NILS:
>
>**If you're a 'Barks-only', don't read this:**
>
>I think Don's characters are **better** than Barks' characters.
Same here. I think my favourite duck artist is Don Rosa, then 2nd place is shared by Willian Van Horn and Barks (these two knocking one another down to third position every now and then depending on what kind of story I feel like). In general third position I usually have Cavazzano.
SOEREN:
>FLUKS:
>Well, "Rosa" means "pink" in Danish and it also
>means putting things more trustworthy, than they
>actually are...well enough of that ;-)...
?
> Glad to hear that, but would he eventually make
>a world map showing Duckburg in the US somewhere -
>fine with me, as long as it fits the story in question!
>
Hmm, hasn't he already pinpointed Calisota on a map of America? Could someone please remind me which story this was in?
Wow, we're really getting a LOT of digests ATM!
-- |Tarjei - Kidd - Olsen|
-- e-mail: (Email removed)
-- Website: http://home.sol.no/~kidd/index.html
-- Panacea: http://home.sol.no/~kjahanse/panacea/index.html
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)
Tarjei Kidd Olsen
Disney comics Digest V98 #15
Message 226 -
1998-01-15 at 02:36:53
Marco Barlotti
Filo Sganga VS J. Frostfeather Pomp
Message 227 -
1998-01-15 at 02:40:12
DAVID:
> The character in Van Horn's WDC #596 "Terror of Duckburg"
>*is*, visually, a lot like Scarpa's character (with the simple addition
>of pince-nez).
> I had this Filo Sganga story to translate for Gladstone last
>year and was asked not to use the name Cock. I chose the name Pomp with
>the following logic [...]
> It seemed like a good solution at the time. More seriously, no
>Scarpa fan on this list seemed to object before our Eta Beta recently,
May I humbly suggest that this happened because Scarpa fans are mostly
Italians who have NEVER read the Van Horn story? So this contamination never
hit any of us...
I honestly can't tell whether Van Horn's character may or may not be seen as
Filo Sganga. Remember however that Sganga is an improvisation man, a typical
Italian character from those movies which in the 50's and 60's were usually
performed by Alberto Sordi (the classical artist in "getting-by" - what we
call <l'arte di arrangiarsi>...). He is a passionate, naive character. I
doubt any author from Northen Europe might have introduced such a
character... ;-) ;-) ;-)
>but if others agree with him, I'll just have John Clark remove the
>"Frostfeathers" references from that upcoming story - and then "Jubal
>Pomp" and "J. Frostfeathers Pomp" will just be two very =
>similar-looking,
>but officially different, characters.
So after all this would be the best solution...
Marco
> The character in Van Horn's WDC #596 "Terror of Duckburg"
>*is*, visually, a lot like Scarpa's character (with the simple addition
>of pince-nez).
> I had this Filo Sganga story to translate for Gladstone last
>year and was asked not to use the name Cock. I chose the name Pomp with
>the following logic [...]
> It seemed like a good solution at the time. More seriously, no
>Scarpa fan on this list seemed to object before our Eta Beta recently,
May I humbly suggest that this happened because Scarpa fans are mostly
Italians who have NEVER read the Van Horn story? So this contamination never
hit any of us...
I honestly can't tell whether Van Horn's character may or may not be seen as
Filo Sganga. Remember however that Sganga is an improvisation man, a typical
Italian character from those movies which in the 50's and 60's were usually
performed by Alberto Sordi (the classical artist in "getting-by" - what we
call <l'arte di arrangiarsi>...). He is a passionate, naive character. I
doubt any author from Northen Europe might have introduced such a
character... ;-) ;-) ;-)
>but if others agree with him, I'll just have John Clark remove the
>"Frostfeathers" references from that upcoming story - and then "Jubal
>Pomp" and "J. Frostfeathers Pomp" will just be two very =
>similar-looking,
>but officially different, characters.
So after all this would be the best solution...
Marco
Katie Sullivan
Common-law marriage
Message 228 -
1998-01-15 at 03:31:35
Here are some tidbits I found online regarding common-law marriage,
which is on-topic because of the earlier discussed time when Scrooge and
Goldie lived together on his claim.
"Common law marriages, which are recognized in Texas, are those
which are good
under the common law, but which are deficient under the statutory
marriage
requirements. The elements of common law marriage are as follows:
(i) an
agreement to become man and wife presently; (ii) living together
pursuant to the
agreement to become man and wife; and (iii) the holding out of
each other to the
public as man and wife. This is contrary to the widely held belief
that merely living
together for some specific amount of time automatically makes two
people common
law spouses.
A common law marriage is a real marriage and can only be
terminated by death,
divorce or annulment. Also, a common law spouse's legal rights are
virtually the
same as that of a "legally" married person, i.e. they are capable
of inheriting, they
can own community property and their children are legitimate."
