Son of the Sun" (with the possible exception of "Return to Xanadu") is
> absolutely my favourite Rosa.
Art has always been an important part of a comic story to me. I agree with Don
that his art on his first story is far from what it should be (and could have
been, if he had drawn it a few years later). That's one of the main reasons I
don't put "Son of the Sun" in my Rosa top-5.
Now "Return to Xanadu" is another thing. It is a very good story AND it has
beautiful art.
> (End of digest.)
Ah, finally 8-)
--Harry.
Tryg Helseth
Chalker's IBO$M, New Zealand Gophers
Message 138 -
1994-03-29 at 12:16:52
DON ROSA Wrote:
>JACK CHALKER'S "INFORMAL BIOGRAPHY OF $CROOGE McDUCK":
> [...] He uses ANY story that appears in U$ #1-71, regardless of
> who wrote or drew the tale. I can't figure this out, but that's the
> case [...] He also seemed to ignore lots of stuff that did NOT happen
> to appear in U$ comics.
But Don, Chalker does state in his introduction that he considers (for
whatever reason) only the stories appearing in Uncle $crooge to be
canonical. That's why he ignores the others.
>[...] and that someone had told him that Barks wrote everything in first 71
>issues (though I assume he could see there were different artists).
The book's bibliography by Kim Weston explains why some of the non-Barks
stories were included. (Only two were mentioned as being used--"Invisible
Intruder" and "Travel Tightwad.")
TORSTEN ADAIR Wrote:
>Therefore, I [...] gophered to Minnesota, selected the "all the gophers in
>the world", and then selected the following menu choices [...]
Wow! You burrowed all the way to Minnesota and didn't even say "hello?" :)
BTW, that's sounds like a neat trick using Gopher to mail a file back to
yourself. I want to try it some day.
Tryg Helseth <trygve at maroon.tc.umn.edu> Minneapolis, MN, USA
or <tryg.helseth at tstation.mn.org>
"I found my thrill on Killmotor hill..." $crooge McDuck
>JACK CHALKER'S "INFORMAL BIOGRAPHY OF $CROOGE McDUCK":
> [...] He uses ANY story that appears in U$ #1-71, regardless of
> who wrote or drew the tale. I can't figure this out, but that's the
> case [...] He also seemed to ignore lots of stuff that did NOT happen
> to appear in U$ comics.
But Don, Chalker does state in his introduction that he considers (for
whatever reason) only the stories appearing in Uncle $crooge to be
canonical. That's why he ignores the others.
>[...] and that someone had told him that Barks wrote everything in first 71
>issues (though I assume he could see there were different artists).
The book's bibliography by Kim Weston explains why some of the non-Barks
stories were included. (Only two were mentioned as being used--"Invisible
Intruder" and "Travel Tightwad.")
TORSTEN ADAIR Wrote:
>Therefore, I [...] gophered to Minnesota, selected the "all the gophers in
>the world", and then selected the following menu choices [...]
Wow! You burrowed all the way to Minnesota and didn't even say "hello?" :)
BTW, that's sounds like a neat trick using Gopher to mail a file back to
yourself. I want to try it some day.
Tryg Helseth <trygve at maroon.tc.umn.edu> Minneapolis, MN, USA
or <tryg.helseth at tstation.mn.org>
"I found my thrill on Killmotor hill..." $crooge McDuck
Geir.Hasnes
Davids observations on the new stories.
Message 139 -
1994-03-29 at 14:45:25
DAVID:
some comments to your comments.
> In some stories Van Horn holds a hatred for the Ducks as human
>beings. No, I don't mean for doing Duck stories, which he obviously
>loves, but in these tales the captions have bitter sarcasm directed
>towards the Ducks, some of it verbal, and a lot of it visual. The
>last panel of "Just a Humble Bumbling Duck" (DDAD 13, 1991) was one of
>the bleakest panels I have ever seen in a Duck story. Unlike Barks,
>who seemed to sympathize with Donald despite his general 1949-1951
>cynicism, Van Horn likes to make his Donald extremely sympathetic,
>then kick him when he's down.
Van Horn laughs AT the Ducks, not WITH the Ducks. There is little sympathy
and much creamcake humor in van Horn, but of course, it works now and then.
Van Horn is obsessed with the zany situations, but may also give some
sympathy to the Ducks and for instance baron von Strudel. However, when I
write one-dimensional, I dont mean that this dimension isnt well treated,
but that it is the only one. The Ducks have a very limited range of
situations in the van Horn stories.
> (Milton) Gee! In what stories? One of my personal favorites, "Sauce
>for the Duck," is a Fred Milton story, and he continues to have, for
>me, a remarkably high batting average. In fact I have done the
>American script for "The Clock Watcher," a Milton story to appear in
>the United States soon.
For instance the Milton story where Donald is to go to an interview or
whatever for a job in another town, and he steals a bike from a kid and he
talks very rudely to the man who in reality is the boss he is going to
meet. Here Donald is unrecognizable. And for that sake the Milton/Jippes
collaboration (I think it was) in one of the recent Norwegian DD, where
Donald wants to be a part of the High Society club of Duckburg - cant
remember its name, but he sells everything to be able to wear that hat. The
story is unrealistic and Donald is very reduced as a human being. I didnt
like that one because of its presentation of Donald, but the story itself
read well and had a good drive.
> Gee again! Barks used these concepts a LOT (Magica). So why can't
>other artists use them a lot, too?
>
> I actually feel that some of the best Magica stories are not
>by Barks. For example: "The Robot Raiders of Magica De Spell" (US
>210, 1986), "The Sunken Chest" (US 212, 1986), "A Witch in Crime"
>(some US in 1988, I'm not sure which)... I almost think, Geir, that
>you feel other writers and artists copy Barks simply by using plot
>devices -- such as the three mentioned above -- that Barks did. When
>incidents like Magica's dime-hunger occur frequently in non-Barks
>stories, I find that not derivative -- simply an attempt to recreate
>Barks' universe by showing that things that happened there go on in
>the Duckburg of others.
