DANIEL:
>As I've said before, I like the "Life of Scrooge" series, but only as a
>one-time project showing what could have been *if*. And in this way it's
>IMO a masterpiece. However, as it appears now it certainly isn't a one-
>time project and I'm getting pretty tired of the new additional chapters.
>Am I really (almost?) the only one?
Boy, *I* for one, am VERY glad that the Lo$ is NOT a one-time project!
Getting tired? Why? Is Don dealing with the SAME periods in Scrooge's life?
Is he repeating himself? Is he being redundant? I don't think so. Hence, I'm
not sure I understand the meaning of "tired".
>Unfortunately, it's not only the additional chapters, the recent tribute
>stories with all their 'revelations' on how-this-became-that are also
>very tiring to me.
Again, it must be something else that you want to say, rather than "tiring".
And while you say that you just want to criticize Don's work, you dance
around the issue and you're just an inch short from saying what is so
transparent from your "ramplings": you seem to *resent* Don's work and what
he's doing with the Ducks...
>Yes, I know that people will say that I'm free to skip these stories and
>if it continues I certainly will, but what really bothers me is that it
>heavily leans on Barks' work, pretending it's some kind of addition (while
>it's in fact just changing the whole thing). However, a quick look will
>show that Don's Ducks have become very different of Barks' Ducks and it
>only seems to get worser.
There, slowly, but steadily you get closer and closer at expressing that
resentment. I've seen that attitude before. It's an attitude shared by a
number of "Barks purists".
At times, however, you seem to contradict yourself: you "accuse" Rosa of
"heavily leaning on Barks' work", while at the same time you accost him for
making the Ducks "different". Different, I presume, when compared to the
Barksian canon? Or maybe, you're afraid that Rosa is creating (unknowingly
so, I'm sure) a new canon? Gosh, this sounds really threatening! But to WHOM?
>Don's Ducks are really no Barks-ducks at all and not even Disney-Ducks
>(I mean the work of other Disney-writers in general). Scrooge is
>becoming more and more a superhero with crooks running away when they
>see him coming from a distance, Huey, Dewey and Louie are more and
>more becoming irritating bright little kids, while Donald has become a
>very dull person who's always in for the stupid comments - which is nice,
>because then Scrooge comes out better.
So there it is...It's not that Rosa leans heavily on Barks. It's that his
Ducks are really non-Barks! SO WHAT??? Why are you assuming that Duck
creators out there should not forge a "new", refreshing, Duck
characterization? I, for one, don't wish to stay in the past. I DON'T WISH
TO JUST ENSHRINE BARKS' WORK AND WORSHIP HIM IN ETERNITY. Let new people
unleash their creative juices.
>I think the IMO out-of-character movement is all because Don doesn't
>really understand the characters and I also don't think he cares. Once
>he even said that if it was up to him there would only be two nephews
>because he has difficulties in placing the third one. Maybe I'm the only
>one, but I've always thought the three nephews were a perfect combination.
Out-of-character? According to whose definition of this character? So, now
Don is an iconoclast? He somehow threatens this pristine Barksian universe
you've been so comfortable with? And you have taken it upon yourself to
chastise Don for "really not understanding the characters"? What do we have
here? A religious or ideological dogma or something? And you are one of its
guardians?
>Why not? Of course this will make him an faithless person, because poor
>Goldie is still waiting for him in/around his old shack.
Sarcasm? Is this your idea of well-intentioned criticism?
>> NB: I like the Rosa stories
>
>Same for me, but somehow I drew the line at "King of Croesus". Scrooge
>melting *the first coin ever* just to see if his theory is true, was
>something I really couldn't believe - not even in a comic-book world.
>I made an exception for "Treasure of the Ten Avatars" though, also
>because this story was entirely a Don Rosa story, not depending on
>Barks at all (or I must have missed something).
I can't imagine what you'd say had you NOT liked Don's stories!
Well, we have a classic case of "duck-schizophrenia" here! :-) You obviously
resent Rosa for doing all these new spins on the Ducks, you stop reading
him, then you start again, etc. etc.
Hey, IT'S ALL ABOUT COMIC BOOK CHARACTERS!!! JUST ENJOY THE DAMNED THINGS!!!
>Ending this rambling, I can say that I know I will regret this letter.
>Not because of my opinion, but because I'm afraid the list won't be as
>nice to me anymore as it was before.
Well, Daniel, you can judge for yourself...
Archontis
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Author
Topic: 199801
(513 messages)
Dr. Archontis Pantsios
On Don Rosa
Message 181 -
1998-01-13 at 18:14:01
Soeren Krarup Olesen
History is unpredictable II
Message 182 -
1998-01-13 at 18:15:52
TARJEI:
You said, that you like "order in the chaos", and anyone
who doesn't can of course just ignore it.
It is however a little difficult to ignore it - at least in the
context of this mailing-list, since almost everyone
refers to "the order" as historical facts, or rather facts
on which new stories should be based.
DAVID G.:
I don't see how Rosa possibly could leave *less* to
the imagination, since the LO$-project apparently is going
to reveil *everything* about Scrooge' past. You said that
the years of Scrooge's travels are still undiscussed, but
then you are already "trapped" in the timeline given by Rosa,
or am I wrong...?
I agree, that some of the S-stories are childish, but you know,
there is something inbetween writing childish and producing
exact history.
DWIGHT (& KATIE):
Okay about Brigitta McBridge - it was just more or less
to provoke an alternative to the very much discussed
Goldie. Brigitta is just one of my favourites, and when she
operates in the areas of Scrooge (business) she uses a
completely different set of means that usually softens or
twists the goldmetal-hearted Scrooge - my thumb up for Brigitta!
DANIEL v E.:
Your rambling (as you call it) came a bit as a surprise to
me. I thought that I was supposed to read pats-on-the-back-
to-Rosa only, on this list. Anyway I still like his stories - in
small amount - so to speak.
ROSA:
History *is* indeed unpredictable in my duck world, and why
is that, because - as Daniel correctly put it - the duck world
consists of comics characters, living in comics surroundings.
If is wasn't like that, I would stop reading.
I like that you refer to my comment on your work in terms
of "certain aspects", because that is precisely what I meant.
It's just that the wave of the maillist feeling goes towards
an unquestionable adaption of your timeline; I wonder which
American would dare to write a different "history" about young
Scrooge, and you see, then we have a severe problem,
don't we?
POUL S. F.:
N=E6, men det tror jeg nok, at jeg orker.
Du har vist ikke helt ret i det der med CB. Der er vist en
FTP-henvisning til hans billeder i een eller anden mail - tror jeg.
MARCO B.:
Of course Italy can't have everything and perhaps only
20 percent or so is really good stuff. By the way, do you
have any info on a Celoni? His art is most awkward and
almost as if his work has been put through some kind of a
...um... psychedelic transformer. I don't particularily like his
art - it is just so, well, different - never seen anything like it!
S=F8ren
You said, that you like "order in the chaos", and anyone
who doesn't can of course just ignore it.
It is however a little difficult to ignore it - at least in the
context of this mailing-list, since almost everyone
refers to "the order" as historical facts, or rather facts
on which new stories should be based.
DAVID G.:
I don't see how Rosa possibly could leave *less* to
the imagination, since the LO$-project apparently is going
to reveil *everything* about Scrooge' past. You said that
the years of Scrooge's travels are still undiscussed, but
then you are already "trapped" in the timeline given by Rosa,
or am I wrong...?
I agree, that some of the S-stories are childish, but you know,
there is something inbetween writing childish and producing
exact history.
DWIGHT (& KATIE):
Okay about Brigitta McBridge - it was just more or less
to provoke an alternative to the very much discussed
Goldie. Brigitta is just one of my favourites, and when she
operates in the areas of Scrooge (business) she uses a
completely different set of means that usually softens or
twists the goldmetal-hearted Scrooge - my thumb up for Brigitta!
DANIEL v E.:
Your rambling (as you call it) came a bit as a surprise to
me. I thought that I was supposed to read pats-on-the-back-
to-Rosa only, on this list. Anyway I still like his stories - in
small amount - so to speak.