****
Common-law marriage is generally a nonceremonial relationship that
requires "a positive mutual agreement, permanent and exclusive of all
others, to enter into a marriage relationship, cohabitation sufficient
to warrant a fulfillment of necessary relationship of man and wife, and
an assumption of marital duties and obligations." Black's Law Dictionary
277 (6th ed. 1990). Common-law marriages were recognized in some of the
colonies prior to independence, and in many states after independence.
****
Today, 14 states recognize common-law marriage,
which may be found when a man and woman
intend to be husband and wife and there is a
mutual, open display of a marriagelike relationship.
Also: http://ww.total.net/~jeanhanh/com-mar.htm
****
All in all, I didn't find anything that looked like it would support the
theory that Goldie and Scrooge were legally married.
Katie
which is on-topic because of the earlier discussed time when Scrooge and
Goldie lived together on his claim.
"Common law marriages, which are recognized in Texas, are those
which are good
under the common law, but which are deficient under the statutory
marriage
requirements. The elements of common law marriage are as follows:
(i) an
agreement to become man and wife presently; (ii) living together
pursuant to the
agreement to become man and wife; and (iii) the holding out of
each other to the
public as man and wife. This is contrary to the widely held belief
that merely living
together for some specific amount of time automatically makes two
people common
law spouses.
A common law marriage is a real marriage and can only be
terminated by death,
divorce or annulment. Also, a common law spouse's legal rights are
virtually the
same as that of a "legally" married person, i.e. they are capable
of inheriting, they
can own community property and their children are legitimate."
****
Common-law marriage is generally a nonceremonial relationship that
requires "a positive mutual agreement, permanent and exclusive of all
others, to enter into a marriage relationship, cohabitation sufficient
to warrant a fulfillment of necessary relationship of man and wife, and
an assumption of marital duties and obligations." Black's Law Dictionary
277 (6th ed. 1990). Common-law marriages were recognized in some of the
colonies prior to independence, and in many states after independence.
****
Today, 14 states recognize common-law marriage,
which may be found when a man and woman
intend to be husband and wife and there is a
mutual, open display of a marriagelike relationship.
Also: http://ww.total.net/~jeanhanh/com-mar.htm
****
All in all, I didn't find anything that looked like it would support the
theory that Goldie and Scrooge were legally married.
Katie
David B. Fenske
Rosa & Tolkien
Message 229 -
1998-01-15 at 03:35:51
The recent discussion on Don Rosa's Duck Universe has been very
interesting, especially the rather heated nature of some of the discussion.
It appears that you either love Don's Ducks, or hate 'em (OK, maybe that's
a bit strong), but it's clear that few are just neutral. I would hope that
the nay-sayers continue to feel free to post their heretical views:
sometimes it can be enlightening to hear why people dislike a story that
you enjoy.
Personally, the reason I started re-reading Disney comics, and continue to
buy them, is for Rosa's stories. There are other artists I enjoy (Barks,
Van Horn, Gottfredson), but the big draw is Rosa. And I think it's because
his universe and approach to story-telling is similar to that of J.R.R.
Tolkien, one of my all-time favourite writers. These thoughts came to mind
as I have been reading "The Lord of the Rings" to my children for several
months.
Don likes history, and has placed the Ducks within a historic framework
that is internally consistent. He's not just making Duck stories, but
creating a Duck Universe. And here's where the connection to Tolkien comes
in: Tolkien liked history too, and laboured long and hard to create an
internally consistent universe with peoples and history. Because he was a
friend of C.S. Lewis, whose Narnia stories were allegorical in many
respects, people often looked for allegory in Tolkien, to which he replied
that he disliked allegory in all its manifestations, that he much preferred
history, either real or feigned. And that's why we get so many references
to the past in his work... the past was almost more important than the
story at hand.
It seems to me that another thing Don is doing is creating a body of work
that will be much more impressive as a whole because of the consistency and
connections between the stories. Other writers who just re-create Duckburg
in every story will not have the same long-term impact. Their individual
stories may be as good, but the cumulative effect won't be there. And Don
gets extra mileage by grounding his stories in the pre-existing Barks
Universe... the connections go deeper.
A few specific comments: Daniel said that
>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.
Scrooge's "superhero" exploits seem to be more prevalent in his early life,
and what's wrong with him being a tough, tempermental, stubborn individual?
As for the nephews, I like them... and there have been a number of Rosa
stories (Super-Snooper Strikes Again) where their recognition of Donalds
true character is almost, well, touching. Donald does seem to have lost
much of his temper, but he has had some great moments too... like his
heroic efforts in Return to Xanadu.
I find that in many non-Rosa stories, the Ducks don't have well-defined
personalities.
A final note: just read for the first time "Return to Plain Awful" and
"Fortune on the Rocks." Both excellent stories, but in particular I found
the latter one quite funny, for all the puns and word-play. Very Gneiss,
indeed.
