Hi, all.
I just wanted to let you folks know that I'm back on the ML.
I was in Europe during the last half of November, and didn't
want 1500 messages waiting for me in my mailbox when I got
back. If anybody had any messages for me personally (I'm
told Don Rosa had a fan-letter in German he needed
translated...?), get in touch with me via e-mail.
Speaking of Don, one of the Egmont editors showed me the
most amazing newspaper article that appeared in a Danish
paper in the middle of September, with the headline:
KRIG I ANDEBY (War in Duckburg). It's an account of Don's
relationship with Carl Barks, much of it taken right off
this ML, but slanted to make Don look like a jealous,
paranoid, untalented whiner and nut-case. I'm not a legal
expert, but I'd say it's darned near libelous. The writer
of this scurrilous piece left out so much information and
background (Bill Grandey is not mentioned once) that it's
pretty worthless as a source of facts about the situation.
The lesson learned, in any case, is that the ML and the
Internet in general are not private, and anyone can go in
and see what people are saying. It's wonderful that Don is
here and accessible to everybody, and I'm sure he appreciates
the opportunity to interact with knowledgeable fans and fellow
professionals -- being a hermit comic-book artist in the depths
of Kentucky is probably pretty lonely -- but he may be paying
the price here for being _too_ open.
--Dwight Decker
Author
Topic: 199512
(361 messages)
Deckerd
Decker's Back
Message 61 -
1995-12-05 at 19:10:49
KERSTIN S.DERBAUM
What's this??!
Message 62 -
1995-12-05 at 19:12:14
--- Inkommet från VD.POL2 031-667632 95-12-05 18:11
-> IN=dcomics(a)strindberg.ling.uu.se
Hmm..
Shouldn't those messages become sent to another place, so we didn't have
to read them again?
> Unsubscribe (Email removed)/ L Vanessa Chianese
>
> Vanessa Chianese
> (Email removed)
---
Jack Soederbaum
-------------------------------------------------
"I have only one soda left, señor... But I think
it has been FLAT since the Great War!
Ever since World War TWO?!
CARAMBA! There was ANOTHER one?
--------------------------------
(Email removed)
-> IN=dcomics(a)strindberg.ling.uu.se
Hmm..
Shouldn't those messages become sent to another place, so we didn't have
to read them again?
> Unsubscribe (Email removed)/ L Vanessa Chianese
>
> Vanessa Chianese
> (Email removed)
---
Jack Soederbaum
-------------------------------------------------
"I have only one soda left, señor... But I think
it has been FLAT since the Great War!
Ever since World War TWO?!
CARAMBA! There was ANOTHER one?
--------------------------------
(Email removed)
Fluks
AW: D(uc)K, H & D
Message 63 -
1995-12-05 at 19:23:14
JAKOB:
> [The Turkish comic I sent you] looked... sort of... ITALIAN.
> Is that the only Disney comic-book available in Turkey, or...?
No, they have another monthly comic, Donald Amca. It's the size
of a normal Egmont comic book. You didn't get it yet because
it didn't fit in the envelope!
>> And we also have a member Erik Pettersson.
> Er.. not anymore, I fear. Since he doesn't think he knows enough about
> Disney, and since the digest now appear in his (AND mine) mailbox as about
> 20 letters, he has now decided to unsubscribe to the list. :-(
Please call him back! Not knowing "enough" about Disney shouldn't be
a reason to unsubscribe! And the technical Digest problems should have
been solved too.
> If you got trouble in keeping me and Jacob S-A. apart, just write my name
> as 'Jack'. Then I know who you mean. ;-)
It's just that I *hate* the name Jack... In my family,
Jakob (with a K) is a frequent name, and I like that name. I don't like it
that people with a beautiful name like that are called Jack!
Nothing personal, Jakob! 8-)
--Harry.
((Email removed))
"My name is Jones without K."
"But there is no K in Jones!"
"That's what I said!"
> [The Turkish comic I sent you] looked... sort of... ITALIAN.
> Is that the only Disney comic-book available in Turkey, or...?
No, they have another monthly comic, Donald Amca. It's the size
of a normal Egmont comic book. You didn't get it yet because
it didn't fit in the envelope!
>> And we also have a member Erik Pettersson.