ROSA:
History *is* indeed unpredictable in my duck world, and why
is that, because - as Daniel correctly put it - the duck world
consists of comics characters, living in comics surroundings.
If is wasn't like that, I would stop reading.
I like that you refer to my comment on your work in terms
of "certain aspects", because that is precisely what I meant.
It's just that the wave of the maillist feeling goes towards
an unquestionable adaption of your timeline; I wonder which
American would dare to write a different "history" about young
Scrooge, and you see, then we have a severe problem,
don't we?
POUL S. F.:
N=E6, men det tror jeg nok, at jeg orker.
Du har vist ikke helt ret i det der med CB. Der er vist en
FTP-henvisning til hans billeder i een eller anden mail - tror jeg.
MARCO B.:
Of course Italy can't have everything and perhaps only
20 percent or so is really good stuff. By the way, do you
have any info on a Celoni? His art is most awkward and
almost as if his work has been put through some kind of a
...um... psychedelic transformer. I don't particularily like his
art - it is just so, well, different - never seen anything like it!
S=F8ren
Eta Beta
Fethry & Stuff
Message 183 -
1998-01-13 at 18:54:47
On FETHRY DUCK, my 2 cents
RICH
>> A: Where does Fethry Duck live?
LUCA
>...the same couple of autors (Kinney-Hubbard) decides
>to create a (very odd) house in Duckburg for their character. So, he
>lives there from 1964...
PAULO
> In the Brazilian sub-canon, certainly, Duckburg.
As I see it, Fethry actually doesn't live anywhere. In stories I'm
familiar with (mostly Hubbard's), he's always arriving from somewhere
(never determined). He's a Traveller, always on the move to learn some
new weird knowledge, with which he could drive Donald & Tabby crazy. He
may dwell somewhere for a while, but never really stops.
I also doubt he could be English at all... his whole "Weltanschauung" is
much closer to Jack Kerouac than to the Beatles, IMHO, and I believe he
could thrive in the current "New Agey" times...
But the point, here, is that, although "reconstructing" a character's
"real-life" is indeed stimulating and could be a lot of fun :-), in the
long run characters risk to become predictable when "framed", as pointed
out on V98#11 by
SOEREN
>I am fully aware of that the number of Rosa fans is rather
>big on this mailing list. However, it seems that Rosa has sort of
>"defined" the unquestionable truth about what happened
>to Uncle Scrooge in the old days.
>
>As far as I am concerned the early days of Scrooge is,
>and should remain, a complete mystery. Of course Scrooge
>tells stories about his youth, but the stories are not
>necessarily supposed to be consistent.
Now, when somebody like Don Rosa attempts such an epic tale like the Lo$,
I guess nobody could object to it being a true masterpiece, and I'm glad
to oblige, but that's just the way Don likes the story, IMHO.
I, for one, would never believe that Grandma Duck is not Scrooge's
sister, and that Goldie is anything but an old and nearly forgotten
fling, while Scrooge's "true love" is obviously Brigitta ;-). That's the
story I heard first, and liked best, and that's the TRUTH, as far as I'm
concerned (and a lot of other Italian fans, I reckon).
In another comic I read as a child, Superman, often appeared "Imaginary
Tales", or something, where characters played unlikely roles, in a "What
if..." fashion, and I quite appreciated them, so the whole Disney
universe could probably be seen as a series of "Imaginary Tales", where
there's room for nearly anything.
"Different truths" are always welcome, then, unless they are imposed over
the author's will. I already expressed my hard feelings about "diktats"
like *Ludwig Von Drake doesn't exist*, or *Filo Sganga and J.
Frostfeathers Pomp are the same character* in the past, and believe that
an author should be allowed to do whatever he/she pleases with characters
and plots, whithin reasonable "Disneysness", of course.
In fact, although I quite like a few Italian authors, I mostly agree with
another opinion, again on V98#11
DWIGHT DECKER
>The characters lack warmth, and
>the world they live in seems completely divorced from reality.
>They're children's stories in the negative sense of the word.
>There are exceptions, I'm sure (Romano Scarpa, anyone?), but
>I haven't cared for most of the Italian Disney product I've
>read.
There are exceptions indeed, thank goodness, but not that many.
I've probably already bored everyone on this list with my waxing on
Romano Scarpa, so I won't insist on the subject (I'm lying ;-), but
DWIGHT's analysys is perfect for most Italian stories produced in the
'70-'80's.
Actually, I find them too closely related to an Italian "ambience" to be
appreciated anywhere else (which is, probably, exactly like saying they
are "divorced from reality" ;-).
There is something changing, however, and let's hope for a better
future...
Oh, BTW, the last (probably for a while) Scarpa's story is out on the
current "Topolino" #2198, featuring Horace Horsecollar in a solo
performance written by Carlo Panaro... (told you I was lying... ;-)
Cheers
Eta Beta
RICH
>> A: Where does Fethry Duck live?
LUCA
>...the same couple of autors (Kinney-Hubbard) decides
>to create a (very odd) house in Duckburg for their character. So, he
>lives there from 1964...
PAULO
> In the Brazilian sub-canon, certainly, Duckburg.
As I see it, Fethry actually doesn't live anywhere. In stories I'm
familiar with (mostly Hubbard's), he's always arriving from somewhere
(never determined). He's a Traveller, always on the move to learn some
new weird knowledge, with which he could drive Donald & Tabby crazy. He
may dwell somewhere for a while, but never really stops.
I also doubt he could be English at all... his whole "Weltanschauung" is
much closer to Jack Kerouac than to the Beatles, IMHO, and I believe he
could thrive in the current "New Agey" times...
But the point, here, is that, although "reconstructing" a character's
"real-life" is indeed stimulating and could be a lot of fun :-), in the
long run characters risk to become predictable when "framed", as pointed
out on V98#11 by
SOEREN
>I am fully aware of that the number of Rosa fans is rather
>big on this mailing list. However, it seems that Rosa has sort of
>"defined" the unquestionable truth about what happened
>to Uncle Scrooge in the old days.
>
>As far as I am concerned the early days of Scrooge is,
>and should remain, a complete mystery. Of course Scrooge
>tells stories about his youth, but the stories are not
>necessarily supposed to be consistent.
Now, when somebody like Don Rosa attempts such an epic tale like the Lo$,
I guess nobody could object to it being a true masterpiece, and I'm glad
to oblige, but that's just the way Don likes the story, IMHO.
I, for one, would never believe that Grandma Duck is not Scrooge's
sister, and that Goldie is anything but an old and nearly forgotten
fling, while Scrooge's "true love" is obviously Brigitta ;-). That's the
story I heard first, and liked best, and that's the TRUTH, as far as I'm
concerned (and a lot of other Italian fans, I reckon).
In another comic I read as a child, Superman, often appeared "Imaginary
Tales", or something, where characters played unlikely roles, in a "What
if..." fashion, and I quite appreciated them, so the whole Disney
universe could probably be seen as a series of "Imaginary Tales", where
there's room for nearly anything.
"Different truths" are always welcome, then, unless they are imposed over
the author's will. I already expressed my hard feelings about "diktats"
like *Ludwig Von Drake doesn't exist*, or *Filo Sganga and J.
Frostfeathers Pomp are the same character* in the past, and believe that
an author should be allowed to do whatever he/she pleases with characters
and plots, whithin reasonable "Disneysness", of course.
In fact, although I quite like a few Italian authors, I mostly agree with
another opinion, again on V98#11
DWIGHT DECKER
>The characters lack warmth, and
>the world they live in seems completely divorced from reality.
>They're children's stories in the negative sense of the word.
>There are exceptions, I'm sure (Romano Scarpa, anyone?), but
>I haven't cared for most of the Italian Disney product I've
>read.
There are exceptions indeed, thank goodness, but not that many.
I've probably already bored everyone on this list with my waxing on
Romano Scarpa, so I won't insist on the subject (I'm lying ;-), but
DWIGHT's analysys is perfect for most Italian stories produced in the
'70-'80's.
