DAVID to Daniel:
> The Barks story you called "Mars-race" is actually about a
> race to the moon in the original English version, isn't it?
The description <mars-race> is a translation from the Dutch description
(which is <mars-race> 8-) I gave in my Dutch Carl Barks index,
10 years ago. I didn't know the English original at that time. The
Dutch translation was printed way after people went to the moon,
so it's obvious they changed the "unexplored" planet to
Mars. A similar thing happend with the "Looney Lunar Gold Rush",
where the gold was not just found on the moon, but on an
"undiscovered spot" of the moon.
--Harry.
((Email removed))
Author
Topic: 199512
(361 messages)
Fluks
Mars-race
Message 106 -
1995-12-07 at 20:05:53
Jørgen Andreas Bangor
Response to Jorgen on: COMPLAINTS-BAH!
Message 107 -
1995-12-07 at 20:15:59
Melanie:
| I also complained about the "insider" character of the group; that it's
| difficult to understand what everybody is talking about, in short to feel
| that, as a newbie, I'm being heard.
This is starting to get difficult. Do you expect to be able to enter
any group of people, and at once understand everything they are talking
about, any matter what it is? Doing that can be rather tough on sci.chem
too. The point is to stay long enough to learn the "language". On Usenet
you are actually supposed to read the group at least a couple of months
to learn how the group works before you enter it.
You asked, as far as I know (I might be wrong) _one_ question, to which
you didn't get any answer. Then you tell us that we are a clique of
insiders who don't want newbies here. Not very much to build such a
conclusion on, IMHO.
Me:
| Is there a clique in this group? Well, we do get to know each other
| somehow, and knowing each other, we do get an idea about which level
| to talk to each other. That doesn't have anything to do with any
| secret internal languages. If anyone have problems understanding it --
| just ask.
Melanie:
| I have done that, effectively if not politely enough to suit everyone ;-)
Exactly. And it worked, didn't it? Fortunately PC hasn't come as far
(and may it never do) here as in the US, so don't worry about that.
Still, I think quite few of us like to be called things that we are
not, and I don't think many of us recognized themselves in your
description.
Melanie said this in an earlier mail:
| If this group is to grow, to improve, to serve its subscribers, it must
| hear of its problems as well as its strong points. If you don't address
| complaints constructively, you'll lose subscribers. By and large, I've
| received a positive and helpful response to my criticisms about the group.
To which I answered:
| Er... grow? improve? From what? Into what? Of course we want people
| interested in Disney comics on this list.
Melanie:
| If that's really true, you won't be defensive toward criticism. This
| sounds mighty high-handed to me.
I'm not defensive. I just tell you how it works (high-handed means
overbearing or arrogant, eh?).
_Yes_ we do want people interested in Disney comics on this list. And,
as I said, as many as possible. It is my experience that people who are
really interested in a matter are willing to learn how it works.
Me:
| If the list lose subscribers it's mostly because they aren't interested
| enough. Sad, but it's their choice (and as long as the unsubscri_e
| (misspelled by purpose ;-) messages don't reach the list, it doesn't
| really bother me).
Melanie:
| How do you propose to judge their level of interest? People who subscribe
| may not have your breadth of knowledge of Duckology; it doesn't mean they
| aren't interested in learning more. If they're intimidated, they will
| simply go away rather than sit through pages of boring minutae about how
| many McDucks danced on the head of a pin in some Christmas issue in 1949!
| I decided to complain instead :-)
I don't! It's not me who's unsubscribing people from the list! Most people
are capable of doing that themselves, if not capable to send it to the
right address.
No, people may not have my breadth of knowledge, and I may not have the
breadth of knowledge that other people on the list have. So what?!
About two years ago, when I joined this list, I didn't have a fraction
of the knowledge I have know. Most of what I have learned, and about
everything I know about artists and writers, I have learned from talking
with people on this list. There is an immense amount of knowledge here,
which anyone can take part in, if they're willing to use time to read
it. But, you don't have to, of course. Most people use the subject-
header to tell the other members what the letter is about. If its some-
thing you're not interested in, then skip it. Should be quite simple.
You don't have to read about Italian conventions or 1949-issues if you
don't want to. There might be other people here who does, though. Do
you mean noone should send such "uninteresting" information, because
there might be people on the list who doesn't want it, or even get
intimidated by it?
<sarcasm>
What is it really that you're complaining about, BTW? That we take it
for granted that the person we are talking to have some "basic" know-
ledge? Would it be easier if I every time I mentioned Donald Duck also
told that he's the one with the sailor suit, and if I mentioned Scrooge
I should say that he's the rich one with the top hat?
</sarcasm>
And who do you think you complain to? I thought you had already under-
stood that we're simply a bunch of Disney comics interested people
who have found each other through this list. This list is simply
formed by the people who're on it, like you.
Melanie:
| You have just contradicted what you said above about wanting people
| interested in Disney Comics to subscribe. This is a rather elitist
| attitude IMHO.
Really? No, I think we're observing something else here. You are reading
meanings out of our letters that we don't have, and then you make your
conclusions based on that.
Maybe you should also remember that quite a lot of us is doing this
in a foreign language.
Jorgen
| I also complained about the "insider" character of the group; that it's
| difficult to understand what everybody is talking about, in short to feel
| that, as a newbie, I'm being heard.
This is starting to get difficult. Do you expect to be able to enter
any group of people, and at once understand everything they are talking
about, any matter what it is? Doing that can be rather tough on sci.chem
too. The point is to stay long enough to learn the "language". On Usenet
you are actually supposed to read the group at least a couple of months
to learn how the group works before you enter it.
You asked, as far as I know (I might be wrong) _one_ question, to which
you didn't get any answer. Then you tell us that we are a clique of
insiders who don't want newbies here. Not very much to build such a
conclusion on, IMHO.
Me:
| Is there a clique in this group? Well, we do get to know each other
| somehow, and knowing each other, we do get an idea about which level
| to talk to each other. That doesn't have anything to do with any
| secret internal languages. If anyone have problems understanding it --
| just ask.
Melanie:
| I have done that, effectively if not politely enough to suit everyone ;-)
Exactly. And it worked, didn't it? Fortunately PC hasn't come as far
(and may it never do) here as in the US, so don't worry about that.
Still, I think quite few of us like to be called things that we are
not, and I don't think many of us recognized themselves in your
description.
Melanie said this in an earlier mail:
| If this group is to grow, to improve, to serve its subscribers, it must
| hear of its problems as well as its strong points. If you don't address
| complaints constructively, you'll lose subscribers. By and large, I've
| received a positive and helpful response to my criticisms about the group.
To which I answered:
| Er... grow? improve? From what? Into what? Of course we want people
| interested in Disney comics on this list.
Melanie:
| If that's really true, you won't be defensive toward criticism. This
| sounds mighty high-handed to me.
I'm not defensive. I just tell you how it works (high-handed means
overbearing or arrogant, eh?).
_Yes_ we do want people interested in Disney comics on this list. And,
as I said, as many as possible. It is my experience that people who are
really interested in a matter are willing to learn how it works.
Me:
| If the list lose subscribers it's mostly because they aren't interested
| enough. Sad, but it's their choice (and as long as the unsubscri_e
| (misspelled by purpose ;-) messages don't reach the list, it doesn't
| really bother me).