> Er.. not anymore, I fear. Since he doesn't think he knows enough about
> Disney, and since the digest now appear in his (AND mine) mailbox as about
> 20 letters, he has now decided to unsubscribe to the list. :-(
Please call him back! Not knowing "enough" about Disney shouldn't be
a reason to unsubscribe! And the technical Digest problems should have
been solved too.
> If you got trouble in keeping me and Jacob S-A. apart, just write my name
> as 'Jack'. Then I know who you mean. ;-)
It's just that I *hate* the name Jack... In my family,
Jakob (with a K) is a frequent name, and I like that name. I don't like it
that people with a beautiful name like that are called Jack!
Nothing personal, Jakob! 8-)
--Harry.
((Email removed))
"My name is Jones without K."
"But there is no K in Jones!"
"That's what I said!"
Jyrki Vainio
-
Message 64 -
1995-12-05 at 21:57:15
MELANIE:
This time your quotes came out nice and clean. Thanks!:-)
ERIK:
For the picture of Duckburg, I remember one panel that made a
strong impression on me. It's the splash that opens Marko Rota's
DD's 50th anniversary special. DD and HDL are standing at the top
of Scrooge's skyscreaper (I don't know whether it was exactly the
money bin - at least it was in the middle of the city, not on a
lonely hilltop) and in the background we see a really New Yorkish
skyline. This may be a bit unorthodox source though, I remember
this specific story causing confusion in Finland (especially when
compared to the Don Rosa version of the Duck family tree) because
it tells the story of Donald's and Scrooge's first meeting in a
quite un-Barksian way: Scrooge and Grandma Duck (brother and
sister!) are driving with Scrooge's limo on a dark stormy night
when suddenly they see on the road an infant Duck baby - who has
fallen of his nest in a tree! They adopt this baby and only
further on does Scrooge realize that Donald *really* is his
nephew (since Scrooge didn't want to show his feelings he didn't
want to be called Donald's father - so he had acted as a uncle
since the very beginning).
Well, go figure. But let me say that despite the curiosities in
the story it's a DD story from the very finest tradition - the
art is great and so on (and I don't even know whether this has
been discussed over before my time).
--- Jyrki Vainio ---
This time your quotes came out nice and clean. Thanks!:-)
ERIK:
For the picture of Duckburg, I remember one panel that made a
strong impression on me. It's the splash that opens Marko Rota's
DD's 50th anniversary special. DD and HDL are standing at the top
of Scrooge's skyscreaper (I don't know whether it was exactly the
money bin - at least it was in the middle of the city, not on a
lonely hilltop) and in the background we see a really New Yorkish
skyline. This may be a bit unorthodox source though, I remember
this specific story causing confusion in Finland (especially when
compared to the Don Rosa version of the Duck family tree) because
it tells the story of Donald's and Scrooge's first meeting in a
quite un-Barksian way: Scrooge and Grandma Duck (brother and
sister!) are driving with Scrooge's limo on a dark stormy night
when suddenly they see on the road an infant Duck baby - who has
fallen of his nest in a tree! They adopt this baby and only
further on does Scrooge realize that Donald *really* is his
nephew (since Scrooge didn't want to show his feelings he didn't
want to be called Donald's father - so he had acted as a uncle
since the very beginning).
Well, go figure. But let me say that despite the curiosities in
the story it's a DD story from the very finest tradition - the
art is great and so on (and I don't even know whether this has
been discussed over before my time).
--- Jyrki Vainio ---
Patrick Leonard
Hello
Message 65 -
1995-12-05 at 22:36:44
Hello,
I am new in the group and would gladly accept any help any of you could give
me on to getting the most out of this mailing list.
Bill
I am new in the group and would gladly accept any help any of you could give
me on to getting the most out of this mailing list.
Bill
Brian White
-
Message 66 -
1995-12-05 at 22:56:58
Hi guys,
I'm a new member and I just want to say hi to everyone.
--------------------------------
End of dcomics-d Digest V95 Issue #7
************************************
I'm a new member and I just want to say hi to everyone.
--------------------------------
End of dcomics-d Digest V95 Issue #7
************************************
GaryB98294
Decker's return
Message 67 -
1995-12-06 at 01:28:31
DWIGHT
Glad to see you're back all in one piece. No progress made on the Bob Bolling
visit, but I'll talk to you about it in private e-mail.