What I try to express although clumsily is that there are a lot of other
situations that Scrooge may encounter as he clings on to his money bin and
his first dime, and he surely has other memories that could trigger
adventures. Magica has a lot of qualities and surely would go after other
things than the first dime if it were to gain power or whatever. There is
too much "there and back again" in all those Egmont stories. The writers
dont use their imagination as Barks and Rosa did. They reduce Magica and
consequently they reduce Scrooge also. These two persons are some of the
most powerful persons in the comics universe, and they can be extremely
reduced by dull writers. Strobl (or his script writer) for instance had
Scrooge reduced from a hard thinking intelligent and creative financial
genius to a dull small town newspaper editor. It was terrible, although
some of the gags were good.
> I have mentioned my upcoming original story "Two in One,"
>which is to me something I'm very proud of. Do I need to worry, Geir,
>that you will find me unoriginal simply for using the concept of
>Magica going after the dime? Did you find Rosa's superb "On a Silver
>Platter" unoriginal in this same way? I guarantee that you've never
>seen a Magica story quite like "Two in One"...
I look forward to seeing that. Rosa On a Silver Platter was a good example
of making a new twist on the Magica story, it was phenomenal. So what I am
trying to say is that you can keep on with your Magica stories if you just
twist it so much that I cant foresee what is going to happen. Almost all
the Egmont stories are foreseeable after the first page although they even
use too much time on presenting the situation and the plot.
> BY THE WAY... something NO other writer has taken up is the
>idea that Magica not only wants the dime, but other mythical magical
>objects, and that she can compete with Scrooge for *them!* How about
>"Isle of Golden Geese," where she wants the golden eggs, or "Rug
>Riders in the Sky"? I think that doing more stories like *that* with
>Magica is a good idea, and I may do some of them.
That is exactly what I mean, yes.
> I find that Vicar does a lot of copying, and Branca is more
>original. I generally prefer Vicar to Branca up to about the stories
>made in 1989, when Vicar shows a marked improvement. Maybe he sacked
>some of his inkers (he works with some assistants in a sort of studio,
>pencilling everything himself but having others ink it).
I think there is a problem with Vicar now that he draws too much. It is not
necessary to show all those detailed cityscapes etc. It draws the attention
away from the presentation of the story. BTW, Don Rosas way of doing
details is much more meaningful and should not be avoided at any cost.
> Whoa there! Vicar and Branca almost NEVER write their own
>scripts. It's always drawing someone else's thing. They've gotten a
>lot of new writers in the late 1980s, undoubtedly the cause of the
>improvements you have mentioned in their work.
Thats right. I just mention Vicar and Branca for the stories as well
because I dont know the scripters. And I do think that some Vicar stories
from the 70s are just as charming as the ones in the 90s. I also detest
them being too streamlined as it is now.
> I assume you're talking about foreign stories now. The
>American stories of Whitman in the 1980s were the worst crap you can
>ever imagine...
Yes, they were so bad they werent even printed in the Norwegian DD. I owned
some of those comics and luckily managed to sell everything away. However,
the Italian stories of the early 70s were disgusting, the homemade stories
of Europe in the 60s very badly drawn, and the American studio stories for
the European market were far below those produced by Strobl and Bradbury in
the 50s.
> Not in my opinion. What bothers me the most is that the
>Strobl and Bradbury stories, notably usually written by someone other
>than Strobl and Bradbury, who often only did the art, don't try for
>any type of realism. The earlier ones -- for example, the ones in
>WDC&S during 1950 -- strike me just as bad as the later ones. Some
>have good ideas now and then -- I think back to "Donald Duck in
>Panama," by Bradbury, with a very stingy Scrooge -- but for every good
>idea, there's a bad one. And these two are usually just as bad with
>Mickey, IMHO, although they do a good Goofy. In fact, I'd go as far
>as to say that all of Western Publishing's creators made the big
>mistake of relying on Goofy, not Mickey, to carry their "Mickey"
>stories. Only Gottfredson and Scarpa make Mickey the central
>figure.
I agree with you on DD in Panama for instance, and also other early
Bradbury, but I loed for instance Bradburys Donald taking the boys out into
the woods to show how equal he was to his forefathers, and the kids had to
take care of him the whole week. Strobl ranges from very good, like in that
story where Scrooge is visited by a young sportsman relative from Scotland
who competes with Donald, my Strobl favourite I think, to relatively
boring, but never really bad. As for Mickey, the stories have their charm
and the composition is OK although they are generally flat. Bradbury Goofy
tends to be very good, really.
> There I go again, getting started on Mickey. Jeez... I
>maintain that I am Gottfredson's biggest fan. I simply do not have
>the facilities to try to do what Horst has done (presumably with the
>Sunday pages) in whatever country it would be legal to do it in.
>Maybe some day I can convince Disney to let the strips appear in a
>library set, and the only way to do that is to talk to Jeff Katzenberg
>himself via one of the animation historians I know...
Have you ever met Malcolm Willitz, who commisioned those paintings from
Gottfredson?
Keep up the good work, David! Good to know you want to quarrel with me. I
am going to take your list of stories with me home in order to look up your
favourites, but I didnt renew my sub when Disney took over and consequently
dont know of all your favourites if I dont find them in my Norwegian
comics.
Geir Hasnes
some comments to your comments.
> In some stories Van Horn holds a hatred for the Ducks as human
>beings. No, I don't mean for doing Duck stories, which he obviously
>loves, but in these tales the captions have bitter sarcasm directed
>towards the Ducks, some of it verbal, and a lot of it visual. The
>last panel of "Just a Humble Bumbling Duck" (DDAD 13, 1991) was one of
>the bleakest panels I have ever seen in a Duck story. Unlike Barks,
>who seemed to sympathize with Donald despite his general 1949-1951
>cynicism, Van Horn likes to make his Donald extremely sympathetic,
>then kick him when he's down.
Van Horn laughs AT the Ducks, not WITH the Ducks. There is little sympathy
and much creamcake humor in van Horn, but of course, it works now and then.
Van Horn is obsessed with the zany situations, but may also give some
sympathy to the Ducks and for instance baron von Strudel. However, when I
write one-dimensional, I dont mean that this dimension isnt well treated,
but that it is the only one. The Ducks have a very limited range of
situations in the van Horn stories.
> (Milton) Gee! In what stories? One of my personal favorites, "Sauce
>for the Duck," is a Fred Milton story, and he continues to have, for
>me, a remarkably high batting average. In fact I have done the
>American script for "The Clock Watcher," a Milton story to appear in
>the United States soon.