Melanie:
| How do you propose to judge their level of interest? People who subscribe
| may not have your breadth of knowledge of Duckology; it doesn't mean they
| aren't interested in learning more. If they're intimidated, they will
| simply go away rather than sit through pages of boring minutae about how
| many McDucks danced on the head of a pin in some Christmas issue in 1949!
| I decided to complain instead :-)
I don't! It's not me who's unsubscribing people from the list! Most people
are capable of doing that themselves, if not capable to send it to the
right address.
No, people may not have my breadth of knowledge, and I may not have the
breadth of knowledge that other people on the list have. So what?!
About two years ago, when I joined this list, I didn't have a fraction
of the knowledge I have know. Most of what I have learned, and about
everything I know about artists and writers, I have learned from talking
with people on this list. There is an immense amount of knowledge here,
which anyone can take part in, if they're willing to use time to read
it. But, you don't have to, of course. Most people use the subject-
header to tell the other members what the letter is about. If its some-
thing you're not interested in, then skip it. Should be quite simple.
You don't have to read about Italian conventions or 1949-issues if you
don't want to. There might be other people here who does, though. Do
you mean noone should send such "uninteresting" information, because
there might be people on the list who doesn't want it, or even get
intimidated by it?
<sarcasm>
What is it really that you're complaining about, BTW? That we take it
for granted that the person we are talking to have some "basic" know-
ledge? Would it be easier if I every time I mentioned Donald Duck also
told that he's the one with the sailor suit, and if I mentioned Scrooge
I should say that he's the rich one with the top hat?
</sarcasm>
And who do you think you complain to? I thought you had already under-
stood that we're simply a bunch of Disney comics interested people
who have found each other through this list. This list is simply
formed by the people who're on it, like you.
Melanie:
| You have just contradicted what you said above about wanting people
| interested in Disney Comics to subscribe. This is a rather elitist
| attitude IMHO.
Really? No, I think we're observing something else here. You are reading
meanings out of our letters that we don't have, and then you make your
conclusions based on that.
Maybe you should also remember that quite a lot of us is doing this
in a foreign language.
Jorgen
MASSENGALE MELANIE O
Response to Daniel Female characters
Message 108 -
1995-12-07 at 21:17:27
> >> The fact that I disagree with you about re-using Matilda and
> >> Hortensia as regular characters, doesn't mean that I don't like
> >> *any* duck-woman appearing as a regular character! You really
> >> misunderstood me here.
>
> > Ok, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
>
> Huh?
"Huh," what? You don't understand the expression, "benefit of the doubt,"
or you can't understand the use of it in this context? Ok, I'll spell it
out for you. You don't like the idea of using H and M as regular
characters, but OTOH don't oppose using somebody else. Here, I'm offering
you the opportunity to state HOW you'd like to see some other female duck
characterized. This is giving you the benefit of my doubt that you'd
really like to see some female duck character portrayed. Hope that
clarifies matters.
>
> > You had mentioned that using H & M would create three Grandma Ducks.
> > I was attempting to point out that this isn't necessarily the case;
> > you're assuming they would all three have exactly the same
> > personality, experiences and aspirations.
>
> I think that Grandma already has a Hortensia and Matilda in her, there
> are stories is which she's just a good old grannie, but she can also be
> very angry (which isn't very much the case in the Barks-universe, but
> at least one other artist made stories where she's angry and agressive
> *almost all the time*!).
What's wrong with creating a career for Hortense? She could be much more
a role model than another pale domestic character. Anger alone doesn't
make a character; it should be anger directed at something. The problem
with the Barks Universe, if you'll pardon my heresy for stating the
obvious, is that the roles are still stuck in the 1950s. Women are
frankly NOT June Cleaver-homemakers anymore, even the ones who still stay
at home with the kids. Young women want to read about more than mom or
girlfriend types who are just in the way of the husbands and boyfriends.
> So, I would appreciate it more to give Grandma a wider personality
> than introducing two more older ladies in the regular Duck-universe.
Grandma hasn't been used as much as Daisy, so there is room to expand her
character. But I contend that there is more possibility for expansion
with an UNTRIED character.
> But if there has to be another interesting old lady than Grandma, my
> vote would go to Glittering Goldie. Maybe it would be nice to see her
> re-appear in business, so Scrooge would have a competitive who was once
> (nearly) his one-time lover (which she in fact *still* is). Scrooge can
> be mean to Flintheart in business, but what can he do against Goldie?
I would agree that Goldie has great possibilities, since she does already
have a separate career, and I've said as much. Her love/hate relationship
with $ makes a nice complication which has always given her stories more
depth than the let's-go-find-a-treasure-and-that's-it types. My point
here is that, like $, Goldie is a real person with strong points and
faults; she is not a two-dimensional stereotype set up only as a trophy
for Our Hero.
Believe me, if you were a woman, and one who draws and loves comics, you
would feel angry, disheartened and betrayed at the shitty treatment women
have traditionally gotten in the comics.
> > [Having] exactly the same personality, experiences and aspirations.
> > That's not true in real life, why should it be for the Ducks?
>
> There are in real life also no extremely lucky people (like Gladstone
> Gander) and no people having a bin containing three acres of money (like
> Scrooge). There are also no inventors in real life who live just around
> the corner, inventing *anything* you could possibly dream of.
True, but that wasn't my point. You can have two old MEN in the comics,
but they might have very different personalities. Hortense and Matilda
would be two old women, but you could follow the characters which Don Rosa
sketched: Hortense as angry, driven; Matilda more philosophical and
diplomatic. My point is, two old women are as different in character as
two old men.
> We're talking about comics here. All the ducks have an *excerpt* of a
> real personality which are a bit overdone (caricatures if you like).
> There are no people who are exactly the same as Gladstone, but I think
> everyone here knows a person in his/her surroundings who always seem to
> have more luck than herself/himself. And for Grandma, I think a lot of
> people really have a (grand)mother/father who seems to refuse every new
> technology, because "it all also went fine doing it the old way".
> (Just ask my grandfather about computers!) ;-)
That's hitting on just one trait at a time though. Barks and Don Rosa in
their best stories show different sides of a given character; Rosa does
this especially well IMHO. That's why I prefer his stories to say, Van
Horn's. VH prefers action, slapstick comedy with a style a bit too
derivative of Early Barks. There's little character development.
> My opinion is that Daisy functions as a caricature of a woman, a
> caricature made by a *man*. You may discuss it, but the duck-world is
> in fact a world created mainly by men. (Not that I agree with that.) And
> you should hear men talking about their wife/girlfriend sometimes! ;-)
That Daisy characterization is precisely what Rosa said, in a response to
me, that turns him off from using the character. I agree with him on that
wholeheartedly! Why? Because the characterization is so broadly (excuse
the pun :-) drawn, so stereotyped, so UNFAIR, so sexist, that nobody who
got past 1950 believes it anymore. It's still widely used in old-time
comics like "Blondie" (though even Blondie has her own shop now) and no
woman I know of thinks of herself in this way. And if her husband or
boyfriend does, then she has extremely low self-esteem to be associated
with such a clod :-D
> (Which makes me wonder what we would see if a woman would make a
> Disney-comic with male characters in a caricatural way. We have some
> comics especially for girls here in Holland. I remember that I once
> read one and that I got very irritated by the way the boys were
> positioned.) ;-)
You'll have to read underground comix written by women if you really want
to find out, and I guarantee that you won't be pleased. They were written
out of the same kind of anger that I just described.