Actually, I find them too closely related to an Italian "ambience" to be
appreciated anywhere else (which is, probably, exactly like saying they
are "divorced from reality" ;-).
There is something changing, however, and let's hope for a better
future...
Oh, BTW, the last (probably for a while) Scarpa's story is out on the
current "Topolino" #2198, featuring Horace Horsecollar in a solo
performance written by Carlo Panaro... (told you I was lying... ;-)
Cheers
Eta Beta
Soeren Krarup Olesen
The Egmont way?
Message 184 -
1998-01-13 at 19:22:47
DAVID G. & MARCO B.:
I made a point about S-stories to David, it was
intented for Marco - sorry about that!
SCANDINAVIANS (& OTHERS):
I just bought the new Jumbobog no. 200 a few days
ago, and it was in a 12$ package together with a black
Jumbobog no. 200 t-shirt. An excellent idea, except that
it should have been put out before christmas.
I haven't scanned the t-shirt :-) but you can find a scan
of the no. 200 at
http://www.kom.auc.dk/~sko/jumbo
and the t-shirt looks pretty much the same except that
it is black.
The book itself has a unique gold-like shining front page
and the stories are quite good as well, with an opening
story of that "wicked" Celoni - who is he anyway?
S=F8ren
I made a point about S-stories to David, it was
intented for Marco - sorry about that!
SCANDINAVIANS (& OTHERS):
I just bought the new Jumbobog no. 200 a few days
ago, and it was in a 12$ package together with a black
Jumbobog no. 200 t-shirt. An excellent idea, except that
it should have been put out before christmas.
I haven't scanned the t-shirt :-) but you can find a scan
of the no. 200 at
http://www.kom.auc.dk/~sko/jumbo
and the t-shirt looks pretty much the same except that
it is black.
The book itself has a unique gold-like shining front page
and the stories are quite good as well, with an opening
story of that "wicked" Celoni - who is he anyway?
S=F8ren
D Decker
Fethry & Stuff
Message 185 -
1998-01-13 at 19:47:07
On Jan 13, 5:54pm, Eta Beta wrote:
> DWIGHT DECKER
> >The characters lack warmth, and
> >the world they live in seems completely divorced from reality.
> >They're children's stories in the negative sense of the word.
> >There are exceptions, I'm sure (Romano Scarpa, anyone?), but
> >I haven't cared for most of the Italian Disney product I've
> >read.
>
> There are exceptions indeed, thank goodness, but not that many.
> I've probably already bored everyone on this list with my waxing on
> Romano Scarpa, so I won't insist on the subject (I'm lying ;-), but
> DWIGHT's analysys is perfect for most Italian stories produced in the
> '70-'80's.
> Actually, I find them too closely related to an Italian "ambience" to be
> appreciated anywhere else (which is, probably, exactly like saying they
> are "divorced from reality" ;-).
> There is something changing, however, and let's hope for a better
> future...
Well, I wanted to be careful how I phrased that, since I didn't want
to defame the Italian nation and make it sound like I thought all
Italian stories were junk. I haven't read all Italian Disney stories
ever produced, so there could be many shining examples of wonderful
stories I just don't know about. I have to admit, though, that I get
a slight sinking feeling when I start a story and I notice that McDuck's
money bin has a dome on it... But I'm speaking in generalities, and
not taking into account individual creators and individual stories that
can stand comparison with the best anywhere.
--Dwight Decker
> DWIGHT DECKER
> >The characters lack warmth, and
> >the world they live in seems completely divorced from reality.
> >They're children's stories in the negative sense of the word.
> >There are exceptions, I'm sure (Romano Scarpa, anyone?), but
> >I haven't cared for most of the Italian Disney product I've
> >read.
>
> There are exceptions indeed, thank goodness, but not that many.
> I've probably already bored everyone on this list with my waxing on
> Romano Scarpa, so I won't insist on the subject (I'm lying ;-), but
> DWIGHT's analysys is perfect for most Italian stories produced in the
> '70-'80's.
> Actually, I find them too closely related to an Italian "ambience" to be
> appreciated anywhere else (which is, probably, exactly like saying they
> are "divorced from reality" ;-).
> There is something changing, however, and let's hope for a better
> future...
Well, I wanted to be careful how I phrased that, since I didn't want
to defame the Italian nation and make it sound like I thought all
Italian stories were junk. I haven't read all Italian Disney stories
ever produced, so there could be many shining examples of wonderful
stories I just don't know about. I have to admit, though, that I get
a slight sinking feeling when I start a story and I notice that McDuck's
money bin has a dome on it... But I'm speaking in generalities, and
not taking into account individual creators and individual stories that
can stand comparison with the best anywhere.
--Dwight Decker
Don Rosa
Disney comics Digest V98 #12
Message 186 -
1998-01-13 at 19:48:01
>From: Daniel van Eijmeren
>> I can appreciate your not liking certain aspects of my vision of the
>> Ducks. It doesn't bother me in the least
>>>>It bothers
>me that you simply put that aside, even though I should know you don't care
>a bit if I say that.
You take my meaning to be that I don't pay attention to criticism. That
wasn't my point at all! I carefully read and consider everything that is
sent or said to me. I often even ask people to stop sending me more
compliments, and start sending me more critiques -- I can never improve if
all I hear is praise. That's common sense. What I was trying to tell Soeren
was really just the opposite -- that his criticism does not offend me, and
he should never hesitate to offer it, as I know some people do... you
yourself admitting to that. So my actual point was the opposite of how you
interpreted it.
>The reason why *I* worry about it is that this might get a new 'standard'
>in the Duckburg universe. People here are now already asking you who the
>father of the nephews is, and other such things
I realize that, and in EVERY interview I give, I point out that people
should NOT regard my work as "the standard official version". If some
readers are choosing to do that of their own will, I can't help that. It's
an honor, but it is NOT my mission. I don't even consider my stories to be
"true"... I see them as fiction based on my favorite real-life character. If
what worries you is that too many people like my work, please argue with
them, please don't hold it against me and make me the villain. I think that,
maybe as I suspect with Blum, it's not that my work bothers you (since it
can't be as bad some other stories that surely have come out in the past 50
years)... you're not upset about those other awful stories... what's
bothering you is an emotional reaction against how popular my work seems to
be. And maybe that popularity puzzles me as much as it does you. But what
can I do about that but tell you I'm sorry?
>Of course, but then I think an artist should leave certain aspects *open*
>for other artists.
I leave the entire universe open to all other artists. I don't even know
what you mean.
>Working for a company with many other creators, I think
>you can't write stories entirely based on your own opinion.
??? How can I do a story based on an "opinion" I don't agree with? Huh?
> This is
>intentionally putting contradiction into it.
Funny... I thought that I was eliminating the contradictions. It seemed to
me that Duck comics since Barks have been nothing but bundles of
contradictions. And that's fine... all I can do is eliminate the
contradictions in my own stories. Again... what you seem to want me to do is
not something I could not conceive of... I guess I just don't "get it".
>(The above might be explained wrong. Of course an artist can write stories
>solely on his own opinion, but what I mean is that in doing this, the
>artist should follow certain guidelines. Apparently I'm wrong, but I always
>thought that keeping the Duckburg universe open and breathing was one of
>them.)
Oh. Sorry -- I see you've clarified on your own. Anyway, I'm still puzzled
as to how you think somebody died and left me in charge of the Duckburg
Universe. I only do MY stories. I have no control, want no control, nor see
any possible reason why anyone else would want me to have control of that
Universe. You're NOT wrong, because what you seem to fear is not happening.
>What do you mean with this? Which two people can you think of making
>unhappy? Names?
Don't worry about it. If you don't know the whole story, believe me, you'll
be MUCH happier in the longrun.
>As long as a lot of fans take your work as gospel, I'm afraid this is not
>that easy. I love the Duck characters as much as you do, if not more, so
>I'm afraid it's not simply a case of looking into another direction.
You already know my reaction to this... I can't help it that some people
like my stories. I know you think they shouldn't. Maybe you're right. What
should I do? Quit?
>Especially when the master himself is a member of this mailing list,
>remaining silent would be agreeing IMO.