Dave F.
interesting, especially the rather heated nature of some of the discussion.
It appears that you either love Don's Ducks, or hate 'em (OK, maybe that's
a bit strong), but it's clear that few are just neutral. I would hope that
the nay-sayers continue to feel free to post their heretical views:
sometimes it can be enlightening to hear why people dislike a story that
you enjoy.
Personally, the reason I started re-reading Disney comics, and continue to
buy them, is for Rosa's stories. There are other artists I enjoy (Barks,
Van Horn, Gottfredson), but the big draw is Rosa. And I think it's because
his universe and approach to story-telling is similar to that of J.R.R.
Tolkien, one of my all-time favourite writers. These thoughts came to mind
as I have been reading "The Lord of the Rings" to my children for several
months.
Don likes history, and has placed the Ducks within a historic framework
that is internally consistent. He's not just making Duck stories, but
creating a Duck Universe. And here's where the connection to Tolkien comes
in: Tolkien liked history too, and laboured long and hard to create an
internally consistent universe with peoples and history. Because he was a
friend of C.S. Lewis, whose Narnia stories were allegorical in many
respects, people often looked for allegory in Tolkien, to which he replied
that he disliked allegory in all its manifestations, that he much preferred
history, either real or feigned. And that's why we get so many references
to the past in his work... the past was almost more important than the
story at hand.
It seems to me that another thing Don is doing is creating a body of work
that will be much more impressive as a whole because of the consistency and
connections between the stories. Other writers who just re-create Duckburg
in every story will not have the same long-term impact. Their individual
stories may be as good, but the cumulative effect won't be there. And Don
gets extra mileage by grounding his stories in the pre-existing Barks
Universe... the connections go deeper.
A few specific comments: Daniel said that
>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.
Scrooge's "superhero" exploits seem to be more prevalent in his early life,
and what's wrong with him being a tough, tempermental, stubborn individual?
As for the nephews, I like them... and there have been a number of Rosa
stories (Super-Snooper Strikes Again) where their recognition of Donalds
true character is almost, well, touching. Donald does seem to have lost
much of his temper, but he has had some great moments too... like his
heroic efforts in Return to Xanadu.
I find that in many non-Rosa stories, the Ducks don't have well-defined
personalities.
A final note: just read for the first time "Return to Plain Awful" and
"Fortune on the Rocks." Both excellent stories, but in particular I found
the latter one quite funny, for all the puns and word-play. Very Gneiss,
indeed.
Dave F.
DeanMary
Certain WDC&S stories
Message 230 -
1998-01-15 at 08:15:35
In the most recent digest Jonathan Markoff wrote with disdain about the
recent "Reluctant Dragon" and "Morris the Midget Moose" stories in the
latest two issue of WDC&S. I also dislike these and other such stories
Gladstone has used in past issues of WDC&S. They are for me anyway
basically just wasted pages in the issue. I began to wonder though if
that is the feeling of others on the list. Perhaps Jonathan and I are
in the minority? I am just curious whether you would rather have
stories like this or some Duck and/or Mouse stories from Europe? I
personally would much rather have even mediocre European Duck stories
especially now with the cancellation of the newsstand titles. What are
some of your feelings about the subject? Hopefully this isn't as
"flamable" as the pro/con Rosa discussions! ;)
Dean Rekich
recent "Reluctant Dragon" and "Morris the Midget Moose" stories in the
latest two issue of WDC&S. I also dislike these and other such stories
Gladstone has used in past issues of WDC&S. They are for me anyway
basically just wasted pages in the issue. I began to wonder though if
that is the feeling of others on the list. Perhaps Jonathan and I are
in the minority? I am just curious whether you would rather have
stories like this or some Duck and/or Mouse stories from Europe? I
personally would much rather have even mediocre European Duck stories
especially now with the cancellation of the newsstand titles. What are
some of your feelings about the subject? Hopefully this isn't as
"flamable" as the pro/con Rosa discussions! ;)
Dean Rekich
Gerstein, David DK - ECN
Disney comics Digest V98 #15
Message 231 -
1998-01-15 at 15:16:36
KATIE:
You quoted me as saying the following...
> DAVID G.:
>> I don't see how Rosa possibly could leave *less* to
>> the imagination, since the LO$-project apparently is going
>> to reveil *everything* about Scrooge' past.
Eh? That wasn't me saying that. It was Soeren Olesen.
And as you said, not everything *is* revealed in Don's stories,
so there are plenty of holes left for us to use our imaginations with.
The LO$ gives *my* imagination plenty of free reign.
David Gerstein
<(Email removed)>
--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V98 Issue #16
*****************************************
You quoted me as saying the following...
> DAVID G.:
>> I don't see how Rosa possibly could leave *less* to
>> the imagination, since the LO$-project apparently is going
>> to reveil *everything* about Scrooge' past.