One thing I've become aware of on this group: we all have some problems
communicating, in part because of language differences, in part because of
culture. I am trying to be more sensitive to the language difference.
Jorgen asked for clarification on some American colloquialisms I used
unthinkingly, and I promise to drop those as much as possible because
they're hard to translate.
I suspect also that men and women may have more rigid gender roles
overseas than in America, though I don't have proof of this and would
happily invite comment.
> And for Donald: He is in fact so popular because everyone seems to
> recognize a bit of Donald in himself. We all have days that we think
> that even *things* are against us! (At least I have.) Donald is in fact
> the reader of the comic!
Donald is popular because (unlike Mickey in some ways) he has failings we
can relate to...he is more 3-dimensional.
> So, the duckworld is in fact holding a mirror in front of the real
> world we all live in. And to make it recognizeable for people a writer
> sometimes has to overdo some circumstances and/or people.
I do understand caricature, that you exaggerate and draw the character
more broadly. But what is the difference between Daisy and Minnie? Each
is merely a prop for the protagonist and neither has a real personality of
her own.
> This is why I think that you can't just compare a duck-personality with
> a personaltity in real life. But you *can* make them as close as
> possible, Barks and Don did both a very good job in working out the
> personality of (for example) Scrooge.
Exactly my point, both did...not only with $, but also with Goldie. Rosa
did a lot for Hortense and Matilda, though he seems to be surprised that I
think so.
> > What possibilities could you see for a younger female Duck--existing
> > already in canon, or new?
>
> I don't know.
But you said you saw possibilities for a younger female duck, as opposed
to using H and M. I'm interested to hear your ideas.
But if she would be a good-looking duck-girl,
And what if she were a "dog" (meaning ugly :-)
I think she
> would (in that duckworld I just described) *at once* being placed as a
> rival for Daisy. This is already very often the case when you see a
> another duck-girl than Daisy appear in a comic.
Bleah, this is another two-dimensional stereotype, that women are always
in competition with each other for a guy. She might be a nuclear
physicist for all we know, and could care less about Donald than for the
Hubble Telescope :-D
> If the girl would be introduced as a friend of Daisy, it is often the
> case that they *at once* start back-biting about their boy-friends.
Yuck. Is this what young women do in Holland?
> This is not the way I would like to see it (I mean, not nescessarily),
> but it is how it happens. Just look at Daisy's women-club in her dairy-
> stories, just look at the way Donald behaves when he sees a good-
> looking girl walking around.
No, please, we don't WANT to look at Daisy's women's club! It went out in
1950, with poodle skirts, hoola hoops and I REMEMBER MAMA! This is 1995,
thirty years past Annette and Frankie in BEACH BLANKET BINGO. Donald is
now competing with other female ducks for those postal carrier jobs. I
said "postal carrier," not "postMAN." If we adhere strictly to Barks'
canon, we're doomed to Eisenhower, the Cold War, ED SULLIVAN, segregation,
6-volt positive-ground and Elvis Presley FOREVER. You might love that,
but some of us prefer to move on. Daisy, btw, would be excluded from
membership from Donald's country club (and might still be in some places
even today :-(
I'll respond to the remainder of your post tomorrow, when I'm not hampered
by the constraints of a 9600-baud modem.
Regards,
Melanie
> >> Hortensia as regular characters, doesn't mean that I don't like
> >> *any* duck-woman appearing as a regular character! You really
> >> misunderstood me here.
>
> > Ok, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
>
> Huh?
"Huh," what? You don't understand the expression, "benefit of the doubt,"
or you can't understand the use of it in this context? Ok, I'll spell it
out for you. You don't like the idea of using H and M as regular
characters, but OTOH don't oppose using somebody else. Here, I'm offering
you the opportunity to state HOW you'd like to see some other female duck
characterized. This is giving you the benefit of my doubt that you'd
really like to see some female duck character portrayed. Hope that
clarifies matters.
>
> > You had mentioned that using H & M would create three Grandma Ducks.
> > I was attempting to point out that this isn't necessarily the case;
> > you're assuming they would all three have exactly the same
> > personality, experiences and aspirations.
>
> I think that Grandma already has a Hortensia and Matilda in her, there
> are stories is which she's just a good old grannie, but she can also be
> very angry (which isn't very much the case in the Barks-universe, but
> at least one other artist made stories where she's angry and agressive
> *almost all the time*!).
What's wrong with creating a career for Hortense? She could be much more
a role model than another pale domestic character. Anger alone doesn't
make a character; it should be anger directed at something. The problem
with the Barks Universe, if you'll pardon my heresy for stating the
obvious, is that the roles are still stuck in the 1950s. Women are
frankly NOT June Cleaver-homemakers anymore, even the ones who still stay
at home with the kids. Young women want to read about more than mom or
girlfriend types who are just in the way of the husbands and boyfriends.
> So, I would appreciate it more to give Grandma a wider personality
> than introducing two more older ladies in the regular Duck-universe.
Grandma hasn't been used as much as Daisy, so there is room to expand her
character. But I contend that there is more possibility for expansion
with an UNTRIED character.
> But if there has to be another interesting old lady than Grandma, my
> vote would go to Glittering Goldie. Maybe it would be nice to see her
> re-appear in business, so Scrooge would have a competitive who was once
> (nearly) his one-time lover (which she in fact *still* is). Scrooge can
> be mean to Flintheart in business, but what can he do against Goldie?
I would agree that Goldie has great possibilities, since she does already
have a separate career, and I've said as much. Her love/hate relationship
with $ makes a nice complication which has always given her stories more
depth than the let's-go-find-a-treasure-and-that's-it types. My point
here is that, like $, Goldie is a real person with strong points and
faults; she is not a two-dimensional stereotype set up only as a trophy
for Our Hero.
Believe me, if you were a woman, and one who draws and loves comics, you
would feel angry, disheartened and betrayed at the shitty treatment women
have traditionally gotten in the comics.
> > [Having] exactly the same personality, experiences and aspirations.
> > That's not true in real life, why should it be for the Ducks?
>
> There are in real life also no extremely lucky people (like Gladstone
> Gander) and no people having a bin containing three acres of money (like
> Scrooge). There are also no inventors in real life who live just around
> the corner, inventing *anything* you could possibly dream of.
True, but that wasn't my point. You can have two old MEN in the comics,
but they might have very different personalities. Hortense and Matilda
would be two old women, but you could follow the characters which Don Rosa
sketched: Hortense as angry, driven; Matilda more philosophical and
diplomatic. My point is, two old women are as different in character as
two old men.
> We're talking about comics here. All the ducks have an *excerpt* of a
> real personality which are a bit overdone (caricatures if you like).
> There are no people who are exactly the same as Gladstone, but I think
> everyone here knows a person in his/her surroundings who always seem to
> have more luck than herself/himself. And for Grandma, I think a lot of
> people really have a (grand)mother/father who seems to refuse every new
> technology, because "it all also went fine doing it the old way".
> (Just ask my grandfather about computers!) ;-)
That's hitting on just one trait at a time though. Barks and Don Rosa in
their best stories show different sides of a given character; Rosa does
this especially well IMHO. That's why I prefer his stories to say, Van
Horn's. VH prefers action, slapstick comedy with a style a bit too
derivative of Early Barks. There's little character development.