It bothered me about the article on Don taken from this mailing list. There's
a lot to be learned yet about web sites and access. As a journalist, I think
"published" and "public" communication is open to all -- but the more of this
we get, the less likely people like Don will feel free to speak their minds.
I don't know enough about the copyright law or web site construction to
propose an answer at this point, but it's something that must be dealt with
in the near future.
And it goes beyond the Don Rosas of the world. No doubt, someone could write
an article about Disney comics using our opinions here -- and attribute
quotes to us without letting us know. Is that ethical? It's the sort of
problem editors around the world struggle with on a daily basis. We've had
similar situations (once when a reporter truly stumbled upon an attorney
giving advice to his client on a big local case in a public eatery) and I've
always tried to resolve them ethically -- but my solutions didn't always
please everyone involved.
You will tell us about your trip, eh?
Gary Brown
Glad to see you're back all in one piece. No progress made on the Bob Bolling
visit, but I'll talk to you about it in private e-mail.
It bothered me about the article on Don taken from this mailing list. There's
a lot to be learned yet about web sites and access. As a journalist, I think
"published" and "public" communication is open to all -- but the more of this
we get, the less likely people like Don will feel free to speak their minds.
I don't know enough about the copyright law or web site construction to
propose an answer at this point, but it's something that must be dealt with
in the near future.
And it goes beyond the Don Rosas of the world. No doubt, someone could write
an article about Disney comics using our opinions here -- and attribute
quotes to us without letting us know. Is that ethical? It's the sort of
problem editors around the world struggle with on a daily basis. We've had
similar situations (once when a reporter truly stumbled upon an attorney
giving advice to his client on a big local case in a public eatery) and I've
always tried to resolve them ethically -- but my solutions didn't always
please everyone involved.
You will tell us about your trip, eh?
Gary Brown
Carey Furlong - Tdoc
Here's a Duck Memory Tickler
Message 68 -
1995-12-06 at 01:45:00
Hi Everybody,
Here are a couple of silly little questions about two non-Barks, Duck
stories from the 1950s that have been on my mind for years.
Does anyone remember from which Disney comic book Scrooge converts an
old twin-engined airplane into a submarine! He gets Donald and the
boys and sails the converted airplane/submarine underwater to a
destination I cannot recall. The aircraft/submarine conversion was
very cheap.
Here's the second one: Does anyone remember a 1950s story in which
Scrooge, Donald and the boys travel in a small boat to a volcanic
island in the South Pacific at Christmas time, and get the boat stuck
in a volcanic vent? (Maybe a large, dormant fumarole?) The boat is
eventually blown out of the vent by an eruption, with the ducks in it.
Perhaps someone here has a distant, fragmented memory of one of these
stories, and can tell me who the artists were and in which Disney books
they appeared.
Thanks for any response,
- "Brain and brain. What is brain?"
--------------- Spock's Brain ---
---- Carey ----
Carey Furlong, Huntington Beach, Calif; Primary e-mail: (Email removed)
Secondary email: (Email removed); Prodigy TXST34A;
Compu$erve 70531,2753; Opinions expressed are mine and not those of EDS
Here are a couple of silly little questions about two non-Barks, Duck
stories from the 1950s that have been on my mind for years.
Does anyone remember from which Disney comic book Scrooge converts an
old twin-engined airplane into a submarine! He gets Donald and the
boys and sails the converted airplane/submarine underwater to a
destination I cannot recall. The aircraft/submarine conversion was
very cheap.
Here's the second one: Does anyone remember a 1950s story in which
Scrooge, Donald and the boys travel in a small boat to a volcanic
island in the South Pacific at Christmas time, and get the boat stuck
in a volcanic vent? (Maybe a large, dormant fumarole?) The boat is
eventually blown out of the vent by an eruption, with the ducks in it.
Perhaps someone here has a distant, fragmented memory of one of these
stories, and can tell me who the artists were and in which Disney books
they appeared.
Thanks for any response,
- "Brain and brain. What is brain?"
--------------- Spock's Brain ---
---- Carey ----
Carey Furlong, Huntington Beach, Calif; Primary e-mail: (Email removed)
Secondary email: (Email removed); Prodigy TXST34A;
Compu$erve 70531,2753; Opinions expressed are mine and not those of EDS
Cdoberman
Where do children come from?
Message 69 -
1995-12-06 at 02:03:27
Daniel:
> It's rather traditional
>in the Disney-universum that there are no parents. (Sounds rather
>morbid, but I like it that way.)