For instance the Milton story where Donald is to go to an interview or
whatever for a job in another town, and he steals a bike from a kid and he
talks very rudely to the man who in reality is the boss he is going to
meet. Here Donald is unrecognizable. And for that sake the Milton/Jippes
collaboration (I think it was) in one of the recent Norwegian DD, where
Donald wants to be a part of the High Society club of Duckburg - cant
remember its name, but he sells everything to be able to wear that hat. The
story is unrealistic and Donald is very reduced as a human being. I didnt
like that one because of its presentation of Donald, but the story itself
read well and had a good drive.
> Gee again! Barks used these concepts a LOT (Magica). So why can't
>other artists use them a lot, too?
>
> I actually feel that some of the best Magica stories are not
>by Barks. For example: "The Robot Raiders of Magica De Spell" (US
>210, 1986), "The Sunken Chest" (US 212, 1986), "A Witch in Crime"
>(some US in 1988, I'm not sure which)... I almost think, Geir, that
>you feel other writers and artists copy Barks simply by using plot
>devices -- such as the three mentioned above -- that Barks did. When
>incidents like Magica's dime-hunger occur frequently in non-Barks
>stories, I find that not derivative -- simply an attempt to recreate
>Barks' universe by showing that things that happened there go on in
>the Duckburg of others.
What I try to express although clumsily is that there are a lot of other
situations that Scrooge may encounter as he clings on to his money bin and
his first dime, and he surely has other memories that could trigger
adventures. Magica has a lot of qualities and surely would go after other
things than the first dime if it were to gain power or whatever. There is
too much "there and back again" in all those Egmont stories. The writers
dont use their imagination as Barks and Rosa did. They reduce Magica and
consequently they reduce Scrooge also. These two persons are some of the
most powerful persons in the comics universe, and they can be extremely
reduced by dull writers. Strobl (or his script writer) for instance had
Scrooge reduced from a hard thinking intelligent and creative financial
genius to a dull small town newspaper editor. It was terrible, although
some of the gags were good.
> I have mentioned my upcoming original story "Two in One,"
>which is to me something I'm very proud of. Do I need to worry, Geir,
>that you will find me unoriginal simply for using the concept of
>Magica going after the dime? Did you find Rosa's superb "On a Silver
>Platter" unoriginal in this same way? I guarantee that you've never
>seen a Magica story quite like "Two in One"...
I look forward to seeing that. Rosa On a Silver Platter was a good example
of making a new twist on the Magica story, it was phenomenal. So what I am
trying to say is that you can keep on with your Magica stories if you just
twist it so much that I cant foresee what is going to happen. Almost all
the Egmont stories are foreseeable after the first page although they even
use too much time on presenting the situation and the plot.
> BY THE WAY... something NO other writer has taken up is the
>idea that Magica not only wants the dime, but other mythical magical
>objects, and that she can compete with Scrooge for *them!* How about
>"Isle of Golden Geese," where she wants the golden eggs, or "Rug
>Riders in the Sky"? I think that doing more stories like *that* with
>Magica is a good idea, and I may do some of them.
That is exactly what I mean, yes.
> I find that Vicar does a lot of copying, and Branca is more
>original. I generally prefer Vicar to Branca up to about the stories
>made in 1989, when Vicar shows a marked improvement. Maybe he sacked
>some of his inkers (he works with some assistants in a sort of studio,
>pencilling everything himself but having others ink it).
I think there is a problem with Vicar now that he draws too much. It is not
necessary to show all those detailed cityscapes etc. It draws the attention
away from the presentation of the story. BTW, Don Rosas way of doing
details is much more meaningful and should not be avoided at any cost.
> Whoa there! Vicar and Branca almost NEVER write their own
>scripts. It's always drawing someone else's thing. They've gotten a
>lot of new writers in the late 1980s, undoubtedly the cause of the
>improvements you have mentioned in their work.
Thats right. I just mention Vicar and Branca for the stories as well
because I dont know the scripters. And I do think that some Vicar stories
from the 70s are just as charming as the ones in the 90s. I also detest
them being too streamlined as it is now.
> I assume you're talking about foreign stories now. The
>American stories of Whitman in the 1980s were the worst crap you can
>ever imagine...
Yes, they were so bad they werent even printed in the Norwegian DD. I owned
some of those comics and luckily managed to sell everything away. However,
the Italian stories of the early 70s were disgusting, the homemade stories
of Europe in the 60s very badly drawn, and the American studio stories for
the European market were far below those produced by Strobl and Bradbury in
the 50s.
> Not in my opinion. What bothers me the most is that the
>Strobl and Bradbury stories, notably usually written by someone other
>than Strobl and Bradbury, who often only did the art, don't try for
>any type of realism. The earlier ones -- for example, the ones in
>WDC&S during 1950 -- strike me just as bad as the later ones. Some
>have good ideas now and then -- I think back to "Donald Duck in
>Panama," by Bradbury, with a very stingy Scrooge -- but for every good
>idea, there's a bad one. And these two are usually just as bad with
>Mickey, IMHO, although they do a good Goofy. In fact, I'd go as far
>as to say that all of Western Publishing's creators made the big
>mistake of relying on Goofy, not Mickey, to carry their "Mickey"
>stories. Only Gottfredson and Scarpa make Mickey the central
>figure.
I agree with you on DD in Panama for instance, and also other early
Bradbury, but I loed for instance Bradburys Donald taking the boys out into
the woods to show how equal he was to his forefathers, and the kids had to
take care of him the whole week. Strobl ranges from very good, like in that
story where Scrooge is visited by a young sportsman relative from Scotland
who competes with Donald, my Strobl favourite I think, to relatively
boring, but never really bad. As for Mickey, the stories have their charm
and the composition is OK although they are generally flat. Bradbury Goofy
tends to be very good, really.
> There I go again, getting started on Mickey. Jeez... I
>maintain that I am Gottfredson's biggest fan. I simply do not have
>the facilities to try to do what Horst has done (presumably with the
>Sunday pages) in whatever country it would be legal to do it in.
>Maybe some day I can convince Disney to let the strips appear in a
>library set, and the only way to do that is to talk to Jeff Katzenberg
>himself via one of the animation historians I know...
Have you ever met Malcolm Willitz, who commisioned those paintings from
Gottfredson?