> My opinion is that Daisy functions as a caricature of a woman, a
> caricature made by a *man*. You may discuss it, but the duck-world is
> in fact a world created mainly by men. (Not that I agree with that.) And
> you should hear men talking about their wife/girlfriend sometimes! ;-)
That Daisy characterization is precisely what Rosa said, in a response to
me, that turns him off from using the character. I agree with him on that
wholeheartedly! Why? Because the characterization is so broadly (excuse
the pun :-) drawn, so stereotyped, so UNFAIR, so sexist, that nobody who
got past 1950 believes it anymore. It's still widely used in old-time
comics like "Blondie" (though even Blondie has her own shop now) and no
woman I know of thinks of herself in this way. And if her husband or
boyfriend does, then she has extremely low self-esteem to be associated
with such a clod :-D
> (Which makes me wonder what we would see if a woman would make a
> Disney-comic with male characters in a caricatural way. We have some
> comics especially for girls here in Holland. I remember that I once
> read one and that I got very irritated by the way the boys were
> positioned.) ;-)
You'll have to read underground comix written by women if you really want
to find out, and I guarantee that you won't be pleased. They were written
out of the same kind of anger that I just described.
One thing I've become aware of on this group: we all have some problems
communicating, in part because of language differences, in part because of
culture. I am trying to be more sensitive to the language difference.
Jorgen asked for clarification on some American colloquialisms I used
unthinkingly, and I promise to drop those as much as possible because
they're hard to translate.
I suspect also that men and women may have more rigid gender roles
overseas than in America, though I don't have proof of this and would
happily invite comment.
> And for Donald: He is in fact so popular because everyone seems to
> recognize a bit of Donald in himself. We all have days that we think
> that even *things* are against us! (At least I have.) Donald is in fact
> the reader of the comic!
Donald is popular because (unlike Mickey in some ways) he has failings we
can relate to...he is more 3-dimensional.
> So, the duckworld is in fact holding a mirror in front of the real
> world we all live in. And to make it recognizeable for people a writer
> sometimes has to overdo some circumstances and/or people.
I do understand caricature, that you exaggerate and draw the character
more broadly. But what is the difference between Daisy and Minnie? Each
is merely a prop for the protagonist and neither has a real personality of
her own.
> This is why I think that you can't just compare a duck-personality with
> a personaltity in real life. But you *can* make them as close as
> possible, Barks and Don did both a very good job in working out the
> personality of (for example) Scrooge.
Exactly my point, both did...not only with $, but also with Goldie. Rosa
did a lot for Hortense and Matilda, though he seems to be surprised that I
think so.
> > What possibilities could you see for a younger female Duck--existing
> > already in canon, or new?
>
> I don't know.
But you said you saw possibilities for a younger female duck, as opposed
to using H and M. I'm interested to hear your ideas.
But if she would be a good-looking duck-girl,
And what if she were a "dog" (meaning ugly :-)
I think she
> would (in that duckworld I just described) *at once* being placed as a
> rival for Daisy. This is already very often the case when you see a
> another duck-girl than Daisy appear in a comic.
Bleah, this is another two-dimensional stereotype, that women are always
in competition with each other for a guy. She might be a nuclear
physicist for all we know, and could care less about Donald than for the
Hubble Telescope :-D
> If the girl would be introduced as a friend of Daisy, it is often the
> case that they *at once* start back-biting about their boy-friends.
Yuck. Is this what young women do in Holland?
> This is not the way I would like to see it (I mean, not nescessarily),
> but it is how it happens. Just look at Daisy's women-club in her dairy-
> stories, just look at the way Donald behaves when he sees a good-
> looking girl walking around.
No, please, we don't WANT to look at Daisy's women's club! It went out in
1950, with poodle skirts, hoola hoops and I REMEMBER MAMA! This is 1995,
thirty years past Annette and Frankie in BEACH BLANKET BINGO. Donald is
now competing with other female ducks for those postal carrier jobs. I
said "postal carrier," not "postMAN." If we adhere strictly to Barks'
canon, we're doomed to Eisenhower, the Cold War, ED SULLIVAN, segregation,
6-volt positive-ground and Elvis Presley FOREVER. You might love that,
but some of us prefer to move on. Daisy, btw, would be excluded from
membership from Donald's country club (and might still be in some places
even today :-(
I'll respond to the remainder of your post tomorrow, when I'm not hampered
by the constraints of a 9600-baud modem.
Regards,
Melanie
Mike Pohjola
The completely fictional Lo$ #13
Message 109 -
1995-12-07 at 22:01:54
========================================================================
DAN:
>What idea do you have with a re-appearance of Hortense and Matilda? I
They should obviously appear in Lo$ #13: "The Worst Golfer of the
McDuck Cloud" a.k.a. "The Death of $crooge"! Where $crooge's relatives from
all-over the world come to his funeral at 1967. Huey from the Vietnamise war,
Dewey a hippie and Louie who-knows-what. Donald (now married to Daisy and
settled down in other ways) taking care of the money-bin as a head-account
etc. Hortense, Matilda (and Ludwig) would of course come to $crooge's funeral
to respect the dead. And as it is said that Grandma Duck also died that same
year, also Quackmore, Daphne, Eider, Gus etc. should be there. What happens
then is up to anybody's quess. Maybe $crooge will be reborn or turned into a
zombie or will simply 'guide' one of the nephews to do what he would do. The
hippie Dewey would change LSD to nutmegs :>
PER:
>Message-Id: <(Email removed)>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Do we need to know this?-7
Anyway, still about the welcoming message: I think you should have
a clear table of contents in the beginning and then clear CAPITAL titles so
it would be easier to find what one is looking for. Might also make some
people read even some of the message..
JYRKI:
I saw that nice article you wrote about the Finnish comics convention
today. Why don't you translate it and post it to the list? Don at least is
always eager to see what's written about him.
--
Mike - The Finnish Trekkie
DAN:
>What idea do you have with a re-appearance of Hortense and Matilda? I
They should obviously appear in Lo$ #13: "The Worst Golfer of the
McDuck Cloud" a.k.a. "The Death of $crooge"! Where $crooge's relatives from
all-over the world come to his funeral at 1967. Huey from the Vietnamise war,
Dewey a hippie and Louie who-knows-what. Donald (now married to Daisy and
settled down in other ways) taking care of the money-bin as a head-account
etc. Hortense, Matilda (and Ludwig) would of course come to $crooge's funeral
to respect the dead. And as it is said that Grandma Duck also died that same
year, also Quackmore, Daphne, Eider, Gus etc. should be there. What happens
then is up to anybody's quess. Maybe $crooge will be reborn or turned into a
zombie or will simply 'guide' one of the nephews to do what he would do. The
hippie Dewey would change LSD to nutmegs :>
PER:
>Message-Id: <(Email removed)>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Do we need to know this?-7
Anyway, still about the welcoming message: I think you should have
a clear table of contents in the beginning and then clear CAPITAL titles so
it would be easier to find what one is looking for. Might also make some
people read even some of the message..
JYRKI:
I saw that nice article you wrote about the Finnish comics convention
today. Why don't you translate it and post it to the list? Don at least is
always eager to see what's written about him.
--
Mike - The Finnish Trekkie
RHODE
Disney archives
Message 110 -
1995-12-07 at 22:26:57
Hello all,
This is somewhat off-charter but...