Eh? That wasn't me saying that. It was Soeren Olesen.
And as you said, not everything *is* revealed in Don's stories,
so there are plenty of holes left for us to use our imaginations with.
The LO$ gives *my* imagination plenty of free reign.
David Gerstein
<(Email removed)>
--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V98 Issue #16
*****************************************
Joakim Gunnarsson
Disney comics Digest V98 #15
Message 232 -
1998-01-15 at 16:39:34
Harry:
> It would be very sad if people would not write any critics to
> this mailing list, or if writers/artists would "simply ignore" them.
>
> Why should everyone have the same opinion as Joakim
> Gunnarsson?
>
> --Harry.
No, no ,no, I don't want all of you to have the same opinion as me. And
naturally everyone shall be able to write critics to this mailing list.
But... Daniels mail was just ...too much.
And, no, I dont think so just because it was about Don Rosa.
I would have reacted the same way if it had been about another artist that
was trying to do good stories to entertain us.
What I mean is that Daniel could have written his critics in another way. I
found it very hard to take his posting serious. I didn't understand his
point in writing some of the stuff he wrote. I felt that he was only
writing that to hurt the author (Rosa). And that was something *I* didn't
like.
After the discusson on the list the previous days I dont feel that there
ismuch to be added to this.
I believe that Archontis Pantsios said what I wanted to say in #13 but when
I made my posting I, unfortunately, hadn't read his text.
So, critics and different opinions are most welcome on the list.
(Thats my opinion.)
All the best to Harry and the rest of you!
Joakim Gunnarsson
("It's all about comic book characters!!! Enjoy the damned things!!!"
well said Archontis. I agree.)
> It would be very sad if people would not write any critics to
> this mailing list, or if writers/artists would "simply ignore" them.
>
> Why should everyone have the same opinion as Joakim
> Gunnarsson?
>
> --Harry.
No, no ,no, I don't want all of you to have the same opinion as me. And
naturally everyone shall be able to write critics to this mailing list.
But... Daniels mail was just ...too much.
And, no, I dont think so just because it was about Don Rosa.
I would have reacted the same way if it had been about another artist that
was trying to do good stories to entertain us.
What I mean is that Daniel could have written his critics in another way. I
found it very hard to take his posting serious. I didn't understand his
point in writing some of the stuff he wrote. I felt that he was only
writing that to hurt the author (Rosa). And that was something *I* didn't
like.
After the discusson on the list the previous days I dont feel that there
ismuch to be added to this.
I believe that Archontis Pantsios said what I wanted to say in #13 but when
I made my posting I, unfortunately, hadn't read his text.
So, critics and different opinions are most welcome on the list.
(Thats my opinion.)
All the best to Harry and the rest of you!
Joakim Gunnarsson
("It's all about comic book characters!!! Enjoy the damned things!!!"
well said Archontis. I agree.)
Janne Lavia
Disney comics Digest V98 #16
Message 233 -
1998-01-15 at 17:38:13
Janne (Email removed)
15.01.98 17.38
Tarjei Kidd Olsen agreed on:
>I think Don's characters are **better** than Barks' characters.
Oh no, no...! Here goes my opinion:
As I read stories by Don or Carl, I can't help comparing them. IMHO Don is
the greatest Duck artist still working, but I'm afraid his stories are
nothing
like what Barks has done. In Don's work I find irritating the flatness and
straighforwardness of Duck's personalities; Ducks lack personality, and
Don uses too exaggarating facial expressions to give the readers hint of
what's going on in Donald's head, for example. Don's ducks lack personality
and humanity, as compared to Barks' ducks: they have dynamic and rich
personalities.
I guess there is no point in arguing one's sense of humor, but I often
find Don's gags-at-the-bottom-of-the-panel storytelling somewhat disrupting
to story's general touch and feel. In general, Barks was masterful in
implementing
gags to serious or emotionally touching scenes without ruining the general
feeling of, for example, sadness. For me, Don's stories are not
ensyclopedic
and epic ;-) in a way Barks' stories are. Just read, say, DD in Old
California...
how glorious, how beautiful!
I could say that Barks' ducks are more human and they express or convey
basic
human emotions much more than Don's ducks, which are (uh oh) more
**american**
hollywood-like and flat characters. As I read say Barks, I can - hmmm -
merge
with characters, feel what they feel. Don's ducks are more distant and
they lack warmth...Barks conveys ducks' emotional states so well. Not to
say
nothing of Barks' rhytm...it's almost musical!
- janne lavia
15.01.98 17.38
Tarjei Kidd Olsen agreed on:
>I think Don's characters are **better** than Barks' characters.
