Keskustelujen arkisto

Well, for Heaven's sake! And we were concerned about nutmeg!

Kathy

>I finally got around to reading U$A #36, and noticed in the background on the
>first page of the Gyro story (page 27) that of the several cans of stuff Gyro
>has in his closet, one is labeled ThC, the active ingredient in marijuana. I
>wonder how this one got past all those censors?
>
>Ken
>
>

Christer,

I think the best way to get started is to have one story from each artist
you want to recognise. After that it's very easy.

--
Henri Sivonen
(Email removed)
Fax: +358-0-479387

DANIEL:

Please stop your discussion with Melanie. She uses this list
for exposing her feminist ideas. Every sentence with the
word "woman" or "female" in it will be explained by her
in a negative way.

I'm starting to think that all that stuff about "cliquish"
members was just an excuse to start these discussions, no,
I should say fights, with you, Jorgen, and others.

Melanie (still) uses a lot of words and expressions that
we Europeans have to look up in a dictionary.
And she didn't answer my letter. Maybe I should complain
about her being cliquish?

BTW: there are some women writing Disney comics. For instance
Janet Gilbert (member of this list), and Kirsten de Graaf,
who writes stories for Mau Heymans.

--Harry.
((Email removed))

> 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.

If your daughter is NO longer interested: send a message
to (Email removed) You have been
informed about this before. I'll witness that in court.

--Harry.

EVERYONE WHO WANTS MORE OF HORTENSE AND MATILDA
should note that for Scrooge to be (in "contemporary"
Duck-time) "The Last of the Clan McDuck," as he calls himself now and
then in Barks, that kinda implies that poor Hortense and Matilda (as
much as I'd like to see them again) are... gulp... no longer with us!
(Or is there some other way to explain it?)
It can't be interpreted as the last-BORN of the clan McDuck,
because Scrooge was born before Hortense.
Maybe it's simply that Scrooge was the last one who carried on
the name McDuck all through life? Hortense changed her last name to
"Duck" upon marriage, and Matilda became "Von Drake"? (Although the
assumption that they changed their names reflects our patriarchy, no
doubt, to an unfortunate degree ;-)
Boy, this sure opens up a can of worms. Now on to some
comments from MELANIE:

Defining 'benefit of the doubt' for Daniel, you said "This is
giving you the benefit of my doubt that you'd really like to see some
female duck character portrayed" (explaining "benefit of the doubt"
for Daniel)
Huh? It's a benefit for him, that you doubt he'd like to see
female characters portrayed? I have to confess that while I've used
the phrase "benefit of the doubt" throughout my life, I've never been
able to define why the phrase is used the way it is.

Regarding Grandma vs. Hortense: "What's wrong with creating a
career for Hortense? She could be much more a role model than another
pale domestic character." Are you calling Grandma a pale domestic
character? I have always viewed Grandma as a smart, responsible,
determined, capable and energetic character whose faults of temper and
occasional old-fashionedness nicely round out her personality along
with a dollop of humorous skepticism.
Besides, haven't you praised Grandma's character before? Why
is she now the "pale domestic character" for you?
You say that "Grandma hasn't been used as much as Daisy, so
there is room to expand her character." I think that simply giving
her center stage in any long adventure, or in a solo story of more
than six pages in length, will show that her current traits (as I
defined them) make for a great protagonist all by themselves.

"You can have two old MEN in the comics, but they might have
very different personalities." Actually, I'd say there's a stereotype
of old men just like there is for old women. The stereotype shows
them as irritable, doddering, eccentric, and usually interested only
in esoteric things. Like... like... Ludwig von Drake, although I do
have a soft spot for him. You know, the kind of character who goes
around saying "by cracky" and other such things (although they'd be
German exclamations for Von Drake).
Scrooge is an example of an old character who doesn't follow
the stereotype -- so much not, in fact, that when DuckTales did an
episode in which Scrooge lost his memory and (with it) his accent, the
writers clearly figured that Scrooge must be only around 50, not a
really old man. In DuckTales, old men tend to fit that "by cracky"
caricature. So there are probably people who'd figure that having a
lot of old men in the strip might lead writers who adored cliche to
tend to make them act alike.
(Remember how in the Disney film UNCLE SCROOGE AND MONEY, the
animation department figured that old male ducks were more or less
alike and made U$ a lot more like Von Drake, even to his looks?)

"No, please, we don't WANT to look at Daisy's women's club!"
I wanted to do a Daisy story which brought it back just to
expose its cliches. I had her somehow get on their bad side, then
have to go on the lam, muttering all the while about how they cluster
together, making themselves into human cliches, and how she hadn't
thought that much about it until now. I am still open to doing such a
story if someone can give me a good reason why Daisy would get on the
bad side of that stereotypical club she's in. The story was to have
Daisy remembering how DD hid from her in the lions' cage at the zoo
once, so she does the same, just hauling off and punching the lions to
intimidate them out of her way. But why choose the lion cage just
because Donald did? I saw myself defying logic to make a social
comment about the dated stereotypes of the 1950s, and so I figured it
wasn't really worth it.
The ONLY source I use for Daisy in the old stories, by the
way, is the solitary example of WDC&S 88 in which Daisy is smart,
cynical, and saves Donald's house for him with her smart dealing.
(But that said, I have so far only used Daisy incidentally in one
story so far. She was repairing a roof quite competently, which may
be seen as progressive for some, but if it is, said "some" must be
rather backwards... I thought it was common knowledge that women can
do any job men can do.)