Keep up the good work, David! Good to know you want to quarrel with me. I
am going to take your list of stories with me home in order to look up your
favourites, but I didnt renew my sub when Disney took over and consequently
dont know of all your favourites if I dont find them in my Norwegian
comics.
Geir Hasnes
Geir.Hasnes
Disney-comics digest #263.
Message 140 -
1994-03-29 at 15:10:43
HARRY:
>
>Geir wrote:
>> Daan Jippes has done some good work, and also Fred Milton.
>> However, there is a deep misunderstanding in Miltons view on the
>> Ducks personality.
>
>David replied:
>> Gee! In what stories?
>
>And I could add the question: in what way is the view misunderstood?
As I tried to say in my posting to David, I find that Milton has not really
got under the skin of Donald. He is too much the bragging, selfish guy that
of course is shown by Barks, but he is not balanced by the warmth and love
for the kids and in short humanity that radiates out of Barkses Donald and
therefore made him so lovable. Milton likes especially those expert stories
where Donald aims high and fall hard or he likes to show the contrast
between Donalds educating the nephews and doing the wrong things himself,
and then it becomes a little too much action and too little warmth and calm
like in the Barks stories, where you live intensely with the Ducks. The
Milton stories I at least watch from the outside. However, I like to read
most of them although I sometimes shudder. The one with the moral preacher
and the funny bunny tales was a good one, but nothing is solved, really, in
the end.
>I have seen a 'complete MM daily' series in a Dutch comic shop. It was
>organised per year (breaking stories in two). The shop only had the years
>1939, 1955 and 1956 (if I remember well). They contain A4 copies of 2 or 3
>newspaper strips per page. I couldn't find an editor, but a statement on
>the back said "limited to 300 copies". I assume this is Horst Schro"ders
>work...
This is in fact Horst Schroeders work. It runs from 1930 to 1955.
FREDRIK:
>
>Thanks for your brilliant analysis of the Norwegian Donald Duck.
>Since the Norwegian and the Swedish weeklies are practically
>identical, I can just say that this captures my personal views
>almost to the point. You managed to say all those things I've
>known for several years, but never managed to express in writing.
Thanks for the good words, although I dont find myself worthy to them,
quite honestly. I would really have loved to make a real analysis, but that
takes too much time and I am always short of time to go deeply into the
stories here.
>There is, however, one point where I don't quite agree with you;
>William Van Horn. After all, Harry once dubbed me "William Van
>Horn's greatest fan". ;-)
>
>You write that "William van Horn is shallow and one-dimensional".
>In a way, this is true. WVH is one-dimensional. But you must
>also realize that this must not necessarily be a bad thing.
As I said just previously, if van Horn can keep within his limits that will
be OK. And I will laugh at his stories. But I dont think they give me much
food for thought. I dont go afterwards and wonder about the stories, like I
do with the Barks and Rosa stories.
>Later you write, about modern stories in general: "when the
>writers become ambitious, then they fail much more." The way I
>read this, it means the same thing that I have previously
>tried to express as being the reason why Egmont's scripters
>sometimes succeed with their short stories, while the long ones
>_always_ fail: In the short stoires they don't have to be deep
>or ambitious.
>
>And this is exactly where Van Horn, in my opinion, succeeds. He
>doesn't attempt to be deep, nor to carry any kind of important
>message to the readers. His goal seems to be merely to entertain
>the reader. And I find that he does that very well.
>
>I would dare to suggest that if Barks is the Dostoyevsky of
>Disney comics (a comparison that holds only within the very
>limited context of this discussion), then Van Horn is the Edgar
>Rice Burroughs of Disney comics. In other words; while Barks
>will tell a complicated story with large depths and intricate
>personalities, Van Horn will only try to tell a story, period.
>I might add that I enjoy both styles, but for different
>reasons. The former certainly has a greater staying power.
You have a very good point here, and I certainly can do nothing else than
agree with you. Onedimensionality may lie in the freaky bi-persons in his
stories, they are all more or less madder than usual and in the same way.
He is also onedimensional in making the persons more or less behave in the
same way in all the stories. He is a bit foreseeable and he loves to let
the catastrophe come down over Donald. Catastrophies, madness, bad temper,
extreme sleepiness, it is all extremes, and in my opinion Donald isnt that
extreme. You should not take a character that far that we lose our sympathy
with him.
>I have previously stated that I even prefer Van Horn to Don
>Rosa, and while this is only true to some degree, I will try to
>explain why. I will agree with anyone who claims that Don is a
>superior writer to Van Horn. He is. By far. Both have a wonder-
>ful sense of humour. Both also have the decided advantage of
>having their very own, very distinct although compeltely
>mutually incomparable drawing style. But where I think Don (Hi,
>Don!) fails lies in the very reason that he draws duck comics;
>he is far too closely tied to Barks. Not in the sense that he
>copies the Barks concepts (like other Egmont writers) but rather
>that his drive to stay as close to the original as possible
>impairs his writing. I, at least, feel that Don's best work is
>with the stories that have the least Barks references. Of
>course, those references are often brilliant, and brings the
>story even higher, but there is a certain balance that Don,
>in my view, sometimes disturbs.
As this is just my comment to you I dont think we shall discuss this
further, just notice that we have different views. I love the references
and especially if they are made a natural and integral part of the story. I
think Don manages that with ease, and that is because he understands the
ducks better than any other writer. He has even managed to make Scrooge
that wonderful and highly intelligent person he was in the Barks stories,
and that is something that is very hard to do.
In fact, I think that you cant make a good series about persons if you dont
have some of that person inside of yourself. Don must have much more
personality than van Horn because van Horn just shows the one side of his
personality while Don writes about a mass of things. And Don has done
brilliantly to follow up and grasp the correct things and concepts and
ideas and everything in a universe that was (and still is) so messed up by
the various writers and artists that have come after Barks.
Geir Hasnes
>
>Geir wrote:
>> Daan Jippes has done some good work, and also Fred Milton.
>> However, there is a deep misunderstanding in Miltons view on the
>> Ducks personality.
>
>David replied:
>> Gee! In what stories?
>
>And I could add the question: in what way is the view misunderstood?
