Keskustelujen arkisto

JONATHAN MARKOFF, 19 DECEMBER 1997:

> I have also read many of the Dutch DONALD DUCK WEEKBLAD, and I'm not as
> impressed as others are. The magazine starts with a 10-12 page Duck
> story, sometimes Dutch, other times Egmont or Western, and only
> occasionally worth quacking about. Unfortuneatly, the rest of the
> magazine is for age 5, with only short stories, such as Little Bad Wolf,
> Little Hiawatha, or Chip and Dale.

Enough! I know I myself have criticized the Dutch weekly quite negatively
some years ago (although I don't know if that was in private mail or on
the list), but recently I'm enjoying it a lot and I think you really push
it too far.

What I like about the Dutch weekly is that it brings *entertainment*, the
main focus lies on having escapist stories, although this doesn't mean the
stories have no depth (at least not nescessarily). The stories have a
beginning, an *end*, a nice or not-so-nice plot and that's it. Up to the
next story where everything is forgotten and where another artist can tell
his story without being afraid violating a theory by a previous artist
(although there are of course limits).

In the past (although Floyd Gottfredson seems to be an exception), Disney
comics were mainly for children, although some artists (like Barks) made a
point of making it worth reading for adults. Now the adults have run away
with the kid's comics, re-arranging everything that they regard as much
too inferior for their intellect. Sheesh, this really makes me think of the
fat man at the end of Barks' "Toyland" story!

BTW. The Dutch weekly *sells* like hot buns and is popular under both kids
and adults. I know sales are not nescessarily a measure for what's good and
what's not, but given the enthousiasm of the Dutch readers they're hitting
the right note with their formula.

BTW2. I also think you're missing quite a lot of Dutch puns. Remember that
you were translating a Dutch story in which you were so creative in
'Americanizing' it, that you missed it's original plot and it's style?
Please learn a language first before you criticize the product. Okay?

Greetings,

--- Daniel (not a five-year old and he wants you to know that, although
sometimes I wish I was but that's another story)

Isn't Geoffrey Blum at least a *bit* right if he says Rosa-fans are easily
insulted (as has been said here), given the recent negative comments on
his (Blum's) articles? Okay, he seems to have made errors in the hardcover-
book, but... now it comes: It was *okayed* and *published* by Gladstone.
They should know enough on Rosa to correct at least some goofs or reject
the article.

My opinion on Geoffrey Blum is that I get the idea he comes up with
theories too soon or without much facts as fundament. This isn't limited
to Rosa, when I read his articles in the CBL it's sometimes difficult to
see what's a fact and what's a theory. Besides that, I think he has made
some good articles which learnt me quite a lot on Barks and his work.

Greetings,

--- Daniel

FRANCOIS WILLOT, 19-08-1997:

> The French "Picsou Magazine" will include unpublished drawings and
> illustrations by Don Rosa in each Picsou issue beginning with october or
> november 1997.

Can someone make scans of these? Will they be on the DUCKhunt-pages?

> miscellaneous Barks stories such as "Donald's atom Bomb" will also be
> published

Please let me know if it's the original.

> Pascal would want to publish the first original version of "Darkest
> Africa" (not the Jippes version) with the Barks' niggers mouths, but he
> do not have all the films for that at the moment.

Keep us (or at least me ;-) ) informed on this.

Greetings,

--- Daniel

List memberships at the turn of the year. (Actually they are from
today, January 2.)

The last overview like this is from a year ago (see digest
volume97/4!). Some of the numbers from back then are mentioned here
inside [brackets].

I've listed all the subscribers to the Disney comics mailing list,
both non-digest and digest subscribers. When there are identical
addresses subscribing to both forms of the list, one of them has been
excluded from the statistics.

I've listed all top domains, and subdomains with more than one address.

Note that the information comes only from the domains of the
addresses; people might be located somewhere else in the real world.

Note also that there is at least one "exploder address" on the list,
where mail is forwarded so other people can read it as well, so there
may be other readers than those here accounted for.