Being a writer has its disadvantages. My mom's a math editor,
usually at work on a manuscript, and when it came time to show Minnie
putting aside some work to have a talk with Mickey in one story, I
showed her putting down a corrected manuscript and a red pencil... but
the artist changed it to a knitting basket! Ack!
"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."
Minnie is very different than Daisy. While Daisy is very much
the object to be attained all too much of the time, Minnie in
Gottfredson's best years has a remarkable urge for adventure which
conflicts constantly with a dislike of real trouble -- and she finds
that Mickey blurs adventure and trouble by means of his
overenthusiasm. In fact, Byron Erickson did a REMARKABLE take on all
of this in which Minnie is very, very rounded indeed... and Gladstone
is publishing it soon! It's none other than the "Fantasy Island"
story appearing in WDG #5. This is a GREAT story, Melanie (and
everyone!) and everyone should make sure to get it!

DON:
Part of your WDCiC 8 aborted cover has already been used. The
direct-market edition of US 294 shows that cover's image of Scrooge in
the box that, in the store edition, has a UPC symbol. Gotcha!
And if they could do that, surely they can put your MM image
from that cover in such a box on some other issue, eh?
The removal of the CBs on the WDCiC cover may have something
to do with the fact that the DD story inside is an Italian story.

DON and MARK:
What is the backup story in US #296? Also, can you send me a
copy of the issue, Mark? Puhleeeze?

MIKE:
Augie said "HDL take on separate personalities and looks, such
as backwards hats [in DuckDaze]." Yes, and of the other two, one has
long hair and one has a huge mop of hair! Mike, here's your Dewey
from the projected LO$ 13...

MELANIE again:
"David, if anybody can beat the mummification of Mickey, you
can!" No, anyone can. All anyone has to do is simply ignore all MM
stories made after 1940... which anyway, makes MM into such a more
active, interesting character that the plots come much easier too.
Jorgen said to you:
> 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? . . . 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.
And you said, "given the escalating hostility of this
exchange, I have responded privately to Jorgen in email..."
When Jorgen said "difficult," he was, I believe, not saying
that you were intractable, but that he was having a hard time
explaining what he meant. Forgive me for getting into this, but I
think you're misinterpreting Jorgen's use of English as a second
language as his speaking to you rudely. Please don't get in a fight
over this!

David Gerstein
<(Email removed)>

DON:

> 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.
>
>

Daniel sent me a photo copy of this picture, which I like quite a bit. MM
looks like yours (his head was obviously drawn with a circular stencil), and
the signatures are there. HDL are looking at the three portraits.

-- Wes

HARRY:

> Please stop your discussion with Melanie. She uses this list for
> exposing her feminist ideas. Every sentence with the word "woman" or
> "female" in it will be explained by her in a negative way.

It doesn't matter to me if her point of view on Disney comics is
feministic, but the thing which *did* matter to me was that I replied
to her letters and then saw my words back, explained in a very negative
way.

It all started with my reply in which I said that I don't see the sense
of re-using Hortense and Matilda, and suddenly I found myself in a war.

Melanie suddenly (more or less) concluded out of my letter that I'm
against women, which is certainly not true. And I certainly don't
want her negative conclusions about me being filed in the Disney-Comics
archives, without me clearly stating that her conclusion about me is
*wrong*.

I realise that it's hopeless to change Melanie's negative conclusions
about me (which came like a bolt from the blue). And I will indeed stop
discussing with Melanie if she continues with her negative conclusions
about me.

In this letter I will answer the letters Melanie sent to me via this
club today. If it will be my last reply to her, will depend on the way
she answers it.

MELANIE:

> "Huh," what? You don't understand the expression, "benefit of the
> doubt," or you can't understand the use of it in this context?

The latter, I don't understand the use of it in this context. If I say
that I'm not against women, you'll only have to believe it (because you
simply don't know me) instead of stating that I'm having the benefit of
the doubt.

And even if you're questioning the "sincerity of my statement", then
say it in a nicer way. I'm a member of this club because I like Disney-
comics, not because I like wars or whatever.

> 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.

I don't know how it is in your country, but you don't have to convince
me that women are no less than men. Here in Holland women are fully
accepted, they're very busy making careers and they're also fully
accepted with doing that.

I don't know how this all goes in other countries, but I don't think
Holland is the only country with this attitude.

> Young women want to read about more than mom or girlfriend types who
> are just in the way of the husbands and boyfriends.

I know, I *know*.

>> [About cliches in some Duck-comics.] 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?

No, certainly not. They're too busy with their career.

> 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!

What does a "No Girls Allowed" sign have to do with my attitude???
I think I observe something here, you're using *me* for exposing your
frustrations against men!

No matter what positive thing I say, you'll always find a reason to
attack me. And I certainly don't want to have that role, so you'd
better stop with it. I don't think I deserve to be treatened that way.

> 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?

NO! We shouldn't and we *won't*!

> Thanks for writing, you've made my case very nicely for me with your
> overtly sexist remarks.

I really wonder how you got *that* out of my words.

> It's certainly safe to conclude that you have no real interest in
> strong female Duck characters; if fact, you are threatened by them.

Yes, I'm always afraid that a female Duck character will suddenly come
out of my comic and start haunting me through my house. Well, does this
satisfy you?

> Hope you can get yourself liberated by the year 2000.

In fact I was thinking that of you.

> Regards, Melanie

Yes, and here are my greetings, which *I do* mean! I wish you all my
best and I really hope you will be happy one day, because you
certainly don't seem to feel that way.

--- Daniel