This is a very interesting observation. Is it accurate? Certainly, a lot of
the background townspeople have children we can assume are their own. But as
for the main characters, you may be right -- Lof$ is an obvious exception.
-- Wes
"But, Mickey! It's SUICIDE! We'll be KILLED! How'll we ever land without
wheels?" -- Captain Doberman
> It's rather traditional
>in the Disney-universum that there are no parents. (Sounds rather
>morbid, but I like it that way.)
This is a very interesting observation. Is it accurate? Certainly, a lot of
the background townspeople have children we can assume are their own. But as
for the main characters, you may be right -- Lof$ is an obvious exception.
-- Wes
"But, Mickey! It's SUICIDE! We'll be KILLED! How'll we ever land without
wheels?" -- Captain Doberman
Jørgen Andreas Bangor
Here's a Duck Memory Tickler
Message 70 -
1995-12-06 at 02:58:17
Jorgen, suddenly having a little more time than expected, answering:
Carey Furlong:
| Does anyone remember from which Disney comic book Scrooge converts an
| old twin-engined airplane into a submarine! He gets Donald and the
| boys and sails the converted airplane/submarine underwater to a
| destination I cannot recall. The aircraft/submarine conversion was
| very cheap.
That's a story drawn by Tony Strobl. As far as I remember it was
Donald who rebuilt the plane all on his own. Scrooge found out about
it and followed him on the surface, to find out what he was up to
(which I don't remember). I guess I'll be visiting my collection
quite soon, so I can find out. The story code is not likely to be
there, though, since this was published here in Norway in the late
fifties.
| Here's the second one: Does anyone remember a 1950s story in which
| Scrooge, Donald and the boys travel in a small boat to a volcanic
| island in the South Pacific at Christmas time, and get the boat stuck
| in a volcanic vent? (Maybe a large, dormant fumarole?) The boat is
| eventually blown out of the vent by an eruption, with the ducks in it.
Well, that _is_ Barks. That's the story "The Black Pearls of Tabu Yama".
Although I'm not sure why, it took some time before I realized that this
actually is a Barks story.
Jorgen
Carey Furlong:
| Does anyone remember from which Disney comic book Scrooge converts an
| old twin-engined airplane into a submarine! He gets Donald and the
| boys and sails the converted airplane/submarine underwater to a
| destination I cannot recall. The aircraft/submarine conversion was
| very cheap.
That's a story drawn by Tony Strobl. As far as I remember it was
Donald who rebuilt the plane all on his own. Scrooge found out about
it and followed him on the surface, to find out what he was up to
(which I don't remember). I guess I'll be visiting my collection
quite soon, so I can find out. The story code is not likely to be
there, though, since this was published here in Norway in the late
fifties.
| Here's the second one: Does anyone remember a 1950s story in which
| Scrooge, Donald and the boys travel in a small boat to a volcanic
| island in the South Pacific at Christmas time, and get the boat stuck
| in a volcanic vent? (Maybe a large, dormant fumarole?) The boat is
| eventually blown out of the vent by an eruption, with the ducks in it.
Well, that _is_ Barks. That's the story "The Black Pearls of Tabu Yama".
Although I'm not sure why, it took some time before I realized that this
actually is a Barks story.
Jorgen
Don Rosa
dcomics-d Digest V95 #7
Message 71 -
1995-12-06 at 07:17:00
JAKOB:
JACK:
I said I'd "goofed" when I placed Fethry in my Duck Family Tree?
Maybe that was when I was trying to say that I'd goofed in not having
Gladstone delete Fethry from the American version of the tree. THAT was
truly a goof! Why include a character I neither like or wish to acknowledge
in a Tree for a nation that has never even seen him? There's no sense to
that at all. If they ever reprint that Tree at Gladstone, I'll ask that
Fethry be omitted. No, there was no one who would take his place, not from
the Barksian Universe.
Why did I have Ludwig Von Drake married to Matilda McDuck? Because
that's the only Duck in the Barksian scheme that he COULD be married to and
have him be Donald's uncle. And for the European-born Matilda to marry
another European (LvD apparently being German or Austrian or something)
seemed quite natural.
JACK:
I said I'd "goofed" when I placed Fethry in my Duck Family Tree?