As I tried to say in my posting to David, I find that Milton has not really
got under the skin of Donald. He is too much the bragging, selfish guy that
of course is shown by Barks, but he is not balanced by the warmth and love
for the kids and in short humanity that radiates out of Barkses Donald and
therefore made him so lovable. Milton likes especially those expert stories
where Donald aims high and fall hard or he likes to show the contrast
between Donalds educating the nephews and doing the wrong things himself,
and then it becomes a little too much action and too little warmth and calm
like in the Barks stories, where you live intensely with the Ducks. The
Milton stories I at least watch from the outside. However, I like to read
most of them although I sometimes shudder. The one with the moral preacher
and the funny bunny tales was a good one, but nothing is solved, really, in
the end.
>I have seen a 'complete MM daily' series in a Dutch comic shop. It was
>organised per year (breaking stories in two). The shop only had the years
>1939, 1955 and 1956 (if I remember well). They contain A4 copies of 2 or 3
>newspaper strips per page. I couldn't find an editor, but a statement on
>the back said "limited to 300 copies". I assume this is Horst Schro"ders
>work...
This is in fact Horst Schroeders work. It runs from 1930 to 1955.
FREDRIK:
>
>Thanks for your brilliant analysis of the Norwegian Donald Duck.
>Since the Norwegian and the Swedish weeklies are practically
>identical, I can just say that this captures my personal views
>almost to the point. You managed to say all those things I've
>known for several years, but never managed to express in writing.
Thanks for the good words, although I dont find myself worthy to them,
quite honestly. I would really have loved to make a real analysis, but that
takes too much time and I am always short of time to go deeply into the
stories here.
>There is, however, one point where I don't quite agree with you;
>William Van Horn. After all, Harry once dubbed me "William Van
>Horn's greatest fan". ;-)
>
>You write that "William van Horn is shallow and one-dimensional".
>In a way, this is true. WVH is one-dimensional. But you must
>also realize that this must not necessarily be a bad thing.
As I said just previously, if van Horn can keep within his limits that will
be OK. And I will laugh at his stories. But I dont think they give me much
food for thought. I dont go afterwards and wonder about the stories, like I
do with the Barks and Rosa stories.
>Later you write, about modern stories in general: "when the
>writers become ambitious, then they fail much more." The way I
>read this, it means the same thing that I have previously
>tried to express as being the reason why Egmont's scripters
>sometimes succeed with their short stories, while the long ones
>_always_ fail: In the short stoires they don't have to be deep
>or ambitious.
>
>And this is exactly where Van Horn, in my opinion, succeeds. He
>doesn't attempt to be deep, nor to carry any kind of important
>message to the readers. His goal seems to be merely to entertain
>the reader. And I find that he does that very well.
>
>I would dare to suggest that if Barks is the Dostoyevsky of
>Disney comics (a comparison that holds only within the very
>limited context of this discussion), then Van Horn is the Edgar
>Rice Burroughs of Disney comics. In other words; while Barks
>will tell a complicated story with large depths and intricate
>personalities, Van Horn will only try to tell a story, period.
>I might add that I enjoy both styles, but for different
>reasons. The former certainly has a greater staying power.
You have a very good point here, and I certainly can do nothing else than
agree with you. Onedimensionality may lie in the freaky bi-persons in his
stories, they are all more or less madder than usual and in the same way.
He is also onedimensional in making the persons more or less behave in the
same way in all the stories. He is a bit foreseeable and he loves to let
the catastrophe come down over Donald. Catastrophies, madness, bad temper,
extreme sleepiness, it is all extremes, and in my opinion Donald isnt that
extreme. You should not take a character that far that we lose our sympathy
with him.
>I have previously stated that I even prefer Van Horn to Don
>Rosa, and while this is only true to some degree, I will try to
>explain why. I will agree with anyone who claims that Don is a
>superior writer to Van Horn. He is. By far. Both have a wonder-
>ful sense of humour. Both also have the decided advantage of
>having their very own, very distinct although compeltely
>mutually incomparable drawing style. But where I think Don (Hi,
>Don!) fails lies in the very reason that he draws duck comics;
>he is far too closely tied to Barks. Not in the sense that he
>copies the Barks concepts (like other Egmont writers) but rather
>that his drive to stay as close to the original as possible
>impairs his writing. I, at least, feel that Don's best work is
>with the stories that have the least Barks references. Of
>course, those references are often brilliant, and brings the
>story even higher, but there is a certain balance that Don,
>in my view, sometimes disturbs.
As this is just my comment to you I dont think we shall discuss this
further, just notice that we have different views. I love the references
and especially if they are made a natural and integral part of the story. I
think Don manages that with ease, and that is because he understands the
ducks better than any other writer. He has even managed to make Scrooge
that wonderful and highly intelligent person he was in the Barks stories,
and that is something that is very hard to do.
In fact, I think that you cant make a good series about persons if you dont
have some of that person inside of yourself. Don must have much more
personality than van Horn because van Horn just shows the one side of his
personality while Don writes about a mass of things. And Don has done
brilliantly to follow up and grasp the correct things and concepts and
ideas and everything in a universe that was (and still is) so messed up by
the various writers and artists that have come after Barks.
Geir Hasnes
Harry Fluks
Geir's story reviews
Message 141 -
1994-03-29 at 16:16:53
Geir, you're very good in expressing things. Just like Fredrik, I
often think "that's just what I think" when I read your comments. But I
can't put my thoughts as good on "paper" as you can. Most of the time,
my remarks are not more than "I like Rosa" and stuff like that.
Maybe that's why most of my comments on this list are about facts, like:
> And for that sake the Milton/Jippes
> collaboration (I think it was) in one of the recent Norwegian DD, where
> Donald wants to be a part of the High Society club of Duckburg - cant
> remember its name, but he sells everything to be able to wear that hat.
This story (reprinted in Gladstone's first WDC) was not by Milton. It was
the first 10-page Duck story Jippes ever wrote (and one of the few he
wrote on his own). Jippes also pencilled it (3 years after he wrote it),
and Verhagen inked it.
> The story is unrealistic and Donald is very reduced as a human being. I didnt
> like that one because of its presentation of Donald, but the story itself
> read well and had a good drive.
About the amount of realism: the story always reminds me of the Cornelius
Coot statue story. Both very good stories (..there I go again..), both quite
unrealistic.