Oh no, no...! Here goes my opinion:
As I read stories by Don or Carl, I can't help comparing them. IMHO Don is
the greatest Duck artist still working, but I'm afraid his stories are
nothing
like what Barks has done. In Don's work I find irritating the flatness and
straighforwardness of Duck's personalities; Ducks lack personality, and
Don uses too exaggarating facial expressions to give the readers hint of
what's going on in Donald's head, for example. Don's ducks lack personality
and humanity, as compared to Barks' ducks: they have dynamic and rich
personalities.
I guess there is no point in arguing one's sense of humor, but I often
find Don's gags-at-the-bottom-of-the-panel storytelling somewhat disrupting
to story's general touch and feel. In general, Barks was masterful in
implementing
gags to serious or emotionally touching scenes without ruining the general
feeling of, for example, sadness. For me, Don's stories are not
ensyclopedic
and epic ;-) in a way Barks' stories are. Just read, say, DD in Old
California...
how glorious, how beautiful!
I could say that Barks' ducks are more human and they express or convey
basic
human emotions much more than Don's ducks, which are (uh oh) more
**american**
hollywood-like and flat characters. As I read say Barks, I can - hmmm -
merge
with characters, feel what they feel. Don's ducks are more distant and
they lack warmth...Barks conveys ducks' emotional states so well. Not to
say
nothing of Barks' rhytm...it's almost musical!
- janne lavia
Bmartin
Temper of Donald
Message 234 -
1998-01-15 at 18:46:49
>From: "David B. Fenske" <(Email removed)>
>Subject:
>
>Scrooge's "superhero" exploits seem to be more prevalent in his early life,
>and what's wrong with him being a tough, tempermental, stubborn individual?
> As for the nephews, I like them... and there have been a number of Rosa
>stories (Super-Snooper Strikes Again) where their recognition of Donalds
>true character is almost, well, touching. Donald does seem to have lost
>much of his temper, but he has had some great moments too... like his
>heroic efforts in Return to Xanadu.
I personally find Rosa's presentation of Donald superior to Barks'. Donald
as a hot-tempered, ill-mannered lout is so tiresome. I have never had any
interest in the temper-tantrums of Donald in comics or cartoons.
B. Martin
>Subject:
>
>Scrooge's "superhero" exploits seem to be more prevalent in his early life,
>and what's wrong with him being a tough, tempermental, stubborn individual?
> As for the nephews, I like them... and there have been a number of Rosa
>stories (Super-Snooper Strikes Again) where their recognition of Donalds
>true character is almost, well, touching. Donald does seem to have lost
>much of his temper, but he has had some great moments too... like his
>heroic efforts in Return to Xanadu.
I personally find Rosa's presentation of Donald superior to Barks'. Donald
as a hot-tempered, ill-mannered lout is so tiresome. I have never had any
interest in the temper-tantrums of Donald in comics or cartoons.
B. Martin
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Quick answer to Joakim
Message 235 -
1998-01-15 at 19:01:41
JOAKIM GUNNARSSON:
I don't have time at the moment, but here's a very quick answer:
> I felt that [Daniel] was only writing that to hurt the author (Rosa).
> And that was something *I* didn't like.
This is CERTAINLY NOT the case! And I really hope Don didn't interpret
it this way! I'll be more detailled on this later, I've really gotta go.
Greetings,
--- Daniel
I don't have time at the moment, but here's a very quick answer:
> I felt that [Daniel] was only writing that to hurt the author (Rosa).
> And that was something *I* didn't like.
This is CERTAINLY NOT the case! And I really hope Don didn't interpret
it this way! I'll be more detailled on this later, I've really gotta go.
Greetings,
--- Daniel
Fluks, H.W.
Dios: Database + Lydia
Message 236 -
1998-01-15 at 19:27:00
Stefan:
>I found a change that maybe should be mentioned in the database.
Thanks. I'll include it in the next version.
>Wasn't the story published in Norway or Germany?
It probably was, but our Database has no extensive data from Norway, and
the data from Germany in that period (the 50s) is far from complete.
After all, we have only just begun making the Database...
--Harry.
"The Dutch call it water, a Frenchman calls it l'eau,
a Belgian, who knows both languages, simply says Waterloo"
(This is only funny if you pronounce the words the right way...)
><><><><
>I found a change that maybe should be mentioned in the database.
Thanks. I'll include it in the next version.
>Wasn't the story published in Norway or Germany?
It probably was, but our Database has no extensive data from Norway, and
the data from Germany in that period (the 50s) is far from complete.
After all, we have only just begun making the Database...
--Harry.
"The Dutch call it water, a Frenchman calls it l'eau,
a Belgian, who knows both languages, simply says Waterloo"
(This is only funny if you pronounce the words the right way...)