* Non-geographic
136 COM [100] = Commercial (AOL 32 [24], Hotmail 17 [4],
Compuserve 10 [6], Telia 7 [3], Netcom 4 [9],
Juno 2 [3], Primenet 2 [2], Execpc 2,
Geocities 2, Mailexcite 2, Xerox 2, Br 2,
Yahoo 2)
49 NET [33] = Network (USA 7, Worldnet.ATT 6 [5], PI 4 [4], IBM 2)
35 EDU [31] = Education (Wednet 2 [2])
4 ORG [4] = Organization
-------
224 [168] Non-geographic, total (increment with 33%)

* Europe
44 FI [29] = Finland (HUT 6 [5], JYU 4 [3], Helsinki 4 [2],
SCI 3, ABO 2, OULO 2, Trantex 2, TUT 2)
40 NO [31] = Norway (Online 7 [2], UIO 6 [6], NTNU 6, SN 3 [3],
UNIT 2 [3])
32 DE [18] = Germany (T-Online 5 [2], Ehapa 3, Metronet 2,
Uni-Dortmund 2)
24 SE [21] = Sweden (UU 4 [4], Swipnet 3 [3], Algonet 2 [2], KTH 2)
24 IT [16] = Italy (IOL 2, Agora.STM 2, TIN 2, Unipi 2 [2])
14 DK [12] = Denmark (PIP.DKNet 4 [4], Tele 3 [2])
8 NL [3] = Netherlands
5 GR [3] = Greece
5 FR [1] = France (Club-Internet 2)
4 UK [3] = UK (CO 3)
4 ES [0] = Spain
2 AT [2] = Austria (AC 2)
2 IS [2] = Iceland
2 LU [1] = Luxembourg
1 CH [2] = Switzerland
1 HR [1] = Croatia
1 BE [1] = Belgium
1 SU [0] = former Soviet Union (actually Russia)
1 LV [0] = Latvia
------
215 [146] Europe, total (increment with 47%)

* North America
10 US [18] = USA (Milwaukee.TEC.WI 2 [2])
1 GOV [2] = USA, Government
1 MIL [1] = USA, Military

6 CA [6] = Canada (AB 2)
-------
18 [27] North America, total (decrement with 33%)

But note that a majority of the non-geographic addresses above really
are located in the USA!

* South and Central America
8 BR [7] = Brazil (Com 6 [5], Unisys.Com 2)
3 VE [3] = Venezuela (UNE.EDU 3 [3])
2 AR [3] = Argentina (COM 2)
1 PE [1] = Peru
1 MX [1] = Mexico
1 CL [0] = Chile
------
16 [15] South and Central America, total

* Asia
3 JP [3] = Japan (AC 2)
2 IN [1] = India
2 CN [0] = China
2 ID [0] = Indonesia (CO 2)
1 HK [1] = Hong Kong
1 IR [0] = Iran
1 KR [0] = South Korea
1 PK [0] = Pakistan
0 SG [4] = Singapore
------
13 [9] Asia, total

* The rest
10 AU [7] = Australia (COM 5 [3], Net 2)
2 NZ [0] = New Zealand (CO 2)
2 ZA [1] = South Africa
------
14 [8] The rest of the world

---------------------------------------------------
500 [373] Grand total (increment with 34%)
(462 [345] get the digest, 40 [32] get the individual messages)

Recently I wrote as an answer to a question in USA 51:

> 81-38a D 3687 10 VR DD Als popzanger [origpg:11]
> | nl : DA.13*
>
> BTW. Strange that the database mentions no German reprint. Are there more
> stories like this one?