Now, MY turn: what "master" are you referring to??? Barks isn't here... and
if you're somehow referring to me, that wouldn't make sense in your context.
>Of course there should be
>more or less a solid background,
Aha! This is something I've heard before and puzzles me. "More or less"? How
much more or how much less? You'll agree that $crooge's Money Bin should
always be square. You might agree it should always be on a hill... some
people think that's too strict. I think it should be square, on a hill, but
maybe it's in a different part of town when I need it to be. (Frequently
publishers ask me to design a map of Duckburg, and I always refuse because
*I* see that as too strict.) So, you're simply arguing degrees. I go too far
for you. Other people surely don't go far enough. You must take the bad with
the good, I'm afraid. I don't know what else to say.
> but if there are no limits to that, the
>Duckburg universe will get as boring as the real world which readers try
>to escape from by reading comics.
Aha again. Another BIG difference between your view and my view. I see
fantasy-worlds as being too easy to manipulate to be so interesting. I see
historical novels (fiction based on actual history) to be ENORMOUSLY more
fascinating than fantasy. I'm not trying to "escape from the real world"...
that sounds kinda sad. I only seek intelligent entertainment when I read
comics or watch movies.
>> That would make them seem insignificant. Phony. Empty.
>Is this your personal view on the pre-1987 pre-Rosa Ducks?
I'll only say I've never had any interest in any Ducks other than Barks'
because to me only his seemed based on real personalities in an authentic
world. Say that I misinterpreted it completely, I won't argue with you...
but that won't change the fact that that's why I liked what I liked.
>> The true value is in the efforts and adventures I put into assembling
>> that collection as a single unit. It has no value if again liquidated.
>> This is how I know $crooge views his Money Bin.
>
>You *know*?
!!! Of course I "know". I know what's in my own mind. I keep telling you
that these are only MY visions, but grant me that I KNOW what my visions
are.
>Remain intact? On the bottom of the ocean? For years and years Scrooge
>even went to outer space to make sure his money is safe, but as soon as
>he dies he has it dumped into the ocean? What a anti-climax!
Don't take that idea as an actual storyline, for pete's sake. I was just
trying to describe how I don't think $crooge would give his money to someone
who had not earned it. Relax. This was all a hypothetical discussion -- you
take everything far too literally.
>As I've said in a recent private letter, I enjoy your stories for the
>great humour they contain. Now I only will look at your stories panel-
>by-panel, trying to ignore the overall story. If I want to read a Rosa-
>story which I can fully agree with, I'm afraid I'll have to stick to
>your "Pertwillaby Papers" and "Captain Kentucky" stories (which are
>great works IMO).
Okay. Fair enough.
(I can give you a list of what I think my top 10 favorite movies or comic
stories are... and I can safely say that I don't "fully agree" with ANY of
them. I would personally do bits of all of them differently... but sometimes
stuff is "as good as it gets" and that suits the heck outta me.)
--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V98 Issue #13
*****************************************
>> I can appreciate your not liking certain aspects of my vision of the
>> Ducks. It doesn't bother me in the least
>>>>It bothers
>me that you simply put that aside, even though I should know you don't care
>a bit if I say that.
You take my meaning to be that I don't pay attention to criticism. That
wasn't my point at all! I carefully read and consider everything that is
sent or said to me. I often even ask people to stop sending me more
compliments, and start sending me more critiques -- I can never improve if
all I hear is praise. That's common sense. What I was trying to tell Soeren
was really just the opposite -- that his criticism does not offend me, and
he should never hesitate to offer it, as I know some people do... you
yourself admitting to that. So my actual point was the opposite of how you
interpreted it.
>The reason why *I* worry about it is that this might get a new 'standard'
>in the Duckburg universe. People here are now already asking you who the
>father of the nephews is, and other such things
I realize that, and in EVERY interview I give, I point out that people
should NOT regard my work as "the standard official version". If some
readers are choosing to do that of their own will, I can't help that. It's
an honor, but it is NOT my mission. I don't even consider my stories to be
"true"... I see them as fiction based on my favorite real-life character. If
what worries you is that too many people like my work, please argue with
them, please don't hold it against me and make me the villain. I think that,
maybe as I suspect with Blum, it's not that my work bothers you (since it
can't be as bad some other stories that surely have come out in the past 50
years)... you're not upset about those other awful stories... what's
bothering you is an emotional reaction against how popular my work seems to
be. And maybe that popularity puzzles me as much as it does you. But what
can I do about that but tell you I'm sorry?
>Of course, but then I think an artist should leave certain aspects *open*
>for other artists.
I leave the entire universe open to all other artists. I don't even know
what you mean.
>Working for a company with many other creators, I think
>you can't write stories entirely based on your own opinion.
??? How can I do a story based on an "opinion" I don't agree with? Huh?
> This is
>intentionally putting contradiction into it.
Funny... I thought that I was eliminating the contradictions. It seemed to
me that Duck comics since Barks have been nothing but bundles of
contradictions. And that's fine... all I can do is eliminate the
contradictions in my own stories. Again... what you seem to want me to do is
not something I could not conceive of... I guess I just don't "get it".
>(The above might be explained wrong. Of course an artist can write stories
>solely on his own opinion, but what I mean is that in doing this, the
>artist should follow certain guidelines. Apparently I'm wrong, but I always
>thought that keeping the Duckburg universe open and breathing was one of
>them.)
Oh. Sorry -- I see you've clarified on your own. Anyway, I'm still puzzled
as to how you think somebody died and left me in charge of the Duckburg
Universe. I only do MY stories. I have no control, want no control, nor see
any possible reason why anyone else would want me to have control of that
Universe. You're NOT wrong, because what you seem to fear is not happening.
>What do you mean with this? Which two people can you think of making
>unhappy? Names?
Don't worry about it. If you don't know the whole story, believe me, you'll
be MUCH happier in the longrun.
>As long as a lot of fans take your work as gospel, I'm afraid this is not
>that easy. I love the Duck characters as much as you do, if not more, so
>I'm afraid it's not simply a case of looking into another direction.
You already know my reaction to this... I can't help it that some people
like my stories. I know you think they shouldn't. Maybe you're right. What
should I do? Quit?
>Especially when the master himself is a member of this mailing list,
>remaining silent would be agreeing IMO.
Now, MY turn: what "master" are you referring to??? Barks isn't here... and
if you're somehow referring to me, that wouldn't make sense in your context.
>Of course there should be
>more or less a solid background,
Aha! This is something I've heard before and puzzles me. "More or less"? How
much more or how much less? You'll agree that $crooge's Money Bin should
always be square. You might agree it should always be on a hill... some
people think that's too strict. I think it should be square, on a hill, but
maybe it's in a different part of town when I need it to be. (Frequently
publishers ask me to design a map of Duckburg, and I always refuse because
*I* see that as too strict.) So, you're simply arguing degrees. I go too far
for you. Other people surely don't go far enough. You must take the bad with
the good, I'm afraid. I don't know what else to say.
> but if there are no limits to that, the
>Duckburg universe will get as boring as the real world which readers try
>to escape from by reading comics.
Aha again. Another BIG difference between your view and my view. I see
fantasy-worlds as being too easy to manipulate to be so interesting. I see
historical novels (fiction based on actual history) to be ENORMOUSLY more
fascinating than fantasy. I'm not trying to "escape from the real world"...
that sounds kinda sad. I only seek intelligent entertainment when I read
comics or watch movies.
>> That would make them seem insignificant. Phony. Empty.
>Is this your personal view on the pre-1987 pre-Rosa Ducks?
I'll only say I've never had any interest in any Ducks other than Barks'
because to me only his seemed based on real personalities in an authentic
world. Say that I misinterpreted it completely, I won't argue with you...
but that won't change the fact that that's why I liked what I liked.
>> The true value is in the efforts and adventures I put into assembling
>> that collection as a single unit. It has no value if again liquidated.
>> This is how I know $crooge views his Money Bin.
>
>You *know*?
!!! Of course I "know". I know what's in my own mind. I keep telling you
that these are only MY visions, but grant me that I KNOW what my visions
are.