><><><><
Rich Bellacera
Disney comics Digest V98 #16
Message 237 -
1998-01-15 at 19:39:32
HEIR TO THE McDUCK FORTUNE:
An interesting debate had mounted here. I doubt anyone who has made a
proposal will actually have any sway on the ultimate result, but it is fun to
speculate. We can be relatively certain that $crooge will be around for a
long, long time (he is a fan favorite) so unless a mystery story is written
(a la Gottfredson's "Mickey Mouse in Death Valley" where Minnie was
named sole heir to her rich Uncle Mortimer's Estate), we may never know
this answer. But what's wrong with speculating? Isn't that what this list is
all about... Fans sharing their thoughts and concerns? I may have missed
some of the candidates, but here's a list of "The Unusual Suspects":
Donald Duck (favorite nephew)
Della Duck (favorite niece, twin to Donald)
Huey, Dewey & Louie Duck (favorite grand nephews)
Hortense (sister in Rosa's Family Tree)
Matilda (sister in Rosa's Family Tree)
Gideon McDuck (brother in Scarpa's Family Tree)
Ludwig von Drake (brother-in-law?)
Quackmore Duck (brother-in-law)
Grandma Elvira Coot-Duck (depends on Family Tree version)
Daisy Duck (niece)
April, May & June (grand nieces)
Gladstone Gander (nephew/cousin, just lucky that way)
Fethry Duck (cousin)
Abner "Whitewater" Duck (cousin)
Gus Goose (cousin, can't think of anyone more undeserving)
Rumpus McFowl (cousin, well maybe I can)
Miss Emily Quackfaster (longest & most trusted employee)
Gyro Gearloose (to finance his continued genius)
Battista or Duckworth (Gentleman's gentleman, loyal manservant)
Launchpad McQuack (needs to pay medical expenses and plane damages)
Fenton Crackshell / Gizmoduck (for equipment maintenance & upgrade?)
Mrs. Beakley & Webbigail Vanderquack (beloved maid & foster-niece)
Bubba Duck & Tootsie the Triceratops (legal wards)
Glittering Goldie O'Gilt (shack-up honey ;-)
Dickie Duck (illigitimate long-lost granddaughter)
Brigitta MacBridge (will get him to marry her on his deathbed)
Beagle Boys (feels sorry for them always bungling their robbery attempts)
Magica de Spell (she cast a spell on him to make her heir to "Old No. 1")
Baron Itzy-Bitzy (his pet flea, for his continued care & feeding?)
Bolivar, Behemoth & Tabby (Donald's pets, same as above?)
Junior Woodchucks (Foundation named in his Will)
Miss Penny Wise (calling in her debt)
Mickey Mouse ($crooge knows none of the Ducks will handle it wisely)
Michael Eisner (to pay him his next year's salary)
of course Rockerduck & Glomgold contest Will and fight over it.
-Rich (xephyr)
http://www.jps.net/xephyr/rich/disney.html
An interesting debate had mounted here. I doubt anyone who has made a
proposal will actually have any sway on the ultimate result, but it is fun to
speculate. We can be relatively certain that $crooge will be around for a
long, long time (he is a fan favorite) so unless a mystery story is written
(a la Gottfredson's "Mickey Mouse in Death Valley" where Minnie was
named sole heir to her rich Uncle Mortimer's Estate), we may never know
this answer. But what's wrong with speculating? Isn't that what this list is
all about... Fans sharing their thoughts and concerns? I may have missed
some of the candidates, but here's a list of "The Unusual Suspects":
Donald Duck (favorite nephew)
Della Duck (favorite niece, twin to Donald)
Huey, Dewey & Louie Duck (favorite grand nephews)
Hortense (sister in Rosa's Family Tree)
Matilda (sister in Rosa's Family Tree)
Gideon McDuck (brother in Scarpa's Family Tree)
Ludwig von Drake (brother-in-law?)
Quackmore Duck (brother-in-law)
Grandma Elvira Coot-Duck (depends on Family Tree version)
Daisy Duck (niece)
April, May & June (grand nieces)
Gladstone Gander (nephew/cousin, just lucky that way)
Fethry Duck (cousin)
Abner "Whitewater" Duck (cousin)
Gus Goose (cousin, can't think of anyone more undeserving)
Rumpus McFowl (cousin, well maybe I can)
Miss Emily Quackfaster (longest & most trusted employee)
Gyro Gearloose (to finance his continued genius)
Battista or Duckworth (Gentleman's gentleman, loyal manservant)
Launchpad McQuack (needs to pay medical expenses and plane damages)
Fenton Crackshell / Gizmoduck (for equipment maintenance & upgrade?)
Mrs. Beakley & Webbigail Vanderquack (beloved maid & foster-niece)
Bubba Duck & Tootsie the Triceratops (legal wards)
Glittering Goldie O'Gilt (shack-up honey ;-)
Dickie Duck (illigitimate long-lost granddaughter)
Brigitta MacBridge (will get him to marry her on his deathbed)
Beagle Boys (feels sorry for them always bungling their robbery attempts)
Magica de Spell (she cast a spell on him to make her heir to "Old No. 1")
Baron Itzy-Bitzy (his pet flea, for his continued care & feeding?)