Last week I picked up a children's book of The Emperor's Nightingale which
is being remaindered at Borders. It's described as "with illustrations
from The Disney Archives". The book jacket text reads: "About the Disney
Archives. Part library, part museum, the Walt Disney Archives is home to
the greatest assemblage of Disney-related material anywhere. In addition
to housing the original drawings from many classical animated films, the
Archives contains a treasure trove of artwork never before seen by the
public. It is this work that is showcased in the From The Disney Archives
collection. The first two books published in this series are Chanticleer
and the Fox and The Steadfast Tin Soldier."
As you may have gathered, this is a children's book based on an unfinished
Disney cartoon. Sort of interesting especially in light of the fact that
some of the list have had difficulty in dealing with the archives.
Mike Rhode
This is somewhat off-charter but...
Last week I picked up a children's book of The Emperor's Nightingale which
is being remaindered at Borders. It's described as "with illustrations
from The Disney Archives". The book jacket text reads: "About the Disney
Archives. Part library, part museum, the Walt Disney Archives is home to
the greatest assemblage of Disney-related material anywhere. In addition
to housing the original drawings from many classical animated films, the
Archives contains a treasure trove of artwork never before seen by the
public. It is this work that is showcased in the From The Disney Archives
collection. The first two books published in this series are Chanticleer
and the Fox and The Steadfast Tin Soldier."
As you may have gathered, this is a children's book based on an unfinished
Disney cartoon. Sort of interesting especially in light of the fact that
some of the list have had difficulty in dealing with the archives.
Mike Rhode
Christer Hanssen
dcomics-d Digest V95 #8 + #9
Message 111 -
1995-12-08 at 03:19:00
JORGEN:
>Good to see another Norwegian on the list :-)
Thanks.
>Since you mostly read new Norwegian Disney comics, you'll probably
>find that some artists are more frequent than others, and there-
>fore easier to recognize. If you have read any of my reviews, which
>I hope I'll soon get time to write again, you might have gotten some
>ideas. If I recognize, or think that I recognize, the artist, I
>usually include that information.
Yes, I've read them and appreciate them a lot since the norwegian comics
don't give credit to the artist accept Barks and Don. They've been most
helpful though I not always agree with your comment (that would have been a
surprise:-)) I guess I just have to have myself a little christmas-study of
mayby Vicar's style, since he is as you said the most frequent artist in
norwegian Disney Comics. I have already done a little "search" through some
of my comics looking at Barks, Strobl and Rotas style. But as I guess I
already new it's not a quick way of learning somebody style, though some
have an easier recognizable style. Well, now I at least now some hints and
what I shall be doing this christmas:-)
CAREY:
I'm not sure if I understand what you meen by "architectural type of
rendering". Could you explain that?
JYRKI:
>I'm eagerly looking forward to what Don's gonna say about the
>reasons why Barks is better than others...
Did I say that?
ALL:
Jyrki told about a book that showed Barks style, but since my german is less
than bad, is there some book in english that show some artists styles?
Thanks to all of you for the answers. They've been a good help to move on in
my studies. Now I have to go since I have an test tomorrow and I'm going to
move to another house (phew).
- Christer
>Good to see another Norwegian on the list :-)
Thanks.
>Since you mostly read new Norwegian Disney comics, you'll probably
>find that some artists are more frequent than others, and there-
>fore easier to recognize. If you have read any of my reviews, which
>I hope I'll soon get time to write again, you might have gotten some
>ideas. If I recognize, or think that I recognize, the artist, I
>usually include that information.
Yes, I've read them and appreciate them a lot since the norwegian comics
don't give credit to the artist accept Barks and Don. They've been most
helpful though I not always agree with your comment (that would have been a
surprise:-)) I guess I just have to have myself a little christmas-study of
mayby Vicar's style, since he is as you said the most frequent artist in
norwegian Disney Comics. I have already done a little "search" through some
of my comics looking at Barks, Strobl and Rotas style. But as I guess I
already new it's not a quick way of learning somebody style, though some
have an easier recognizable style. Well, now I at least now some hints and
what I shall be doing this christmas:-)
CAREY:
I'm not sure if I understand what you meen by "architectural type of
rendering". Could you explain that?
JYRKI:
>I'm eagerly looking forward to what Don's gonna say about the
>reasons why Barks is better than others...
Did I say that?
ALL:
Jyrki told about a book that showed Barks style, but since my german is less
than bad, is there some book in english that show some artists styles?
Thanks to all of you for the answers. They've been a good help to move on in
my studies. Now I have to go since I have an test tomorrow and I'm going to
move to another house (phew).
- Christer
MJDIZ
Reviews and replies
Message 112 -
1995-12-08 at 03:28:23
Please stop sending us this stuff. My daughter is longer interested. Since
this is the second time I have sent this request, next time you will be
hearing from my lawyer. Thanx.
this is the second time I have sent this request, next time you will be
hearing from my lawyer. Thanx.
Kathy Fitzpatrick
Female characters
Message 113 -
1995-12-08 at 04:57:14
Daniel,
Interesting discussion on women roles in comics. Actually I think any good
writer be it in comics, murder mysteries, whatever, has the ability to
create believable characters of either sex. A good writer has a good
understanding of human nature and thus can do this. There are women writers
who create very believable male characters and male writers who create very
believable women characters. Much is made of the battle between the sexes
in comics though.
I believe way too much is made these days of whether or not the lead
character in the story is a man or a woman.
As a young girl, being an avid reader, I (and my sisters) had no difficulty
relating to the lead character in a comic, story, radio or tv show whether
the character was a man or a woman. It is not as important to children as
it is to adults what the sex, race, or religion of a lead character is
(unless the parents have drummed something unnatural into the children of
course).
Thus when my sisters and I and friends played adventures, we could easily
assume the role of the hero, whether it was Buck Rogers, Diver Dan, or
whoever. Maybe we just had more imagination than most kids, but I do not
think so.
When I read Duck comics as a child, I was the hero duck whether it was the
nephews, Uncle $crooge, or whoever. If it was a Mickey story, I was Mickey.
Well, now you know.
RE: <Maybe a comic is of less interest to the avarage girl/woman? A funny
thing was, that when the role of women was discussed here on the list,
someone asked if there was a woman among the members. At that very time
there was not even one reaction! >
I don't usually get into discussions like this, but I have wondered about
this. You don't usually see many letters from women in comic books. I
wondered if the editors just picked letters written by guys or if not very
many women wrote letters. I always assumed just as many women read comics.
They did when we grew up (early 1950's) although some of them prefered
Archie Comics (Katy Keene) over the more sensible SuperHero (they were more
sensible then than they are now) Duck, Mouse, Felix, Little Lulu type stories.
Well just my two bits or so.
Kathy
Interesting discussion on women roles in comics. Actually I think any good
writer be it in comics, murder mysteries, whatever, has the ability to
create believable characters of either sex. A good writer has a good
understanding of human nature and thus can do this. There are women writers
who create very believable male characters and male writers who create very
believable women characters. Much is made of the battle between the sexes
in comics though.
I believe way too much is made these days of whether or not the lead
character in the story is a man or a woman.
As a young girl, being an avid reader, I (and my sisters) had no difficulty
relating to the lead character in a comic, story, radio or tv show whether
the character was a man or a woman. It is not as important to children as
it is to adults what the sex, race, or religion of a lead character is
(unless the parents have drummed something unnatural into the children of
course).