>Remain intact? On the bottom of the ocean? For years and years Scrooge
>even went to outer space to make sure his money is safe, but as soon as
>he dies he has it dumped into the ocean? What a anti-climax!
Don't take that idea as an actual storyline, for pete's sake. I was just
trying to describe how I don't think $crooge would give his money to someone
who had not earned it. Relax. This was all a hypothetical discussion -- you
take everything far too literally.
>As I've said in a recent private letter, I enjoy your stories for the
>great humour they contain. Now I only will look at your stories panel-
>by-panel, trying to ignore the overall story. If I want to read a Rosa-
>story which I can fully agree with, I'm afraid I'll have to stick to
>your "Pertwillaby Papers" and "Captain Kentucky" stories (which are
>great works IMO).
Okay. Fair enough.
(I can give you a list of what I think my top 10 favorite movies or comic
stories are... and I can safely say that I don't "fully agree" with ANY of
them. I would personally do bits of all of them differently... but sometimes
stuff is "as good as it gets" and that suits the heck outta me.)
--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V98 Issue #13
*****************************************
Jgarvin
History (vs. herstory vs. theirstory)
Message 187 -
1998-01-13 at 19:52:24
Don:
> "History is unpredictable"? This is meant
as irony or what? History is set... I am an amatuer historian, I worship
history, perhaps that's one reason I choose to give the characters I
work on
a definite history. I don't enjoy the idea of writing stories of
characters
who have no solid background. That would make them seem insignificant.
Phony. Empty. History is SET... <
I have to disagree. Histroy is not set at all. History is really
nothing more than our contemporary "story" of what happened in the past,
a story constructed from such fallable sources as subjective first
person accounts, inaccurate reportings, biased re-tellings, or bad
memory (don't forget to take that medicine!). It's really instructive
to look at how much history text-books have changed in the last twenty
years: only a short time ago, Columbus was recorded as "rescuing" Native
Americans from ignorance, The Spaniards "discovered" the americas, and
women and people of color (evidently) contributed _nothing_ to our
civilization.
I find the whole idea of Scrooge's history especially facinating because
I do think that Barks was playing with it. In many ways, Scrooge is
obviously modeled after the robber barons of the early 20th century.
While Scrooge may have got his stake in the Alaskan gold rushes, Barks
made many references to Scrooge's vast holdings (oil, mines, farms,
factories, etc.). On the one hand, I think Barks did this for practical
reasons: holdings all over the world meant that Scrooge and the boys
could get shipped all over the globe on adventures; on the other hand,
it showed that Scrooge was very much a product of Barks' generation,
where no one questioned the efficacy of using capitol to exploit the
resources of undeveloped nations. Barks had to have thought about this
to some extent as he was toiling away in lumber yards, rail yards, and
ranches that others owned and which could not have existed without his
(and others) labor.
Scrooge's claims that "he earned every dollar and he earned it square"
refered to the fact that he didn't steal it in the Beagle Boy sense.
But I always got the impression that Scrooge told all those stories
about how he earned all that money as just that: _stories_ fashioned
for the benefit of his nephews. Scrooge wanted to be thought of as a
roughie and toughie who could squeeze gold from the rock with his bare
hands, not as some industrialist who sat around and counted money that
poured in from places far removed from his own efforts. Scrooge, and
Barks, were telling stories, not writing history.
While I know that Barks never meant for anyone to take Scrooge's stories
as literal history, I personally like the extra richness that those
associations add to his stories. It will be fun to see what happens in
twenty years when some new artist tackles the job of telling his own
stories while incorporating both Rosa's and Barks' continuities.
John
> "History is unpredictable"? This is meant
as irony or what? History is set... I am an amatuer historian, I worship
history, perhaps that's one reason I choose to give the characters I
work on
a definite history. I don't enjoy the idea of writing stories of
characters
who have no solid background. That would make them seem insignificant.
Phony. Empty. History is SET... <
I have to disagree. Histroy is not set at all. History is really
nothing more than our contemporary "story" of what happened in the past,
a story constructed from such fallable sources as subjective first
person accounts, inaccurate reportings, biased re-tellings, or bad
memory (don't forget to take that medicine!). It's really instructive
to look at how much history text-books have changed in the last twenty
years: only a short time ago, Columbus was recorded as "rescuing" Native
Americans from ignorance, The Spaniards "discovered" the americas, and
women and people of color (evidently) contributed _nothing_ to our
civilization.
I find the whole idea of Scrooge's history especially facinating because
I do think that Barks was playing with it. In many ways, Scrooge is
obviously modeled after the robber barons of the early 20th century.
While Scrooge may have got his stake in the Alaskan gold rushes, Barks
made many references to Scrooge's vast holdings (oil, mines, farms,
factories, etc.). On the one hand, I think Barks did this for practical
reasons: holdings all over the world meant that Scrooge and the boys
could get shipped all over the globe on adventures; on the other hand,
it showed that Scrooge was very much a product of Barks' generation,
where no one questioned the efficacy of using capitol to exploit the
resources of undeveloped nations. Barks had to have thought about this
to some extent as he was toiling away in lumber yards, rail yards, and
ranches that others owned and which could not have existed without his
(and others) labor.
Scrooge's claims that "he earned every dollar and he earned it square"
refered to the fact that he didn't steal it in the Beagle Boy sense.
But I always got the impression that Scrooge told all those stories
about how he earned all that money as just that: _stories_ fashioned
for the benefit of his nephews. Scrooge wanted to be thought of as a
roughie and toughie who could squeeze gold from the rock with his bare
hands, not as some industrialist who sat around and counted money that
poured in from places far removed from his own efforts. Scrooge, and
Barks, were telling stories, not writing history.
While I know that Barks never meant for anyone to take Scrooge's stories
as literal history, I personally like the extra richness that those
associations add to his stories. It will be fun to see what happens in
twenty years when some new artist tackles the job of telling his own
stories while incorporating both Rosa's and Barks' continuities.
John
Soeren Krarup Olesen
On Don Rosa
Message 188 -
1998-01-13 at 19:58:56
Dr. Archontis Pantsios wrote:
> >Why not? Of course this will make him an faithless person, because
> poor
> >Goldie is still waiting for him in/around his old shack.
>
> Sarcasm? Is this your idea of well-intentioned criticism?
Well, sometimes sarcasm helps a bit in understanding,what is going on. =
I
don't think many journalists would
survive without it... But you seem quite upset, Archontis, is
the exact history that sacred to you?
> I can't imagine what you'd say had you NOT liked Don's stories!
...speaking of sarcasm...
> Well, we have a classic case of "duck-schizophrenia" here! :-)
Nope! The act of critisising some aspects of Rasa's workdoes not lead t=
o
any known case of schizophrenia as far
as I know.
> Hey, IT'S ALL ABOUT COMIC BOOK CHARACTERS!!! JUST ENJOY THE DAMNED
> THINGS!!!
Don't agree! If we all just lean back and eat everythingenjoyfully, why
have a mailing list then?
ETA BETA:
LO$ is a masterpiece! Noone has claimed otherwise!
Too bad about Ludwig and Filo - favourites in my home
as well!
S=F8ren
> >Why not? Of course this will make him an faithless person, because
> poor
> >Goldie is still waiting for him in/around his old shack.
>
> Sarcasm? Is this your idea of well-intentioned criticism?
Well, sometimes sarcasm helps a bit in understanding,what is going on. =
I
don't think many journalists would
survive without it... But you seem quite upset, Archontis, is
the exact history that sacred to you?
> I can't imagine what you'd say had you NOT liked Don's stories!
...speaking of sarcasm...
> Well, we have a classic case of "duck-schizophrenia" here! :-)
Nope! The act of critisising some aspects of Rasa's workdoes not lead t=
o
any known case of schizophrenia as far
as I know.
> Hey, IT'S ALL ABOUT COMIC BOOK CHARACTERS!!! JUST ENJOY THE DAMNED
> THINGS!!!
Don't agree! If we all just lean back and eat everythingenjoyfully, why
have a mailing list then?