I made a mistake by looking only in the Dutch section where no 'foreign'
publications are mentioned. This is what a code-search on the Disney
comics site says:

] Search for a story by code
]
] Donald Duck: "Ein Star wird geboren"
]
] D 3687, Donald Duck: "Ein Star wird geboren" (?strange title?)
] (11 pages).
]
] Story code D 3687
] Written by ?
] Art by Victor A. Rios (Vicar)
]
] Publications
]
] Germany 79-07
] Denmark AA79-07
] France JM 1746*,MP 28*
] Netherlands 81-38*,DA.13*
] Sweden 79-06
]
] [Add a summary]
] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
] This is part of the Disney comics database.
] Corrections should be sent to (Email removed)

Sorry for the inconvience.

Greetings,

--- Daniel

AUGIE DE BLIECK to me:

me> About "Donald Duck Tells About Kites" again: Still you [Gary Leach]
me> haven't answered the question if there will be a fascimile reprint of
me> the story in a WDC&S, even though some e-mails to this list point out
me> there are people longing for that. Hopefully you will give the answer
me> now?

ADB> WDC&S is not a reprint service. While they don't wish to ignore their
ADB> readers, I'm sure, it is not their job to take requests and print
ADB> them, assuming they are available and in such a shape as to merit a
ADB> printing which wouldn't bring further embarassment to Gladstone. The
ADB> contents of WDC&s at this point are probably pretty well set for the
ADB> next 6 months, with enough material already in hand to print the next
ADB> twelve issues, given the recent implosion. And as much as we all
ADB> might want to change content or format of the Gladstone titles,
ADB> Gladstone does have a certain direction they feel they need to go
ADB> in. If the Kite story doesn't fit that editorial profile, they don't
ADB> have to print it. Gary does not always answer every point in every
ADB> post, nor every one directed at him. Give him a chance, eh?

I think you have a very wrong image of me and of what I tried to say with
my e-mail. Gary *has* answered a question on "Donald Duck Tells About
Kites" (and I always like these "making of"-stories, even though I might
disagree with the result), but I got the idea that he forgot to say if the
request will get a serious consideration at the Gladstone office. That's
all.

You make me sound (or maybe my English is wrong) as if I think Gary is
ignorant and that I expect him to print the story right away in the *very
next* issue. Even though my plane might not reach higher than five years
old, I'm not *that* silly.

Since Gladstone recently prints fascimile material in WDC&S, I thought it
might be a nice idea to give the Kite-story a fascimile reprint. It was an
*idea* (and I hope a good one), *not* a demand!

Maybe my e-mail to Gary sounded too harsh? I really don't know. Having
English as a second language, makes it difficult to draw a line between
angerness and being fanatic. I realize that some of my mails which are
meant fanatic, sound very angry. My honest excuses for that, it is really
not meant that way!

Greetings,

--- Daniel (wondering if that last "!" makes the phrase sound angry,
which is not the case)

Daniel writes:
> Maybe my e-mail to Gary sounded too harsh? I really don't know.
> Having English as a second language, makes it difficult to draw a line
> between angerness and being fanatic. I realize that some of my mails
> which are meant fanatic, sound very angry. My honest excuses for that,
> it is really not meant that way!
>
>
> Greetings,
>
> --- Daniel (wondering if that last "!" makes the phrase sound angry,
> which is not the case)

Don't worry about it. When I was a youngster learning to read, one of
the first things I noted about the "real" books they gave us in school
is that the sentences ended in periods, instead of the exclaimation
points that ended every sentence in the Duck comics that I had been
reading at home! How strange that looked! So don't worry about
sounding overly enthusiastic - you're just holding up a long-standing
tradition. The Disney comic books of course initially emerged from
the shop which produced the animated cartoons, and in a cartoon, the
action and speech are - er, "animated". Everything's exaggerated,
including the depths of emotion (especially hostility, particularly
in Donald's case). That carries over into the comics (even though
the use of "!" to end sentences is probably more nearly due to the
ease of seeing that symbol instead of the much smaller "."). So when
the characters in Barks' stories spoke, they did so enthusiastically!
We would expect no less a display of enthusiasm, then, from someone
who is demanding that one of those stories be published in its
original form!

Wilmer Rivers(!)