Bolivar, Behemoth & Tabby (Donald's pets, same as above?)
Junior Woodchucks (Foundation named in his Will)
Miss Penny Wise (calling in her debt)
Mickey Mouse ($crooge knows none of the Ducks will handle it wisely)
Michael Eisner (to pay him his next year's salary)
of course Rockerduck & Glomgold contest Will and fight over it.
-Rich (xephyr)
http://www.jps.net/xephyr/rich/disney.html
Soeren Krarup Olesen
Disney comics Digest V98 #16
Message 238 -
1998-01-15 at 19:47:17
Janne Lavia wrote:
> Don is the greatest Duck artist still working, but
It's funny, but to me it's like the other way around.
The only interesting things in Don's art IMO is the
numerous details he puts into each panel - that *is*
a Don Rosa-speciality, and he masters it perfectly!
> In Don's work I find irritating the flatness and
> straighforwardness of Duck's personalities
The "flatness" applies IMO to both personality and art.
The number of "faces" that he draws on the ducks
are quite limited. Each panel does not have comparable
motion or dynamics to Barks, and definetely not Scarpa for
that matter. They are more like portraits, carefully
constructed in every detail but a little stiff, especially in
the LO$. It might have to do with the fact, that both
Barks and Scarpa have been working with cartoons (!?)
The Rosa-panels reminds me a bit of the rococo
paintings of kings and aristocracy. The persons portrayed
usually tried to look wealthy and powerful, but in fact it
made them look ignorant and like parodic copies of the
real thing.
> Don uses too exaggarating facial expressions to give the readers hint
> of
> what's going on in Donald's head, for example.
Exactly, it is all a little too straightforward. There is not
much for us readers to discuss afterwards about what
he or she felt in the particular situation, it's all given -
"I am a little blue today; now let me show you how I can cry!!!"
> find Don's gags-at-the-bottom-of-the-panel storytelling somewhat
> disrupting
> to story's general touch and feel.
Hm, not sure I agree, I find Rosa's stories utterly funny.
Rosa is a great humorist, sometimes even with a
bit of blackness added to it, which I prefere. I remember
e.g. the situation in Lillehammer, where Gladstone Gander
doesn't care a bit of the *type* of skies he select, but wants
a colour of the skies that matches his eyes - great!!! :-) :-)
> human emotions much more than Don's ducks, which are (uh oh) more
> **american**
> hollywood-like and flat characters.
Not really(?!) I would rather address that statement to the *overall*
LO$-project, since what we follow is the classic American
dream, isn't it? I wonder if Don would ever *really* show us
the reverse of the medal, as we know it from many Italian stories.
Example: Have you ever read Gatto's "DD in year 2001"? It
can be found in most Scandinavian Pocket books no. 8 +
in Germany with a different number, that I don't remember just now.
S=F8ren
> Don is the greatest Duck artist still working, but
It's funny, but to me it's like the other way around.
The only interesting things in Don's art IMO is the
numerous details he puts into each panel - that *is*
a Don Rosa-speciality, and he masters it perfectly!
> In Don's work I find irritating the flatness and
> straighforwardness of Duck's personalities
The "flatness" applies IMO to both personality and art.
The number of "faces" that he draws on the ducks
are quite limited. Each panel does not have comparable
motion or dynamics to Barks, and definetely not Scarpa for
that matter. They are more like portraits, carefully
constructed in every detail but a little stiff, especially in
the LO$. It might have to do with the fact, that both
Barks and Scarpa have been working with cartoons (!?)
The Rosa-panels reminds me a bit of the rococo
paintings of kings and aristocracy. The persons portrayed
usually tried to look wealthy and powerful, but in fact it
made them look ignorant and like parodic copies of the
real thing.
> Don uses too exaggarating facial expressions to give the readers hint
> of
> what's going on in Donald's head, for example.
Exactly, it is all a little too straightforward. There is not
much for us readers to discuss afterwards about what
he or she felt in the particular situation, it's all given -
"I am a little blue today; now let me show you how I can cry!!!"
> find Don's gags-at-the-bottom-of-the-panel storytelling somewhat
> disrupting
> to story's general touch and feel.
Hm, not sure I agree, I find Rosa's stories utterly funny.
Rosa is a great humorist, sometimes even with a
bit of blackness added to it, which I prefere. I remember
e.g. the situation in Lillehammer, where Gladstone Gander
doesn't care a bit of the *type* of skies he select, but wants
a colour of the skies that matches his eyes - great!!! :-) :-)
> human emotions much more than Don's ducks, which are (uh oh) more
> **american**
> hollywood-like and flat characters.
Not really(?!) I would rather address that statement to the *overall*
LO$-project, since what we follow is the classic American
dream, isn't it? I wonder if Don would ever *really* show us
the reverse of the medal, as we know it from many Italian stories.