Thus when my sisters and I and friends played adventures, we could easily
assume the role of the hero, whether it was Buck Rogers, Diver Dan, or
whoever. Maybe we just had more imagination than most kids, but I do not
think so.
When I read Duck comics as a child, I was the hero duck whether it was the
nephews, Uncle $crooge, or whoever. If it was a Mickey story, I was Mickey.
Well, now you know.
RE: <Maybe a comic is of less interest to the avarage girl/woman? A funny
thing was, that when the role of women was discussed here on the list,
someone asked if there was a woman among the members. At that very time
there was not even one reaction! >
I don't usually get into discussions like this, but I have wondered about
this. You don't usually see many letters from women in comic books. I
wondered if the editors just picked letters written by guys or if not very
many women wrote letters. I always assumed just as many women read comics.
They did when we grew up (early 1950's) although some of them prefered
Archie Comics (Katy Keene) over the more sensible SuperHero (they were more
sensible then than they are now) Duck, Mouse, Felix, Little Lulu type stories.
Well just my two bits or so.
Kathy
MASSENGALE MELANIE O
Response to David G. on "St. Mickey"
Message 114 -
1995-12-08 at 08:17:07
Hi David,
Nice to hear from you again!
> MELANIE:
> Come on, don't dismiss Mickey Mouse's potential! You've read
> the great Gottfredson stories of the 1930s, I'm sure.
Yes, "Phantom Blot" _is_ a classic! But it was long ago, before Mickey
had atrophied into sainthood :-)
And you're 100%
> right that tons of ideology, restrictions, and messages have been
> heaped on him since until he's just become a sort of icon.
> When I write a Mickey story, I just ignore everything that's
> been done to the character since, say, 1940. When Gladstone
> eventually uses my Egmont Mickey stories over here (which even Egmont
> hasn't published yet, it seems), you'll get to see what my results are
> like. You'll have to believe me that when the writer thinks of Mickey
> as an impetuous, emotional, and very fallible character, he can be
> one. If they could do it in 1938, why not today?
David, if anybody can beat the mummification of Mickey, you can! I
promise I'll give your revitalized Mickey that chance.
> And Michael T. Gilbert and Byron Erickson have both produced
> some great "New Breed" MM stories which were the launching point for
> what I've tried to do. In fact, Byron has MM stories coming up in
> DDMM 5 and WDG 5 both.
> Try them, before you conclude that modern Mickey stories can't
> be any good. I'm hoping you'll like them!
> On another note: I'm glad to have you on this digest and
> don't mean to be cliquish at all!
David, if you were cliquish you never would have written to me in the
first place. Thanks for your support!
Regards,
Melanie
Nice to hear from you again!
> MELANIE:
> Come on, don't dismiss Mickey Mouse's potential! You've read
> the great Gottfredson stories of the 1930s, I'm sure.
Yes, "Phantom Blot" _is_ a classic! But it was long ago, before Mickey
had atrophied into sainthood :-)
And you're 100%
> right that tons of ideology, restrictions, and messages have been
> heaped on him since until he's just become a sort of icon.
> When I write a Mickey story, I just ignore everything that's
> been done to the character since, say, 1940. When Gladstone
> eventually uses my Egmont Mickey stories over here (which even Egmont
> hasn't published yet, it seems), you'll get to see what my results are
> like. You'll have to believe me that when the writer thinks of Mickey
> as an impetuous, emotional, and very fallible character, he can be
> one. If they could do it in 1938, why not today?
David, if anybody can beat the mummification of Mickey, you can! I
promise I'll give your revitalized Mickey that chance.
> And Michael T. Gilbert and Byron Erickson have both produced
> some great "New Breed" MM stories which were the launching point for
> what I've tried to do. In fact, Byron has MM stories coming up in
> DDMM 5 and WDG 5 both.
> Try them, before you conclude that modern Mickey stories can't
> be any good. I'm hoping you'll like them!
> On another note: I'm glad to have you on this digest and
> don't mean to be cliquish at all!
David, if you were cliquish you never would have written to me in the
first place. Thanks for your support!
Regards,
Melanie
MASSENGALE MELANIE O
2nd response to Jorgen COMPLAINTS-BAH!
Message 115 -
1995-12-08 at 08:22:05
Hello Jorgen and the group,
(my stuff deleted)
> This is starting to get difficult. Do you expect to be able to enter
> any group of people, and at once understand everything they are talking
> about, any matter what it is? Doing that can be rather tough on sci.chem
> too. The point is to stay long enough to learn the "language". On Usenet
> you are actually supposed to read the group at least a couple of months
> to learn how the group works before you enter it.
(remainder deleted for brevity)
Given the escalating hostility of this exchange, I have responded
privately to Jorgen in email. I leave to him the option of having the
last word on it, as we cannot agree.
Best regards,
Melanie
--------------------------------
End of dcomics-d Digest V95 Issue #11
*************************************
(my stuff deleted)
> This is starting to get difficult. Do you expect to be able to enter
> any group of people, and at once understand everything they are talking
> about, any matter what it is? Doing that can be rather tough on sci.chem
> too. The point is to stay long enough to learn the "language". On Usenet
> you are actually supposed to read the group at least a couple of months
> to learn how the group works before you enter it.
(remainder deleted for brevity)
Given the escalating hostility of this exchange, I have responded
privately to Jorgen in email. I leave to him the option of having the
last word on it, as we cannot agree.
Best regards,
Melanie
--------------------------------
End of dcomics-d Digest V95 Issue #11
*************************************
MASSENGALE MELANIE O
Response to Daniel Female characters (Part 2)
Message 116 -
1995-12-08 at 08:28:21
>
> MELANIE:
(deletions of the first part of Daniel's message, to which I've already
responded)
> The role of women in comic-world has already been discussed on this club
> long time ago. As I already tried to explain in this letter, it's a fact
> that women get very little and/or minimal roles in the (duck)comics.
Sounds as if it needs to be discussed again, since the responses seem
rather less than enlightened to me :-)
And you're exactly right about the limited role of women, which is
precisely why I'm bringing it up in this forum. Even the Ducks could
benefit from moving into the 20th century (at least sometime before the
21st starts :-)
Bear in mind that slavery was (and is, in some places) a _fact_, but that
doesn't make it right!
> It has been discussed here what the reason could be for that. My opinion
> is that it is because the comics are mainly made by men. And *of course*
> those men gave the most interesting roles to their male characters! ;-)
Exactly, once again. They also make most of the movies, which explains
why older women get fewer roles. This is not to say that all men are
oppressors, by any means, but historically they've certainly looked out
for their own interests at the expense of the rest of us. And once again,
while this is historically true, it is also wrong.
> Maybe a comic is of less interest to the avarage girl/woman? A funny
> thing was, that when the role of women was discussed here on the list,
> someone asked if there was a woman among the members. At that very time
> there was not even one reaction!
Would you be interested in something that degrades or humiliates you,
portrays you unfairly?
And you wonder why no women are on the list?
> Now there *are* women here on the club (which is a good case!), but
> still most members are men. No matter what your, mine or someone
> else's opinion is about it: It's a fact.
I also submit material to a group which studies the American Civil War.
It was overwhelmingly male when I first joined it, and it reeked of the
same stupid sexism I'm seeing here today. Now, that group has many more
female participants and we're learning a history of the war from another
perspective that most of us never knew existed, certainly never studied in
grade school or high school! It's not so much a stretch to see the Ducks
in new situations, with new, more interesting stories, if they take down
the "No Girls Allowed" sign from the clubhouse door.