Maybe that was when I was trying to say that I'd goofed in not having
Gladstone delete Fethry from the American version of the tree. THAT was
truly a goof! Why include a character I neither like or wish to acknowledge
in a Tree for a nation that has never even seen him? There's no sense to
that at all. If they ever reprint that Tree at Gladstone, I'll ask that
Fethry be omitted. No, there was no one who would take his place, not from
the Barksian Universe.
Why did I have Ludwig Von Drake married to Matilda McDuck? Because
that's the only Duck in the Barksian scheme that he COULD be married to and
have him be Donald's uncle. And for the European-born Matilda to marry
another European (LvD apparently being German or Austrian or something)
seemed quite natural.
MASSENGALE MELANIE O
COMPLAINTS-BAH!
Message 72 -
1995-12-06 at 08:44:12
> Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 22:51:01 -0500
> From: (Email removed)
> To: (Email removed)
> Subject: COMPLAINTS-BAH!
> Message-Id: <(Email removed)>
>
> I do not understand why there is so much complaining going on. I really like
> this group and would be disappointed if it did not exist. I do not write
> messages too often nor have I been on that long, but I do not have any
> problem understanding what is going on.
That isn't necessarily true for newbies, though. Cut some of us some
slack, please.
I also can understand why no one
> would answer a question concerning Gladstone's plans. Only Gladstone knows
> what they are thinking or planning. They do not neccessarily read this board
> or want anyone to know what they are planning.
I don't see why any questions about the comics or about stories should be
censored in any way. If someone out there has an answer, he/she should be
free to express it. I doubt that Gladstone is trying to hide anything.
I think it is great that
> David sometimes give us inside info when he knows it or Don tells you what he
> has done and what may be published of his. Per is only trying to make things
> better, let's applaud him for everything he has done so far. Odds Bodkins
> you people,
> STOP complaining. Here it is....end of message....BARRY....
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.
Melanie
> From: (Email removed)
> To: (Email removed)
> Subject: COMPLAINTS-BAH!
> Message-Id: <(Email removed)>
>
> I do not understand why there is so much complaining going on. I really like
> this group and would be disappointed if it did not exist. I do not write
> messages too often nor have I been on that long, but I do not have any
> problem understanding what is going on.
That isn't necessarily true for newbies, though. Cut some of us some
slack, please.
I also can understand why no one
> would answer a question concerning Gladstone's plans. Only Gladstone knows
> what they are thinking or planning. They do not neccessarily read this board
> or want anyone to know what they are planning.
I don't see why any questions about the comics or about stories should be
censored in any way. If someone out there has an answer, he/she should be
free to express it. I doubt that Gladstone is trying to hide anything.
I think it is great that
> David sometimes give us inside info when he knows it or Don tells you what he
> has done and what may be published of his. Per is only trying to make things
> better, let's applaud him for everything he has done so far. Odds Bodkins
> you people,
> STOP complaining. Here it is....end of message....BARRY....
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.
Melanie
MASSENGALE MELANIE O
"Reply" problem seems to be cleared up!
Message 73 -
1995-12-06 at 08:50:54
Hi Folks,
Again my apologies to those of you who received replies from me with
entire contents of the Digest copied in. Today's Digest arrived and I
was once again able to edit my reply properly.
Thanks to Per especially for his patience in dealing with list problems!
Regards,
Melanie
Again my apologies to those of you who received replies from me with
entire contents of the Digest copied in. Today's Digest arrived and I
was once again able to edit my reply properly.
Thanks to Per especially for his patience in dealing with list problems!
Regards,
Melanie
MASSENGALE MELANIE O
Do you guys know each other?
Message 74 -
1995-12-06 at 08:53:14
On Tue, 5 Dec 1995 (Email removed) wrote:
Hello Daniel,
>
> Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 08:31:51
> From: Daniel van Eijmeren <(Email removed)>
> To: (Email removed)
> Subject: Re: Do you guys all know each other or what?
> Message-Id: <(Email removed)>
>
> MELANIE:
>
> > I get the impression that all of you people must already know each
> > other, and only want to talk to each other. (...) If this is really a
> > private group, just say so and I'll go away.
>
> Please don't. It's not a matter of ignoring someone when your letter
> isn't replied. I think that there's sometimes so much mail that one's
> letter can get "drowned" because of all the other subjects. Maybe a
> lot of people are now getting used to the new system, so that can now be
> an extra reason why someone's mail isn't replied. (This "getting used
> to the new system" does at least count for me now).