Example: Have you ever read Gatto's "DD in year 2001"? It
can be found in most Scandinavian Pocket books no. 8 +
in Germany with a different number, that I don't remember just now.
S=F8ren
Mike Schneiderath
German Rosa Album #18 with a new cover!
Message 239 -
1998-01-15 at 20:00:38
I just took a quick look into the new Ehapa preview=20
(new releases until October 98) and noticed that the issue #18 (coming in
October) will have a new Rosa cover. The cover seems to be drawn for the
story "Journey to the center of the earth" and I am quite sure that I
haven=B4t seen it anywhere before.
Bye!
Mike
(new releases until October 98) and noticed that the issue #18 (coming in
October) will have a new Rosa cover. The cover seems to be drawn for the
story "Journey to the center of the earth" and I am quite sure that I
haven=B4t seen it anywhere before.
Bye!
Mike
Fluks, H.W.
History is unpredictable - Finale! (II)
Message 240 -
1998-01-15 at 20:07:10
Soeren:
> I have never mentioned Barks! I am not a Barksian
Directly after you posted your first message on this
subject, Daniel van Eijmeren posted his. And he certainly
mentioned Barks. After that, I think people started mixing
things up, attributing quotes to the wrong persons
et cetera.
BTW: I think the problem with Don Rosa's stories is that
they are so *good*. Noone cares if Jim Fletcher drew a
story that has some inconsistencies with other people's
work. We simply forget that story. But in Rosa's case
it's hard to forget a story!
Also, because his research is so exact, it's hard
sometimes to see his stories as just "the view of
one man". But I guess we have to live with that,
and it would do no harm to remind this mailing list
of it now and then.
Your and Daniel's mails resulted in a (to me)
surprising and interesting discussion. Apparently,
a lot of people like Rosa's stories, but do not necessarily
agree with everything he did.
I am one of the persons who like the "needless and
irritating details" in Don's stories, and the references
to previous stories. But I don't like it when these
references become too obvious, or are an integral
part of the story. People must be able to enjoy a
story without knowing any other Disney comics
story.
Oh, and one other thing. I wrote:
> 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-)
I realise this can be interpreted differently than I intended.
What I wanted to express is that Don does not stop
being nice to people who criticise his work. I quoted the
"You look so friendly" sentence as an inside-joke.
Joakim:
> Daniels mail was just ...too much.
I think that's partly because Daniel wrote it in a
language that's not his own. When you can read
a sentence in two ways, assume that the positive
way was intended.
> I felt that he was only writing that to hurt the
> author (Rosa).
I know Daniel, and I am sure that was *not*
his intention.
> So, critics and different opinions are most welcome
> on the list.
> "It's all about comic book characters!!! Enjoy the
> damned things!!!"
Yep, we can both enjoy and criticise. If we didn't
enjoy the stories that much, we wouldn't be talking
about them.
--Harry.
><><><><
> I have never mentioned Barks! I am not a Barksian
Directly after you posted your first message on this
subject, Daniel van Eijmeren posted his. And he certainly
mentioned Barks. After that, I think people started mixing
things up, attributing quotes to the wrong persons
et cetera.
BTW: I think the problem with Don Rosa's stories is that
they are so *good*. Noone cares if Jim Fletcher drew a
story that has some inconsistencies with other people's
work. We simply forget that story. But in Rosa's case
it's hard to forget a story!
Also, because his research is so exact, it's hard
sometimes to see his stories as just "the view of
one man". But I guess we have to live with that,
and it would do no harm to remind this mailing list
of it now and then.
Your and Daniel's mails resulted in a (to me)
surprising and interesting discussion. Apparently,
a lot of people like Rosa's stories, but do not necessarily
agree with everything he did.
I am one of the persons who like the "needless and
irritating details" in Don's stories, and the references
to previous stories. But I don't like it when these
references become too obvious, or are an integral
part of the story. People must be able to enjoy a
story without knowing any other Disney comics
story.
Oh, and one other thing. I wrote:
> 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-)
I realise this can be interpreted differently than I intended.
What I wanted to express is that Don does not stop
being nice to people who criticise his work. I quoted the
"You look so friendly" sentence as an inside-joke.
Joakim:
> Daniels mail was just ...too much.
I think that's partly because Daniel wrote it in a
language that's not his own. When you can read
a sentence in two ways, assume that the positive
way was intended.
> I felt that he was only writing that to hurt the
> author (Rosa).
I know Daniel, and I am sure that was *not*
his intention.
> So, critics and different opinions are most welcome
> on the list.
> "It's all about comic book characters!!! Enjoy the
> damned things!!!"
Yep, we can both enjoy and criticise. If we didn't
enjoy the stories that much, we wouldn't be talking
about them.
--Harry.
><><><><