And since I'm already interfering in the discussion between David and Geir:
David:
> BY THE WAY... something NO other writer has taken up is the
> idea that Magica not only wants the dime, but other mythical magical
> objects, and that she can compete with Scrooge for *them!*
Geir:
> That is exactly what I mean, yes.
I still think one can create perfect new stories with Magica wanting the
dime. You mentioned Rosa's "Silver Platter": that's a good example.
I think Magica is not the right Magica if she's "just a witch", replaceable
by e.g. Hazel.
--Harry.
often think "that's just what I think" when I read your comments. But I
can't put my thoughts as good on "paper" as you can. Most of the time,
my remarks are not more than "I like Rosa" and stuff like that.
Maybe that's why most of my comments on this list are about facts, like:
> And for that sake the Milton/Jippes
> collaboration (I think it was) in one of the recent Norwegian DD, where
> Donald wants to be a part of the High Society club of Duckburg - cant
> remember its name, but he sells everything to be able to wear that hat.
This story (reprinted in Gladstone's first WDC) was not by Milton. It was
the first 10-page Duck story Jippes ever wrote (and one of the few he
wrote on his own). Jippes also pencilled it (3 years after he wrote it),
and Verhagen inked it.
> The story is unrealistic and Donald is very reduced as a human being. I didnt
> like that one because of its presentation of Donald, but the story itself
> read well and had a good drive.
About the amount of realism: the story always reminds me of the Cornelius
Coot statue story. Both very good stories (..there I go again..), both quite
unrealistic.
And since I'm already interfering in the discussion between David and Geir:
David:
> BY THE WAY... something NO other writer has taken up is the
> idea that Magica not only wants the dime, but other mythical magical
> objects, and that she can compete with Scrooge for *them!*
Geir:
> That is exactly what I mean, yes.
I still think one can create perfect new stories with Magica wanting the
dime. You mentioned Rosa's "Silver Platter": that's a good example.
I think Magica is not the right Magica if she's "just a witch", replaceable
by e.g. Hazel.
--Harry.
Tryg Helseth
Chalker's IBO$M, New Zealand Gophers (fwd)
Message 142 -
1994-03-30 at 00:08:13
Oops... I accidentally sent my Chalker message directly to Don instead of
the mail-list and his reply came back to me. He asked that I forward it
to the list, so here it is...
Tryg
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 29 Mar 94 09:24:04 EST
From: Don Rosa <72260.2635 at CompuServe.COM>
To: "\"Tryg Helseth\"" <trygve at maroon.tc.umn.edu>
Subject: Chalker's IBO$M, New Zealand Gophers
No, I can't agree. It says in the book that they treat all
stories "by Barks" in those first 71 issues as canonical. And yet they
actually treat ALL stories in those issues as if they were by Barks. You
are wrong when you say they only treated those two Barks-drawn-only
stories as, again, canonical. As just one example, I recall being
sidetracked by information in Chalkers' history that stated that $crooge
had been in the mining and lumber business, and then finding that
Chalkers got all that from the back-up non-Barks story in #50. And
another instance that claimed he had a love affair shown in #52... but,
again, it was in the back-up non-Barks tale. And all this, even though
in his own preface and introduction Chalkers ridicules the idea of
treating these same stories as "fact". This is why I could never make
sense of what he was doing, and therefore could only use his footnotes
for my own investigation. And I couldn't even use the book's own
bibliography for that purpose; the stories listed in there are often
NOT the stories that Chalkers is referring to when he footnotes an
issue # -- many times, as I say, he was referring, inexplicably, to the
back-up non-Barks story in that issue.
Also, he DOES use stories from WDC&S and DD 4C in a few
instances, but it's difficult to trace these as he doesn't footnote the
"facts" with that numbering that can only refer to U$ issues. As just
one example, all of the ancestral info from "The Old Castle's Secret"
is included, but none of it is footnoted; not to mention the odd
attempt by Chalkers in his intro to discredit any Barks story not
appearing in the U$ title for no reason other than that fact.
My biography may not be as good or clever as Chalkers', but
it's definitely based more on Barks "facts" if that's what $crooge fans
want.
the mail-list and his reply came back to me. He asked that I forward it
to the list, so here it is...
Tryg
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 29 Mar 94 09:24:04 EST
From: Don Rosa <72260.2635 at CompuServe.COM>
To: "\"Tryg Helseth\"" <trygve at maroon.tc.umn.edu>
Subject: Chalker's IBO$M, New Zealand Gophers
No, I can't agree. It says in the book that they treat all
stories "by Barks" in those first 71 issues as canonical. And yet they
actually treat ALL stories in those issues as if they were by Barks. You
are wrong when you say they only treated those two Barks-drawn-only
stories as, again, canonical. As just one example, I recall being
sidetracked by information in Chalkers' history that stated that $crooge
had been in the mining and lumber business, and then finding that
Chalkers got all that from the back-up non-Barks story in #50. And
another instance that claimed he had a love affair shown in #52... but,
again, it was in the back-up non-Barks tale. And all this, even though
in his own preface and introduction Chalkers ridicules the idea of
treating these same stories as "fact". This is why I could never make
sense of what he was doing, and therefore could only use his footnotes
for my own investigation. And I couldn't even use the book's own
bibliography for that purpose; the stories listed in there are often
NOT the stories that Chalkers is referring to when he footnotes an
issue # -- many times, as I say, he was referring, inexplicably, to the
back-up non-Barks story in that issue.
Also, he DOES use stories from WDC&S and DD 4C in a few
instances, but it's difficult to trace these as he doesn't footnote the
"facts" with that numbering that can only refer to U$ issues. As just
one example, all of the ancestral info from "The Old Castle's Secret"
is included, but none of it is footnoted; not to mention the odd
attempt by Chalkers in his intro to discredit any Barks story not
appearing in the U$ title for no reason other than that fact.
My biography may not be as good or clever as Chalkers', but
it's definitely based more on Barks "facts" if that's what $crooge fans
want.
Tryg Helseth
Chalker's IBO$M
Message 143 -
1994-03-30 at 03:30:58
On 29 Mar 94 09:24:04 EST,
Don Rosa <72260.2635 at CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>No, I can't agree. It says in the book that they treat all
>stories "by Barks" in those first 71 issues as canonical. And yet they
>actually treat ALL stories in those issues as if they were by Barks.