That change starts with changing the attitudes of people like you!
Oppression is a _fact_ but should we continue to tolerate racism, sexism,
imperialism and other unpleasantries just because we have traditionally
done so for centuries?
I find it hilarious that in attempting to join a group established ostensibly
for the purpose of sharing Disney Comics, I have in fact blundered into the
steamroom at the Y!
Sorry to burst your brandy-and-cigars bubble, boys, but I do contend
that the Duck Universe would be improved with the addition of strong
female characters. It's funny that people are so upset about this.
> > Don't laugh too hard at the inference, but isn't it interesting how
> > older actresses (but not actors) have a tough time finding roles.
>
> That's because men get handsomer when they get older. (OOoops!) ;-)
I assume then, that beer-bellies and sagging...whatever...are purely
imaginary ;-)
> To be serious: Do you really think so? I don't know, I never thought
> about it. I'll pay attention to it, next time I watch television or a
> movie.
See how many flicks Al Pacino is in compared with say, Meryl Streep.
> > I await your detailed rebuttal.
>
> Well, here it is. One of the most difficult letters I ever wrote to the
> club. I'm sorry for saying it, but I sometimes get the idea that you
> very easily draw a negative conclusion out of my comments.
Thanks for writing, you've made my case very nicely for me with your
overtly sexist remarks. It's certainly safe to conclude that you have no
real interest in strong female Duck characters; if fact, you are
threatened by them. Hope you can get yourself liberated by the year 2000.
> When I red your reply to my first letter about Hortensia and Matilda, I
> got the idea that you were thinking I'm against women or whatever. To
> be frankly: It made it very frustrating for me to reply again, because
> I got the feeling I had to *defend* myself instead of explaining myself.
Again, thanks, you've exposed yourself (oops, bad choice of words ;-)
without my having to say a thing.
Regards,
Melanie
> MELANIE:
(deletions of the first part of Daniel's message, to which I've already
responded)
> The role of women in comic-world has already been discussed on this club
> long time ago. As I already tried to explain in this letter, it's a fact
> that women get very little and/or minimal roles in the (duck)comics.
Sounds as if it needs to be discussed again, since the responses seem
rather less than enlightened to me :-)
And you're exactly right about the limited role of women, which is
precisely why I'm bringing it up in this forum. Even the Ducks could
benefit from moving into the 20th century (at least sometime before the
21st starts :-)
Bear in mind that slavery was (and is, in some places) a _fact_, but that
doesn't make it right!
> It has been discussed here what the reason could be for that. My opinion
> is that it is because the comics are mainly made by men. And *of course*
> those men gave the most interesting roles to their male characters! ;-)
Exactly, once again. They also make most of the movies, which explains
why older women get fewer roles. This is not to say that all men are
oppressors, by any means, but historically they've certainly looked out
for their own interests at the expense of the rest of us. And once again,
while this is historically true, it is also wrong.
> Maybe a comic is of less interest to the avarage girl/woman? A funny
> thing was, that when the role of women was discussed here on the list,
> someone asked if there was a woman among the members. At that very time
> there was not even one reaction!
Would you be interested in something that degrades or humiliates you,
portrays you unfairly?
And you wonder why no women are on the list?
> Now there *are* women here on the club (which is a good case!), but
> still most members are men. No matter what your, mine or someone
> else's opinion is about it: It's a fact.
I also submit material to a group which studies the American Civil War.
It was overwhelmingly male when I first joined it, and it reeked of the
same stupid sexism I'm seeing here today. Now, that group has many more
female participants and we're learning a history of the war from another
perspective that most of us never knew existed, certainly never studied in
grade school or high school! It's not so much a stretch to see the Ducks
in new situations, with new, more interesting stories, if they take down
the "No Girls Allowed" sign from the clubhouse door.
That change starts with changing the attitudes of people like you!
Oppression is a _fact_ but should we continue to tolerate racism, sexism,
imperialism and other unpleasantries just because we have traditionally
done so for centuries?
I find it hilarious that in attempting to join a group established ostensibly
for the purpose of sharing Disney Comics, I have in fact blundered into the
steamroom at the Y!
Sorry to burst your brandy-and-cigars bubble, boys, but I do contend
that the Duck Universe would be improved with the addition of strong
female characters. It's funny that people are so upset about this.
> > Don't laugh too hard at the inference, but isn't it interesting how
> > older actresses (but not actors) have a tough time finding roles.
>
> That's because men get handsomer when they get older. (OOoops!) ;-)
I assume then, that beer-bellies and sagging...whatever...are purely
imaginary ;-)
> To be serious: Do you really think so? I don't know, I never thought
> about it. I'll pay attention to it, next time I watch television or a
> movie.
See how many flicks Al Pacino is in compared with say, Meryl Streep.
> > I await your detailed rebuttal.
>
> Well, here it is. One of the most difficult letters I ever wrote to the
> club. I'm sorry for saying it, but I sometimes get the idea that you
> very easily draw a negative conclusion out of my comments.
Thanks for writing, you've made my case very nicely for me with your
overtly sexist remarks. It's certainly safe to conclude that you have no
real interest in strong female Duck characters; if fact, you are
threatened by them. Hope you can get yourself liberated by the year 2000.
> When I red your reply to my first letter about Hortensia and Matilda, I
> got the idea that you were thinking I'm against women or whatever. To
> be frankly: It made it very frustrating for me to reply again, because
> I got the feeling I had to *defend* myself instead of explaining myself.
Again, thanks, you've exposed yourself (oops, bad choice of words ;-)
without my having to say a thing.
Regards,
Melanie
Jyrki Vainio
-
Message 117 -
1995-12-08 at 10:09:29
Could someone please tell me what IMHO means???
CHRISTER:
Perhaps I said it a bit strongly but I think we can all agree
that Barks has an outstanding mastery over the Ducks.
MIKE:
I could translate the article if someone would be interested to
see it. But give me few days - I myself haven't seen the article
printed yet...
--- Jyrki Vainio ---
CHRISTER:
Perhaps I said it a bit strongly but I think we can all agree
that Barks has an outstanding mastery over the Ducks.
MIKE:
I could translate the article if someone would be interested to
see it. But give me few days - I myself haven't seen the article
printed yet...
--- Jyrki Vainio ---
H.J.Bjornhaug
-
Message 118 -
1995-12-08 at 10:37:27
> Could someone please tell me what IMHO means???
In My Humble Opinion
--- Helge
In My Humble Opinion
--- Helge
Geir J. Netland
The completely fictional Lo$ #13
Message 119 -
1995-12-08 at 12:33:39
On Thu, 7 Dec 1995, Mike Pohjola wrote:
> They should obviously appear in Lo$ #13: "The Worst Golfer of the
> McDuck Cloud" a.k.a. "The Death of $crooge"! Where $crooge's relatives from
> all-over the world come to his funeral at 1967. Huey from the Vietnamise war,
> Dewey a hippie and Louie who-knows-what. Donald (now married to Daisy and
> settled down in other ways) taking care of the money-bin as a head-account
> etc. Hortense, Matilda (and Ludwig) would of course come to $crooge's funeral
> to respect the dead. And as it is said that Grandma Duck also died that same
> year, also Quackmore, Daphne, Eider, Gus etc. should be there. What happens
> then is up to anybody's quess. Maybe $crooge will be reborn or turned into a
> zombie or will simply 'guide' one of the nephews to do what he would do. The
> hippie Dewey would change LSD to nutmegs :>
PLEASE MAKE THIS STORY, SOMEONE!!!!!!!!!!