ETA BETA:
LO$ is a masterpiece! Noone has claimed otherwise!
Too bad about Ludwig and Filo - favourites in my home
as well!
S=F8ren
DeanMary
Lo$ hardcover
Message 189 -
1998-01-13 at 20:02:00
Eric, thanks for your response about what you heard from Gladstone.
Unfortunatley I am more concerned than ever as I DID order the edition
without a sketch!:( Maybe someone from Gladstone can clue me into what
is going on.
Dean Rekich
Unfortunatley I am more concerned than ever as I DID order the edition
without a sketch!:( Maybe someone from Gladstone can clue me into what
is going on.
Dean Rekich
Shaun M. Knowler
Disney comics Digest V98 #13
Message 190 -
1998-01-13 at 22:22:43
About the great Rosa debate which just sprung up:
Well, I can resist no longer... I must now place my opinion on the table!
Personally, I don't see the big deal about the way Rosa's stories are so
different from Barks'. I, and I'll likely hear about this, see the Barks
and Rosa universes as THE SAME. Whatever happens to the Barks Ducks,
happens to the Rosa Ducks.
Now, most of you must be saying; "What? He's gotta be out of his tree!
They're so DIFFERENT! OF COURSE the story style is going to be different!
Look at the authors! Carl Barks is about a half-century older than Don
Rosa! They both grew up in radically different ways, expereinced radically
different things, and that's what influences their stories. Now, I don't
see Don as "The Next Carl Barks" in any way, and I can never see how any
artist could be, but Don bases his stories on Barks' stories, and that's
why I view the universes as one and the same.
Now, as I'm aspiring to become a Duck artist myself, I would prefer to do
stories which take place in the same universe. I would base my universe on
facts and stories from both Barks AND Rosa. But I, like Don, would just
view my own stories as "imaginary" adventures based on actual people, so
to speak. Obviously, because I grew up in such a different atmosphere and
experienced such a different life as my two "mentors", my stories will be
considerably different from the styles of the two of them, and most people
will disregard my work in much of the same way they do any other artist
who isn't Carl Barks... Which wouldn't bother me, because telling stories
about the Ducks for a living would be a dream come true, and nothing like
that could make me quit. And I'm sure Don feels the same way as this.
I'll probably have to come back and elaborate,
-Shaun
Fortuna Favet Fortibus
Well, I can resist no longer... I must now place my opinion on the table!
Personally, I don't see the big deal about the way Rosa's stories are so
different from Barks'. I, and I'll likely hear about this, see the Barks
and Rosa universes as THE SAME. Whatever happens to the Barks Ducks,
happens to the Rosa Ducks.
Now, most of you must be saying; "What? He's gotta be out of his tree!
They're so DIFFERENT! OF COURSE the story style is going to be different!
Look at the authors! Carl Barks is about a half-century older than Don
Rosa! They both grew up in radically different ways, expereinced radically
different things, and that's what influences their stories. Now, I don't
see Don as "The Next Carl Barks" in any way, and I can never see how any
artist could be, but Don bases his stories on Barks' stories, and that's
why I view the universes as one and the same.
Now, as I'm aspiring to become a Duck artist myself, I would prefer to do
stories which take place in the same universe. I would base my universe on
facts and stories from both Barks AND Rosa. But I, like Don, would just
view my own stories as "imaginary" adventures based on actual people, so
to speak. Obviously, because I grew up in such a different atmosphere and
experienced such a different life as my two "mentors", my stories will be
considerably different from the styles of the two of them, and most people
will disregard my work in much of the same way they do any other artist
who isn't Carl Barks... Which wouldn't bother me, because telling stories
about the Ducks for a living would be a dream come true, and nothing like
that could make me quit. And I'm sure Don feels the same way as this.
I'll probably have to come back and elaborate,
-Shaun
Fortuna Favet Fortibus
Fluks, H.W.
History is [un]predictable
Message 191 -
1998-01-13 at 22:33:06
Soeren (in Dutch this would mean "to rant", but I'm
sure that's a pure coincidence.. 8-) ) wrote:
> I thought that I was supposed to read pats-on-the-back-
> to-Rosa only, on this list.
I think I have made some critical notes on Rosa's work in
the past. Maybe my criticism was too mild (I used words like
"theft")? Anyway, when I met Don for the first time last year,
he said something like "You're different than I imagined
you. You look so FRIENDLY!"
8-)
--Harry.
><><><><
sure that's a pure coincidence.. 8-) ) wrote:
> I thought that I was supposed to read pats-on-the-back-
> to-Rosa only, on this list.
I think I have made some critical notes on Rosa's work in
the past. Maybe my criticism was too mild (I used words like
"theft")? Anyway, when I met Don for the first time last year,
he said something like "You're different than I imagined
you. You look so FRIENDLY!"
8-)
--Harry.
><><><><
Kriton Kyrimis
Disney comics Digest V98 #11
Message 192 -
1998-01-13 at 22:42:41
PAULO BARRETO:
> I've tried that "what-if" in my text "Blood in Duckburg" (maybe David
> Gerstein remembers about my comments some years ago). U$ secretly
> makes a will leaving all his assets to Goldie. Rockerduck manages to
> destroy the will, thus leaving DD as U$'s sole heir by default. U$
> dies and Rockerduck tries to have DD killed in order to jeopardize the
> Duck family business (H, D, L, Fethry and Gladstone would be left
> fighting for the best share of U$'s fortune) and take over Duckburg in
> association with Flintheart Glomgold... that's a long story. :-)
Now *that's* a story! Too bad that the bit about leaving all his assets
to Goldie (which would imply that there had been something between them)
will make such a story unprintable in the US!
[Speaking of which, the following will get me banned in the US forever.]
DANIEL:
> Besides that, Goldie is no relative
This may not be entirely correct: We know, from "Back to the Klondike",
that Goldie stayed with Scrooge for a month, working at his claim. There
has already been some speculation, especially given Goldie's suspected
"profession", that there was more going on between them than what is shown
in the story. Having her slave at his claim, then throwing her wages in
his face and leaving after a month, hardly justifies the fondness Scrooge
has for Goldie, especially if we take Don's stories into account (bringing
her candy--and a marriage proposal perhaps?--in "Last Sled to Dawson",
and keeping a lock of her hair in Lo$). Could it be that they stayed
together for substantially longer, and got romantically involved? If so,
they might be considered to have been married under "common law", which
is recognized in many states in the US [how about Alaska?] and which
basically states that if a couple live together for a certain amount
of time [how long?], they are considered to be married. If I understand
correctly, this institution was created to allow couples who lived in the
wilderness to enjoy the privileges of mariage [mainly inheritance issues,
I presume] even though they were far from anyone who could perform the
marriage ceremony for them.
As to why Scrooge said that they'd only stayed together for a month, he
could either have forgotten (in half of the story Scrooge was suffering
from severe loss of memory), or he might have done it on purpose, so
that no one might bring up the subject of common law marriage and the
inheritance issues that this would imply.
I can't believe I've come up with all this!!!
--
Kriton (e-mail: (Email removed))
(WWW: http://dias.cti.gr/~kyrimis
-----
"Who is the Doctor?"
"Affirmative!"
-----
> I've tried that "what-if" in my text "Blood in Duckburg" (maybe David
> Gerstein remembers about my comments some years ago). U$ secretly
> makes a will leaving all his assets to Goldie. Rockerduck manages to
> destroy the will, thus leaving DD as U$'s sole heir by default. U$
> dies and Rockerduck tries to have DD killed in order to jeopardize the
> Duck family business (H, D, L, Fethry and Gladstone would be left
> fighting for the best share of U$'s fortune) and take over Duckburg in
> association with Flintheart Glomgold... that's a long story. :-)
Now *that's* a story! Too bad that the bit about leaving all his assets
to Goldie (which would imply that there had been something between them)
will make such a story unprintable in the US!
[Speaking of which, the following will get me banned in the US forever.]