Reading the chapter, "A Note on Research Sources" on page xi, it is not all
that clear to me what Chalker is saying. While he seems to be dismissing
the non-canonical works as fiction, he doesn't actually say that he isn't
using them in his biography. I'm not defending his rational here, merely
trying to clarify it. BTW, just how many $crooge stories in U$ 1-71 are
not by Barks? (I don't know the answer, but I'll bet there aren't many.)
>You are wrong when you say they only treated those two Barks-drawn-only
>stories as, again, canonical.
If you are going to rake me over the coals for what I say, then please
don't misquote me. I said those two stories were mentioned by Kim Weston
in the bibliogrphy, NOT that only two were used in the Biography.
>My biography may not be as good or clever as Chalkers', but it's definitely
>based more on Barks "facts" if that's what $crooge fans want.
I hope you don't think I was trying to discount your biography, because I
wasn't. I was just trying to clarify what Chalker said. I enjoyed his
book in spite of the aforementioned inconsistencies and don't think it
should be judged so harshly.
Tryg
Don Rosa <72260.2635 at CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>No, I can't agree. It says in the book that they treat all
>stories "by Barks" in those first 71 issues as canonical. And yet they
>actually treat ALL stories in those issues as if they were by Barks.
Reading the chapter, "A Note on Research Sources" on page xi, it is not all
that clear to me what Chalker is saying. While he seems to be dismissing
the non-canonical works as fiction, he doesn't actually say that he isn't
using them in his biography. I'm not defending his rational here, merely
trying to clarify it. BTW, just how many $crooge stories in U$ 1-71 are
not by Barks? (I don't know the answer, but I'll bet there aren't many.)
>You are wrong when you say they only treated those two Barks-drawn-only
>stories as, again, canonical.
If you are going to rake me over the coals for what I say, then please
don't misquote me. I said those two stories were mentioned by Kim Weston
in the bibliogrphy, NOT that only two were used in the Biography.
>My biography may not be as good or clever as Chalkers', but it's definitely
>based more on Barks "facts" if that's what $crooge fans want.
I hope you don't think I was trying to discount your biography, because I
wasn't. I was just trying to clarify what Chalker said. I enjoyed his
book in spite of the aforementioned inconsistencies and don't think it
should be judged so harshly.
Tryg
Adair_t
Son of the Sun
Message 144 -
1994-03-30 at 05:12:46
I recently purchased a copy of Uncle Scrooge #219 for cover price, and
I enjoyed the adventure. Unfortunately, my first Rosa story was "Return to
Xanadu", thus I was spoilt by the nice color and paper of the Disney Comic.
As Rosa's first duck adventure, it was very good. There were a few
faults (HDL's eyes, for example), and there were some quarter strips I would
have expanded into half strips (that is, panels which occupy half the page),
but Rosa has improved, and will continue to do so.
(Don, every artist has a learning curve before settling into a style.
Look at Jim Davis' early Garfield strips, for example. I, for one, will
continue to buy your stuff, as long as you don't get any worse.)
And thank you, Mr. Rosa. I read "The Mythological Menagerie" the other
day, and I laughed out loud when I saw Donald's "masterpiece"! I look forward
to the next Boonehead adventure!
Torsten Adair adair_t at kosmos.wcc.govt.nz Wellington, New Zealand
I enjoyed the adventure. Unfortunately, my first Rosa story was "Return to
Xanadu", thus I was spoilt by the nice color and paper of the Disney Comic.
As Rosa's first duck adventure, it was very good. There were a few
faults (HDL's eyes, for example), and there were some quarter strips I would
have expanded into half strips (that is, panels which occupy half the page),
but Rosa has improved, and will continue to do so.
(Don, every artist has a learning curve before settling into a style.
Look at Jim Davis' early Garfield strips, for example. I, for one, will
continue to buy your stuff, as long as you don't get any worse.)
And thank you, Mr. Rosa. I read "The Mythological Menagerie" the other
day, and I laughed out loud when I saw Donald's "masterpiece"! I look forward
to the next Boonehead adventure!
Torsten Adair adair_t at kosmos.wcc.govt.nz Wellington, New Zealand
Bror Hellman
Bounced mail...
Message 145 -
1994-03-30 at 09:41:48
I have to apologise if you sent me some mail in the last three weeks.
Some fool at proxxi.uf.se didn't pay the phone-bill.
So, if anything bounced, please resend it as I didn't get it. I'm now
on-line again.
Steamboat Willie
---------------------------------------------------------
We don't care, We don't have to. We're the phone company.
---------------------------------------------------------
Internet: hellman at proxxi.uf.se, DuckNet: hellman at 313:100/13.0
Some fool at proxxi.uf.se didn't pay the phone-bill.
So, if anything bounced, please resend it as I didn't get it. I'm now
on-line again.
Steamboat Willie
---------------------------------------------------------
We don't care, We don't have to. We're the phone company.
---------------------------------------------------------
Internet: hellman at proxxi.uf.se, DuckNet: hellman at 313:100/13.0
Harry Fluks
**message from Dwight Decker** Hotwind J. Flated
Message 146 -
1994-03-30 at 11:11:04
(Dwight Decker sent this to me, but it was meant for the list
--Harry)
> David asked about the Jippes story in last
> month's WDC&S ("High-Flying Picnic"):
>
> > Important question: The author of Donald's ballooning book in
> > that story, Hotwind J. Flated, is clearly a caricature of Carl Barks.
> > Some of the ink lines look altered. Was this a Barks caricature in
> > the Dutch version as well? If so, has it been altered for its
> > appearance here?
>
> Dwight, did you translate (and script) that story? If so, maybe you could
> give us some more information.
Sorry -- can't help you there. I didn't have anything to do with the story
in question (I've translated five Dutch Duck stories for Gladstone this time
around, but none have appeared yet). Anyway, wouldn't "Hotwind N. Flated" be
a better name? "Flated" doesn't mean anything; the word is "inflated." Or
Hotwind D. Flated might be even better.
Groetjes,
Dwight Decker
--Harry)
> David asked about the Jippes story in last
> month's WDC&S ("High-Flying Picnic"):
>
> > Important question: The author of Donald's ballooning book in
> > that story, Hotwind J. Flated, is clearly a caricature of Carl Barks.