---------------
Geir J. Netland
---------------
Hide, men! If he sees us, he'll put
two and two together and get THREE
-Three guilty ducklings, that is!
> They should obviously appear in Lo$ #13: "The Worst Golfer of the
> McDuck Cloud" a.k.a. "The Death of $crooge"! Where $crooge's relatives from
> all-over the world come to his funeral at 1967. Huey from the Vietnamise war,
> Dewey a hippie and Louie who-knows-what. Donald (now married to Daisy and
> settled down in other ways) taking care of the money-bin as a head-account
> etc. Hortense, Matilda (and Ludwig) would of course come to $crooge's funeral
> to respect the dead. And as it is said that Grandma Duck also died that same
> year, also Quackmore, Daphne, Eider, Gus etc. should be there. What happens
> then is up to anybody's quess. Maybe $crooge will be reborn or turned into a
> zombie or will simply 'guide' one of the nephews to do what he would do. The
> hippie Dewey would change LSD to nutmegs :>
PLEASE MAKE THIS STORY, SOMEONE!!!!!!!!!!
---------------
Geir J. Netland
---------------
Hide, men! If he sees us, he'll put
two and two together and get THREE
-Three guilty ducklings, that is!
Don Rosa
dcomics-d Digest V95 #10
Message 120 -
1995-12-08 at 15:25:00
PER:
The "V95" in the Digest number... you may have already explained
this, but shall I assume that we start over with another #1 on January 1 for
a "V96"? Sounds like a good idea.
DAVID:
Two matters that I address to you since I think you were the last to
mention them. In both cases, I was told or lead to believe one thing, then
discovered the opposite to be true.
I figured that the MM cover that the solicitation ads were saying
*I* did for WD GIANT #5 was simply due to a mistake. But John Clark tells me
I DID do the cover! It is the long-unused cover of the unpublished 8th "WALT
DISNEY COMICS IN COLOR" album from 1989. The cover has DD, MM and U$ all
featured with equal prominence as part of a portrait gallery that HDL are
viewing. This came from a VERY difficult directive Disney gave us at that
time that the three characters could appear on those reprint-collection
covers, but NOT in a manner such that they would be seen INTERACTING, lest a
reader might assume the characters were in a single story on the interior.
No suggestion was forthcoming as to HOW to show three characters on a series
of covers and yet for them NOT to be in a scene together on those covers,
nor why it would be a tragedy if someone might think the three were in a
single story on the inside... but this is a typical sort of directive that
Gladstone has gotten used to, and I strained my brain to follow it... and
actually succeeded, though a few of the resulting covers were kinda stupid.
This portrait-gallery one was possibly the best, and now it sees the light
of day.
HOWEVER, I did NOT draw the MM you'll be seeing! The original cover
was to accompany a Gottfredson reprint, and this WD GIANT naturally does not
contain such. So my 1930s MM was redrawn. So you STILL won't have a Rosa MM.
(Nyaah!)
Also missing, as we always knew would be the directive, are the
artist's signatures on the gallery paintings; the "CB"s are gone from the
Duck portaits, and the "FG" is gone from the MM, but that's appropriate in
any case.
The next matter I was misinformed about is the lyrics to the "Lydia"
song in the first chapter of my "Treasury of Croesus" that recently appeared
in that WDC&S #601. David said he thought they had omitted most of my
lyrics, and since I was hoping they hadn't (since it was SO difficult for me
to track down those lyrics!) I asked John Clark about it, and he said that
they HAD used all my lyrics. Well, now that I've seen the issue, I see they
did NOT use my lyrics. I imagine Gladstone was told that the line "she has
the eyes that men adore so, and the torso even moreso" might be okay in a
1930 movie that's on TV every day, but not in a 1995 comic book... and John
forgot about it. Oh, well.
I also finally see my photo as appears in their "Gladstone Profile"
page. Looks like they took scissors and clipped that image out of a pic
which had my Duck collection in the background. I don't really look like I
wear a dishrag hanging over my bean.
I also just went out and bought a copy of Gladstone's 12th chapter
of the "Lo$". And the self-cover style comic bothered me for the first time.
The paper of the entire comic seemed ... "krinkly". As if the comic had been
damp and then dried out. Maybe that's just my issue...?
The "V95" in the Digest number... you may have already explained
this, but shall I assume that we start over with another #1 on January 1 for
a "V96"? Sounds like a good idea.
DAVID:
Two matters that I address to you since I think you were the last to
mention them. In both cases, I was told or lead to believe one thing, then
discovered the opposite to be true.
I figured that the MM cover that the solicitation ads were saying
*I* did for WD GIANT #5 was simply due to a mistake. But John Clark tells me
I DID do the cover! It is the long-unused cover of the unpublished 8th "WALT
DISNEY COMICS IN COLOR" album from 1989. The cover has DD, MM and U$ all
featured with equal prominence as part of a portrait gallery that HDL are
viewing. This came from a VERY difficult directive Disney gave us at that
time that the three characters could appear on those reprint-collection
covers, but NOT in a manner such that they would be seen INTERACTING, lest a
reader might assume the characters were in a single story on the interior.
No suggestion was forthcoming as to HOW to show three characters on a series
of covers and yet for them NOT to be in a scene together on those covers,
nor why it would be a tragedy if someone might think the three were in a
single story on the inside... but this is a typical sort of directive that
Gladstone has gotten used to, and I strained my brain to follow it... and
actually succeeded, though a few of the resulting covers were kinda stupid.
This portrait-gallery one was possibly the best, and now it sees the light
of day.
HOWEVER, I did NOT draw the MM you'll be seeing! The original cover
was to accompany a Gottfredson reprint, and this WD GIANT naturally does not
contain such. So my 1930s MM was redrawn. So you STILL won't have a Rosa MM.
(Nyaah!)
Also missing, as we always knew would be the directive, are the
artist's signatures on the gallery paintings; the "CB"s are gone from the
Duck portaits, and the "FG" is gone from the MM, but that's appropriate in
any case.
The next matter I was misinformed about is the lyrics to the "Lydia"
song in the first chapter of my "Treasury of Croesus" that recently appeared
in that WDC&S #601. David said he thought they had omitted most of my
lyrics, and since I was hoping they hadn't (since it was SO difficult for me
to track down those lyrics!) I asked John Clark about it, and he said that
they HAD used all my lyrics. Well, now that I've seen the issue, I see they
did NOT use my lyrics. I imagine Gladstone was told that the line "she has
the eyes that men adore so, and the torso even moreso" might be okay in a
1930 movie that's on TV every day, but not in a 1995 comic book... and John
forgot about it. Oh, well.
I also finally see my photo as appears in their "Gladstone Profile"
page. Looks like they took scissors and clipped that image out of a pic
which had my Duck collection in the background. I don't really look like I
wear a dishrag hanging over my bean.
I also just went out and bought a copy of Gladstone's 12th chapter
of the "Lo$". And the self-cover style comic bothered me for the first time.
The paper of the entire comic seemed ... "krinkly". As if the comic had been
damp and then dried out. Maybe that's just my issue...?