Ok, I can accept that as a legitimate reason. Especially since I briefly
lost editing capabilities myself and a few people got an extra unnecessary
copy of the Digest with my reply!
> Anyway, thanks for showing us your feelings about this. I think that
> it's very important that someone tells it when he/she feels ignored or
> treatened badly by others, so an apologise or an explanation can be
> given. If your reaction would have been "unsubscribe me" (gladly it
> isn't), no one would have know what the reasons were for that.
Thanks for saying that--I just made that point to the individual who
posted under the COMPLAINTS--BAH! header. I wasn't as polite as I'd like
to be; I apologize for that--but I needed to draw attention to the problem.
I do appreciate your courtesy and understanding.
> BTW. I *do* have a reaction to your comments about Scrooge's sister,
> but not at this moment. I don't have time now, because I have to go.
> Maybe at the end of the day?
Ok, and many thanks!
Regards,
Melanie
Hello Daniel,
>
> Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 08:31:51
> From: Daniel van Eijmeren <(Email removed)>
> To: (Email removed)
> Subject: Re: Do you guys all know each other or what?
> Message-Id: <(Email removed)>
>
> MELANIE:
>
> > I get the impression that all of you people must already know each
> > other, and only want to talk to each other. (...) If this is really a
> > private group, just say so and I'll go away.
>
> Please don't. It's not a matter of ignoring someone when your letter
> isn't replied. I think that there's sometimes so much mail that one's
> letter can get "drowned" because of all the other subjects. Maybe a
> lot of people are now getting used to the new system, so that can now be
> an extra reason why someone's mail isn't replied. (This "getting used
> to the new system" does at least count for me now).
Ok, I can accept that as a legitimate reason. Especially since I briefly
lost editing capabilities myself and a few people got an extra unnecessary
copy of the Digest with my reply!
> Anyway, thanks for showing us your feelings about this. I think that
> it's very important that someone tells it when he/she feels ignored or
> treatened badly by others, so an apologise or an explanation can be
> given. If your reaction would have been "unsubscribe me" (gladly it
> isn't), no one would have know what the reasons were for that.
Thanks for saying that--I just made that point to the individual who
posted under the COMPLAINTS--BAH! header. I wasn't as polite as I'd like
to be; I apologize for that--but I needed to draw attention to the problem.
I do appreciate your courtesy and understanding.
> BTW. I *do* have a reaction to your comments about Scrooge's sister,
> but not at this moment. I don't have time now, because I have to go.
> Maybe at the end of the day?
Ok, and many thanks!
Regards,
Melanie
MASSENGALE MELANIE O
Hortense & Matilda
Message 75 -
1995-12-06 at 14:08:39
>
> Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 17:21:32
> From: Daniel van Eijmeren <(Email removed)>
> To: (Email removed)
> Subject: Web-magazine / Scrooge's sisters
> Message-Id: <(Email removed)>
>
> MELANIE (& HARRY):
>
> What idea do you have with a re-appearance of Hortense and Matilda? I
> mean, in the 1954-universe (which Don uses) they must be very old ladies
> at that time. And I think it would be a problem if you'd like to see
> them as the young women as mainly shown in the Lo$-series, because
> then Scrooge also has to be younger (and Donald can't appear in those
> stories, except as child).
My response to this has two parts:
1) They would be of the same generation as Scrooge, and you could build
stories around what we know of their past. Why should there be any
difference between stories depicting "old ladies" and those chron-
icling "old men"? Both are valid. It would enhance the Scrooge
"universe" to flesh it out through the relatives, IMHO.
2) A second possibility is to diverge from continuity in the manner which
DC and Marvel Comics Groups have done. Write stories based on past
experiences or mythology which don't necessarily fit the $-canon.
> If Hortense would appear in the 1954-universum, there would be a big
> problem with Donald, because she's his mother. It's rather traditional
> in the Disney-universum that there are no parents. (Sounds rather
> morbid, but I like it that way.)
Donald isn't always involved in the $ stories, and need not be in these,
either. I still don't understand why "old ladies" can't have a valid and
interesting history, too. So what if Hortense is Donald's mother? I don't
understand this kind of rigid thinking. Let's do something different.
> (I think it's also rather traditional that Scrooge lives without any
> family in 1954, except Donald, Gladstone and the nephews.)