DANIEL:
> Besides that, Goldie is no relative
This may not be entirely correct: We know, from "Back to the Klondike",
that Goldie stayed with Scrooge for a month, working at his claim. There
has already been some speculation, especially given Goldie's suspected
"profession", that there was more going on between them than what is shown
in the story. Having her slave at his claim, then throwing her wages in
his face and leaving after a month, hardly justifies the fondness Scrooge
has for Goldie, especially if we take Don's stories into account (bringing
her candy--and a marriage proposal perhaps?--in "Last Sled to Dawson",
and keeping a lock of her hair in Lo$). Could it be that they stayed
together for substantially longer, and got romantically involved? If so,
they might be considered to have been married under "common law", which
is recognized in many states in the US [how about Alaska?] and which
basically states that if a couple live together for a certain amount
of time [how long?], they are considered to be married. If I understand
correctly, this institution was created to allow couples who lived in the
wilderness to enjoy the privileges of mariage [mainly inheritance issues,
I presume] even though they were far from anyone who could perform the
marriage ceremony for them.
As to why Scrooge said that they'd only stayed together for a month, he
could either have forgotten (in half of the story Scrooge was suffering
from severe loss of memory), or he might have done it on purpose, so
that no one might bring up the subject of common law marriage and the
inheritance issues that this would imply.
I can't believe I've come up with all this!!!
--
Kriton (e-mail: (Email removed))
(WWW: http://dias.cti.gr/~kyrimis
-----
"Who is the Doctor?"
"Affirmative!"
-----
Rich Bellacera
Pomp & Circumstances
Message 193 -
1998-01-13 at 23:03:22
"Pomp" & Circumstances (cleaver, eh?)
DAVID GERSTEIN:
>DWIGHT: Brigitta MacBridge also appeared in a long story in US 242
>(1990), "The Last Balaboo". And there's at least one other story with
>her in the pipeline - "The Secret of Success," a Scarpa story that
>Gladstone had me translate some while ago. Jubal Pomp (Filo Sganga) is
>also in that one.
O.K, time for the big question which appears to be of some concern, not
only to me, but to some others, especially Scarpa fans. Exactly what are
the circumstances surrounding Filo Sganga's (a.k.a. Jubal Cock) apparent
transformation into the usually brown colored "Owl Judge" from earlier
U$ & DD comics? The name change from "Cock" to "Pomp" is quite
understandable, but from what I have heard, the two characters are
nothing alike, both visually and professionally. Perhaps the next time he
appears in a Gladstone comic the link will become clearer (hopefully)
since his appearance in WDC #596 had no connections to Brigitta.
MISCELLANY:
As fot the name "Jubal Cock", since it is not very P.C. to use the term
"cock", Pomp is a fine substitute. I would think in this vein that Ze
Carioca's arch-nemesis Ze Galo might likewise have to change his English
name from "Joe Cock." Since he seems to be called "Galleto" in Italian
comics (which translates to "cockerel" or "young rooster") perhaps a
minor adjustment to "Joe Cockerel" would suffice, or even to simpley
"Joe Cocker" though I don't think the estate of "Joe Cocker" the musician
would appreciate it.
And while we are talking about Scarpa, I have some thoughts about a
minor creation of his, but another seeming source of fan contention,
Dickie Duck (a.k.a. Pateretta YE-YE in Italian and Pata Lee in Potuguese).
It is possible that Dickie's presence will never be translated into stories
in the USA
as it seems her mere existence is some what contentionable. It is probably
easier
for some to imagine Goldie as some sort of chase Gilded Lady, pining for
her one
true love, thriving only on the single thought that one day her Prince $crooge
would return to seek her hand in marriage. However, if we are to believe Romano
Scarpa's introduction of Dickie, then we are forced to accept that some
time after
$crooge rejected Goldie's love (in the Barks classic "Back to the
Klondike") one
might suppose she waited a while, then finally began to live her life again.
Otherwise, since he and Goldie met during the Gold Rush, she would have been
pining for him for over a hundred years... She deserves to have had a
"life" in the
intervening years while she still waited. For Dickie to have been born, Goldie
must have given birth to her own child. Possibly, after accepting that $crooge
might never return, she settled down, married and raised a family. In time,
perhaps her husband died, or her lover ran off, leaving her to raise the
child/children alone (something very much in character for such a hearty woman
such as Goldie). Eventually Goldie's child would have grown up and might have
even married into the "Duck" Family (hence the surname in "Dickie Duck"). As
Dickie is still only a teenager, she probably still lives with this
offspring of
Goldie's. Now, it would seem that Goldie is still single (probably a
widow), and
she still holds a candle to the unrequited love of $crooge McDuck. Thus
marriage
ever remains a possiblity (if $crooge can ever get beyond his stubborn pride).
ETA BETA (About where Fethry lives):
>As I see it, Fethry actually doesn't live anywhere, he's a Traveller,
>always on
>the move to learn some new weird knowledge with which he could drive
>Donald & Tabby crazy. He may dwell somewhere for a while, but never really
>stops.
Makes perfect sense to me. However, that would mean that he has been
"travelling" since he was a child (according to the first panel in the
Buzz'n Cousin
story he hadn't visited Duckburg since he and Donald were kids). However,
since
Don Rosa assigned his place on the Duck Family Tree as "brother" to Abner
"Whitewater", his true original home may have been somewhere not so far from
Duckburg. I'll have to go back and re-read that Whitewater story to remember
where it took place.
Ciao, Rich
-Rich (xephyr)
http://www.jps.net/xephyr/rich/disney.html
DAVID GERSTEIN:
>DWIGHT: Brigitta MacBridge also appeared in a long story in US 242
>(1990), "The Last Balaboo". And there's at least one other story with
>her in the pipeline - "The Secret of Success," a Scarpa story that
>Gladstone had me translate some while ago. Jubal Pomp (Filo Sganga) is
>also in that one.
O.K, time for the big question which appears to be of some concern, not
only to me, but to some others, especially Scarpa fans. Exactly what are
the circumstances surrounding Filo Sganga's (a.k.a. Jubal Cock) apparent
transformation into the usually brown colored "Owl Judge" from earlier
U$ & DD comics? The name change from "Cock" to "Pomp" is quite
understandable, but from what I have heard, the two characters are
nothing alike, both visually and professionally. Perhaps the next time he
appears in a Gladstone comic the link will become clearer (hopefully)
since his appearance in WDC #596 had no connections to Brigitta.
MISCELLANY:
As fot the name "Jubal Cock", since it is not very P.C. to use the term
"cock", Pomp is a fine substitute. I would think in this vein that Ze
Carioca's arch-nemesis Ze Galo might likewise have to change his English
name from "Joe Cock." Since he seems to be called "Galleto" in Italian
comics (which translates to "cockerel" or "young rooster") perhaps a
minor adjustment to "Joe Cockerel" would suffice, or even to simpley
"Joe Cocker" though I don't think the estate of "Joe Cocker" the musician
would appreciate it.
And while we are talking about Scarpa, I have some thoughts about a
minor creation of his, but another seeming source of fan contention,
Dickie Duck (a.k.a. Pateretta YE-YE in Italian and Pata Lee in Potuguese).
It is possible that Dickie's presence will never be translated into stories
in the USA
as it seems her mere existence is some what contentionable. It is probably
easier
for some to imagine Goldie as some sort of chase Gilded Lady, pining for
her one
true love, thriving only on the single thought that one day her Prince $crooge
would return to seek her hand in marriage. However, if we are to believe Romano
Scarpa's introduction of Dickie, then we are forced to accept that some
time after
$crooge rejected Goldie's love (in the Barks classic "Back to the
Klondike") one
might suppose she waited a while, then finally began to live her life again.
Otherwise, since he and Goldie met during the Gold Rush, she would have been
pining for him for over a hundred years... She deserves to have had a
"life" in the
intervening years while she still waited. For Dickie to have been born, Goldie
must have given birth to her own child. Possibly, after accepting that $crooge
might never return, she settled down, married and raised a family. In time,
perhaps her husband died, or her lover ran off, leaving her to raise the
child/children alone (something very much in character for such a hearty woman
such as Goldie). Eventually Goldie's child would have grown up and might have
even married into the "Duck" Family (hence the surname in "Dickie Duck"). As
Dickie is still only a teenager, she probably still lives with this
offspring of
Goldie's. Now, it would seem that Goldie is still single (probably a
widow), and
she still holds a candle to the unrequited love of $crooge McDuck. Thus
marriage
ever remains a possiblity (if $crooge can ever get beyond his stubborn pride).