> > Some of the ink lines look altered. Was this a Barks caricature in
> > the Dutch version as well? If so, has it been altered for its
> > appearance here?
>
> Dwight, did you translate (and script) that story? If so, maybe you could
> give us some more information.
Sorry -- can't help you there. I didn't have anything to do with the story
in question (I've translated five Dutch Duck stories for Gladstone this time
around, but none have appeared yet). Anyway, wouldn't "Hotwind N. Flated" be
a better name? "Flated" doesn't mean anything; the word is "inflated." Or
Hotwind D. Flated might be even better.
Groetjes,
Dwight Decker
Mikko Henri Juhani Aittola
...and only the ducks were real...
Message 147 -
1994-03-30 at 13:19:45
> Don Rosa wrote:
>
> ... And you notice there were no Disney DUCK comics? That was to show
> my idea that in the Duck Universe, Mickey Mouse and the other non-Duck
> characters are simply fictitious comic characters... only the Ducks are
> "real".
>
I have always wondered why Duck-comics creators don't take
advantage of the huge amount of 'Mouse Universe' characters.
And of course vice versa.
Why not bring for example The Phantom Blot (or whatever it is
in English) to Duck Universe instead of the usual Beagle
Boys-, Magica- and Glomgold-stuff.
And if we push this little more further...Don, have you
ever actually considered to shock the 'Mouse Universe' with
your 'irritating details'?
/Mikko
>
> ... And you notice there were no Disney DUCK comics? That was to show
> my idea that in the Duck Universe, Mickey Mouse and the other non-Duck
> characters are simply fictitious comic characters... only the Ducks are
> "real".
>
I have always wondered why Duck-comics creators don't take
advantage of the huge amount of 'Mouse Universe' characters.
And of course vice versa.
Why not bring for example The Phantom Blot (or whatever it is
in English) to Duck Universe instead of the usual Beagle
Boys-, Magica- and Glomgold-stuff.
And if we push this little more further...Don, have you
ever actually considered to shock the 'Mouse Universe' with
your 'irritating details'?
/Mikko
Harry Fluks
...and only the ducks were real...
Message 148 -
1994-03-30 at 14:25:55
Mikko H. J. Aittola asked Don Rosa:
> Don, have you ever actually considered to shock the 'Mouse Universe' with
> your 'irritating details'?
I think I can answer this question by quoting Don from a message of a few
months ago:
> As for me ever doing a Mickey Mouse story, there's no chance of that.
> There's no reason for me to. I am totally apathetic toward the character
> as being simply a cute configuration of lines. There's no personality.
> Sure, in the hands of another Barks, Mickey would become a WONDERFUL
> character. Look what he did with Donald... all he got from Disney was a
> slapstick hothead who threw walnuts at Chip n' Dale. What Dell/Barks did
> with the character is a miracle. I'll be glad to do a Mickey Mouse story
> after someone else writes and draws classic Mickey comics for 25 years
> and gets me interested in those cute ink lines. As of right now... feh.
(Don: this saves you the trouble typing it all again...)
--Harry.
> Don, have you ever actually considered to shock the 'Mouse Universe' with
> your 'irritating details'?
I think I can answer this question by quoting Don from a message of a few
months ago:
> As for me ever doing a Mickey Mouse story, there's no chance of that.
> There's no reason for me to. I am totally apathetic toward the character
> as being simply a cute configuration of lines. There's no personality.
> Sure, in the hands of another Barks, Mickey would become a WONDERFUL
> character. Look what he did with Donald... all he got from Disney was a
> slapstick hothead who threw walnuts at Chip n' Dale. What Dell/Barks did
> with the character is a miracle. I'll be glad to do a Mickey Mouse story
> after someone else writes and draws classic Mickey comics for 25 years
> and gets me interested in those cute ink lines. As of right now... feh.
(Don: this saves you the trouble typing it all again...)
--Harry.
Don Rosa
Disney-comics digest #285.
Message 149 -
1994-03-31 at 07:20:23
TRYG:
Why, when I think that I'm simply carrying on a discussion, do
people say I'm "raking them over the coals" or "judging (Chalker's book)
harshly". I was simply disagreeing with something I thought you said...
and I LOVE Chalker's book -- I am simply puzzled by its stated intent as
compared to its reality. I must hold my mouth wrong when I type?
NIKKO:
Ah... Harry saved me some typing! As people join this group,
wouldn't it be nice if each of us could punch a number to recall whole
past discussions when new members bring up old topics.
One other point: obviously Floyd Gottfriedson did Mickey for
many years and was a genius. But I grew up on Paul Murry (who I thought
did pretty decent stuff, but not on a Barksian level). I didn't grow up
on Gottfriedson - I wasn't exposed to it before I started collecting
old WDC&S and I didn't take it very seriously until Gladstone started
touting it... and I think I'm now much too old and jaded to let quality
work affect me as deeply as it should. That's why I'll never grow
interested in Mickey Mouse no matter how much FG work I see.
Why, when I think that I'm simply carrying on a discussion, do
people say I'm "raking them over the coals" or "judging (Chalker's book)
harshly". I was simply disagreeing with something I thought you said...
and I LOVE Chalker's book -- I am simply puzzled by its stated intent as
compared to its reality. I must hold my mouth wrong when I type?
NIKKO:
Ah... Harry saved me some typing! As people join this group,
wouldn't it be nice if each of us could punch a number to recall whole
past discussions when new members bring up old topics.
One other point: obviously Floyd Gottfriedson did Mickey for
many years and was a genius. But I grew up on Paul Murry (who I thought
did pretty decent stuff, but not on a Barksian level). I didn't grow up
on Gottfriedson - I wasn't exposed to it before I started collecting
old WDC&S and I didn't take it very seriously until Gladstone started
touting it... and I think I'm now much too old and jaded to let quality
work affect me as deeply as it should. That's why I'll never grow
interested in Mickey Mouse no matter how much FG work I see.
Don Rosa
Disney-comics digest #285.
Message 150 -
1994-03-31 at 07:22:00
Oh -- and where is WILMER RIVERS? I want to ask you some
questions about this Duck adventure I'm working on... and the only way I
know to contact you is when I reply to your messages to me. Are you
still there?
questions about this Duck adventure I'm working on... and the only way I
know to contact you is when I reply to your messages to me. Are you
still there?