I don't see a problem there, either. They can have their own homes and lives;
$ can guest-star occasionally.
> Another problem (IMHO) in the 1954-universum would be that, with
> Hortense and Matilda in it, there would be *three* grandma Duck
> characters!
Why? You're strongly implying that all older female characters are
exactly the same personality--isn't that rather a stereotype?
> Showing Hortsense and Matilda as they're mainly known in the Lo$-series
> (young women), would mean that there would appear new Scrooge-in-his-
> youth stories. To be frankly, I'm quite fed up with those. (Although
> I'm, of course, a big "Lo$-fan"!!)
Maybe everyone doesn't share your views about a younger $--I don't.
Frankly, I feel that Don Rosa has given the younger $ stories a lot more
vitality than they've had in a long time, precisely because he hasn't
followed the same formulas over and over. "Lo$ is exciting in part
because of the expanded cast--people Barks referenced but never used. I
like Rosa's tales largely because of the careful development of characters.
> So, *my* conclusion (though I'm only a reader, not a writer) is that
> it's not possible to show Hortense and Matilda as regular characters
> again. (But this doesn't mean I'm "against women" in Disney comics!)
Nothing is "not possible" if you use your imagination (Rosa obviously has).
Your stereotyped ideas about female characters, though, seem to undermine
the sincerity of your last statement here.
Regards,
Melanie
> Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 17:21:32
> From: Daniel van Eijmeren <(Email removed)>
> To: (Email removed)
> Subject: Web-magazine / Scrooge's sisters
> Message-Id: <(Email removed)>
>
> MELANIE (& HARRY):
>
> What idea do you have with a re-appearance of Hortense and Matilda? I
> mean, in the 1954-universe (which Don uses) they must be very old ladies
> at that time. And I think it would be a problem if you'd like to see
> them as the young women as mainly shown in the Lo$-series, because
> then Scrooge also has to be younger (and Donald can't appear in those
> stories, except as child).
My response to this has two parts:
1) They would be of the same generation as Scrooge, and you could build
stories around what we know of their past. Why should there be any
difference between stories depicting "old ladies" and those chron-
icling "old men"? Both are valid. It would enhance the Scrooge
"universe" to flesh it out through the relatives, IMHO.
2) A second possibility is to diverge from continuity in the manner which
DC and Marvel Comics Groups have done. Write stories based on past
experiences or mythology which don't necessarily fit the $-canon.
> If Hortense would appear in the 1954-universum, there would be a big
> problem with Donald, because she's his mother. It's rather traditional
> in the Disney-universum that there are no parents. (Sounds rather
> morbid, but I like it that way.)
Donald isn't always involved in the $ stories, and need not be in these,
either. I still don't understand why "old ladies" can't have a valid and
interesting history, too. So what if Hortense is Donald's mother? I don't
understand this kind of rigid thinking. Let's do something different.
> (I think it's also rather traditional that Scrooge lives without any
> family in 1954, except Donald, Gladstone and the nephews.)
I don't see a problem there, either. They can have their own homes and lives;
$ can guest-star occasionally.
> Another problem (IMHO) in the 1954-universum would be that, with
> Hortense and Matilda in it, there would be *three* grandma Duck
> characters!
Why? You're strongly implying that all older female characters are
exactly the same personality--isn't that rather a stereotype?
> Showing Hortsense and Matilda as they're mainly known in the Lo$-series
> (young women), would mean that there would appear new Scrooge-in-his-
> youth stories. To be frankly, I'm quite fed up with those. (Although
> I'm, of course, a big "Lo$-fan"!!)
Maybe everyone doesn't share your views about a younger $--I don't.
Frankly, I feel that Don Rosa has given the younger $ stories a lot more
vitality than they've had in a long time, precisely because he hasn't
followed the same formulas over and over. "Lo$ is exciting in part
because of the expanded cast--people Barks referenced but never used. I
like Rosa's tales largely because of the careful development of characters.
> So, *my* conclusion (though I'm only a reader, not a writer) is that
> it's not possible to show Hortense and Matilda as regular characters
> again. (But this doesn't mean I'm "against women" in Disney comics!)
Nothing is "not possible" if you use your imagination (Rosa obviously has).
Your stereotyped ideas about female characters, though, seem to undermine
the sincerity of your last statement here.
Regards,
Melanie