ETA BETA (About where Fethry lives):
>As I see it, Fethry actually doesn't live anywhere, he's a Traveller,
>always on
>the move to learn some new weird knowledge with which he could drive
>Donald & Tabby crazy. He may dwell somewhere for a while, but never really
>stops.
Makes perfect sense to me. However, that would mean that he has been
"travelling" since he was a child (according to the first panel in the
Buzz'n Cousin
story he hadn't visited Duckburg since he and Donald were kids). However,
since
Don Rosa assigned his place on the Duck Family Tree as "brother" to Abner
"Whitewater", his true original home may have been somewhere not so far from
Duckburg. I'll have to go back and re-read that Whitewater story to remember
where it took place.
Ciao, Rich
-Rich (xephyr)
http://www.jps.net/xephyr/rich/disney.html
Joakim Gunnarsson
Digest #11.
Message 194 -
1998-01-13 at 23:07:47
DANIEL van Eijmeren:
*Why* are you writing this?
I'm sorry that you don't appreciate authors like Don Rosa who put their
heart and soul into their work.
Maybe you prefer the days of Jack Manning and Kay Wright?
(No, no, I've got it: You just love the art of Riley Thompson, right?)
DON Rosa:
Simply ignore Daniel's text.
You are doing a *great* job doing the duck stories *your* way.
Thats all I have to say - for now...
/Joakim Gunnarsson
Falkenberg, Sweden.
*Why* are you writing this?
I'm sorry that you don't appreciate authors like Don Rosa who put their
heart and soul into their work.
Maybe you prefer the days of Jack Manning and Kay Wright?
(No, no, I've got it: You just love the art of Riley Thompson, right?)
DON Rosa:
Simply ignore Daniel's text.
You are doing a *great* job doing the duck stories *your* way.
Thats all I have to say - for now...
/Joakim Gunnarsson
Falkenberg, Sweden.
Kriton Kyrimis
Disney comics Digest V98 #12
Message 195 -
1998-01-14 at 00:12:23
DANIEL:
You raise some interesting issues Re: Don's treatment of the Ducks.
Don is probably the only person qualified to address them, but I would
like to make a couple of points in Don's defense.
As far as Don's stories making other stories inconsistent with some
kind of new canon goes, I'd like to point out the following. There
are two kinds of stories: well-crafted stories, like Don's, Scarpa's,
Van Horn's or (name your favorite artist) which stand by themselves,
and I couldn't care less if they are consistent with Barks' or other
artists' stories or even with stories of the same artist. Then there
are filler-type stories, supposedly addressed to kids, but which few
self-respecting kids would bother to read for a second time, and which
would not be saved if they followed Don's or anyone else's canon. Thus,
for me, there is absolutely no conflict between, say, Lo$ and the Italian
series which was published in Greece under the title "History and Glory of
the Duck Dynasty", which give two completely different and inconsistent
accounts of Scrooge's (and the McDuck clan's) history, as each series
stands on its own. Similarly, both "Last Sled to Dawson" and "The Last
Balaboo" are two of my favorite stories, although they can't both be
"true", as Scrooge has different "girlfriends" in each story.
As for keeping coming up with new "young Scrooge" stories, why
not? Consider him as just another character, *in addition* to Scrooge.
Even if he's not your favorite character, I think you'll agree that he
is far more interesting than, say, Fethry!
> What do you mean with this? Which two people can you think of making
> unhappy? Names?
More to the point, who is the *second* one? ;-)
[No, I don't expect Don to answer either question in a public forum.]
> > $crooge would not will his money to ANYONE. He would puzzle as to why
> > anyone should desire to gain one red cent that they did not earn with
> > their own two hands. I don't think the idea to leave his $ to someone
> > who did not earn that money would even occur to him. But then, what
> > would he do with it? He might not see any reason to make any plans for
> > it at all... it would not enter his mind.
> Reading this, I'm really wondering who you think Scrooge is. The above has
> nothing to do with the character you started working on 10 years ago.
Oddly enough, this struck me as *exactly* the thing Barks' Scrooge
would do. Although dumping it at sea is out of character (and probably
hastily written by Don, just to give an example of how to keep the fortune
intact), ensuring that the fortune is kept intact *is* one of Scrooge's
concerns. Otherwise, why would he be concerned that Donald might spend
it *after* he is gone?
As for what Scrooge's will says about his fortune according to Don's
vision, it's probably the same thing that Don's will says about his
comic book collection, which I doubt that he would consider dumping at
sea even for a moment. Instead, I would assume that someone with the
same attitude towards comics as Don will be made very happy one day in
the distant future. Extrapolating from this, who is it that has the same
attitude towards money, and will be made very happy by getting a binful
of the stuff? That's right, the Phantom of Notre Duck!!!
--
Kriton (e-mail: (Email removed))
(WWW: http://dias.cti.gr/~kyrimis
-----
"Who is the Doctor?"
"Affirmative!"
-----
You raise some interesting issues Re: Don's treatment of the Ducks.
Don is probably the only person qualified to address them, but I would
like to make a couple of points in Don's defense.
As far as Don's stories making other stories inconsistent with some
kind of new canon goes, I'd like to point out the following. There
are two kinds of stories: well-crafted stories, like Don's, Scarpa's,
Van Horn's or (name your favorite artist) which stand by themselves,
and I couldn't care less if they are consistent with Barks' or other
artists' stories or even with stories of the same artist. Then there
are filler-type stories, supposedly addressed to kids, but which few
self-respecting kids would bother to read for a second time, and which
would not be saved if they followed Don's or anyone else's canon. Thus,
for me, there is absolutely no conflict between, say, Lo$ and the Italian
series which was published in Greece under the title "History and Glory of
the Duck Dynasty", which give two completely different and inconsistent
accounts of Scrooge's (and the McDuck clan's) history, as each series
stands on its own. Similarly, both "Last Sled to Dawson" and "The Last
Balaboo" are two of my favorite stories, although they can't both be
"true", as Scrooge has different "girlfriends" in each story.
As for keeping coming up with new "young Scrooge" stories, why
not? Consider him as just another character, *in addition* to Scrooge.
Even if he's not your favorite character, I think you'll agree that he
is far more interesting than, say, Fethry!
> What do you mean with this? Which two people can you think of making
> unhappy? Names?
More to the point, who is the *second* one? ;-)
[No, I don't expect Don to answer either question in a public forum.]
> > $crooge would not will his money to ANYONE. He would puzzle as to why
> > anyone should desire to gain one red cent that they did not earn with
> > their own two hands. I don't think the idea to leave his $ to someone
> > who did not earn that money would even occur to him. But then, what
> > would he do with it? He might not see any reason to make any plans for
> > it at all... it would not enter his mind.
> Reading this, I'm really wondering who you think Scrooge is. The above has
> nothing to do with the character you started working on 10 years ago.
Oddly enough, this struck me as *exactly* the thing Barks' Scrooge
would do. Although dumping it at sea is out of character (and probably
hastily written by Don, just to give an example of how to keep the fortune
intact), ensuring that the fortune is kept intact *is* one of Scrooge's
concerns. Otherwise, why would he be concerned that Donald might spend
it *after* he is gone?
As for what Scrooge's will says about his fortune according to Don's
vision, it's probably the same thing that Don's will says about his
comic book collection, which I doubt that he would consider dumping at
sea even for a moment. Instead, I would assume that someone with the
same attitude towards comics as Don will be made very happy one day in
the distant future. Extrapolating from this, who is it that has the same
attitude towards money, and will be made very happy by getting a binful
of the stuff? That's right, the Phantom of Notre Duck!!!
--
Kriton (e-mail: (Email removed))
(WWW: http://dias.cti.gr/~kyrimis
-----
"Who is the Doctor?"
"Affirmative!"
-----