Keskustelujen arkisto

Hi folks!
I just got a message from Barks... Mark Barks, that is. ;-) He's writing:

__________________________Begin forwarded message____________________________

By coincidence I discovered another Barks.. Definitely a rare name. Is there
a possibily that you would have an e-mail address for Carl Barks. He may be
related. My family hails from Derby, County Derbyshire England. More curious
than anything else. Thanx.

_________________________End of forwarded message____________________________

All I could tell him for sure was that it's nearly impossible to get in
contact with Carl Barks, but I don't know for the rest... If anyone knows
anything regarding these matters, you can write Mark on <(Email removed)>.

ANOTHER THING: IS ETA BETA STILL AROUND??????

---
_//\|<()|}

*********************************************************
* E-mail: (Email removed) *
* Disney Comics page: http://home4.swipnet.se/~w-47991/ *
*********************************************************

My usual review of the latest WDC&S issue is covered in this letter I've
just sent to Gladstone:

-------------------------
Chalk another one up for Gladstone! WALT DISNEY'S COMICS AND STORIES has
been falling into a rut recently, but 625 was a considerable improvement
over the two previous issues."Mummery's the Word" was my favorite William
Van Horn story of late, with excellent literary references to Yorick et al.
I also got to read two Carl Barks stories I hadn't seen before. "Worst Class
Mail" contained Barks' slapstick best, and I liked the idea of HDL trying to
help Donald rather than compete against him. I could pick apart the Egmont
story "Win, Win, Win" by pointing out that Scrooge wouldn't give to charity
even anonymously, and that Flitheart Glomgold lives in South Africa, but
I'll ignore the two said camels-to-be-swallowed in this fun-filled and
enjoyable story, which it was. I was disappointed recently with some of the
"lesser-known" Egmont authors' work, but this provided a swift kick in that
theory.

Although Mickey Mouse was given short shrift in this issue, the little we
saw was brilliant indeed. David Gerstein's "The Egg Collector" was a lively
peek at some of Mickey's lesser-known friends and not-so-friends. But,
although Gerstein is excellent at this kind of story (and makes it seem more
like Donald than Mickey), his stories seem to gag-filled, much like William
Van Horn's Ducks. While not ignorning him, I'd like to see some stories by
other Egmont giants. Editor-in-Chief Byron Erickson, whose MM tales were
last seen in the USA in 1996, and Michael T. Gilbert, whose humorous and
spine-chilling MR. MONSTER stories I have recently been reading, come to
mind. And there are Gottfredson reprints, of course. Since Mickey's 70th
birthday is coming in November, why not do a little something special (oh,
wait, that's already taken--nyuk nyuk!) for the occasion. I'd suggest
Gottfredson's first story, "Mickey in Death Valley."

The Dutch-with-a-little-help-from-Donald-Markstein Bucky Bug story was the
best so far. The plot was cleverly complex (given its 4-page package) and
seemed like a Gottfredson Mouse story. I rest my case toward this character.

The only disappointment in WDC&S 625 was "Goofy Meets the Reluctant Dragon."
While it had some clever twists and a nice ironic ending, it really wasn't
earth-shakingly important enough to be printed in a $7 comic book.
Furthermore, bringing up a point mentioned by Owen Heitmann in the letter
column of this very issue, the story has been reprinted a mere 9 years ago,
in WDC&S 541 (1989). If you wish to continue printing Goofy-sans-Mickey
stories, though, why not remember Super Goof? Many of his stories (from
1965-1984) are just the right length to fit in the alloted space, and have
never been reprinted since their original appearance.

In closing, you note in the letter column that Paul Murry's "Riding the
Rails" has been reprinted by Disney in WDC&S 579. This is half-truth, or to
be more accurate, a third-truth, since Disney published nothing BUT the last
of three chapters! The first two, so important in any story of that nature,
have wallowed in the hole of unreprinted-ness since their debut in 1955. The
complete story is most certainly due for vindication in a single issue.
Beyond that, no complaints. See you in 626!

--Jonathan Markoff
Vienna, VA
(Email removed)
-------------------------

"Alas, poor Yorick, I knew him well!"
--William Van Horn, "Mummery's the Word"

"The only way to get ahead of Mickey Mouse--is to run in front of him!"
--David Gerstein, "The Egg Collector"

(But BOTH of these quotes originated somewhere else! ;-) ;-) ;-)

"Donald D. Markstein" <(Email removed)>:
> [Dave,] You still here? Haven't heard from you in awhile.

I've been house hunting every spare moment since mid-January.
Escrow closed on Eileen's two-story 1912 Craftsman house here in
Hollywood on May 19th. Been moving 60-mile round trips every
single day since then. Way behind on everything. I'll be moved or
dead by the 1st.

> Just wanted to mention that I enjoyed Gyro in "All That
> Jazz" and Donald in "Hayseed", which appeared in ANDERS AND #s
> 98-18 and 98-19, respectively.

Thanks for all the kind words!

> The Nephews' contract idea, while not directly taken from anything
> I've read, was reminiscent of Barks, and I do enjoy those little
> echoes of Barks now and then.

High praise, indeed...

And ditto from me regarding your mention of the fine, fine Hogan's
Alley.

Best to all,

--
riverrun past Eve's and Adam's from swerve of shore to bend of bay
(Email removed) -=*=- http://users.aol.com/dcrawson/home.htm

--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V98 Issue #132
******************************************

>From: jgarvin ((Email removed))

>I never said Don couldn't complain. I just think it odd that one the
>one hand he complains about Disney's business practices, yet on the
>other he continues to make product for them.

That is your prerogative (to think it is odd), but it is no more odd
than complaining about a member of your family while supporting them
(financially), no more odd than complaining about one aspect of your
government while supporting it (financially), and so on. In other
words, the world is not black and white. I believe the greater the
number of creators that complain, the more likely change will occur.
I think just complaining itself is a good first step.

> I don't think consumers' views are influenced by the creators at
>all.

Well, we disagree there. My support of Disney has been influenced by
Rosa's and other people's comments, and my own evaluation. In fact, I
refuse to buy Disney stock, even though I really like the certificates
they send.

>bet that the vast majority of comics readers are looking for stories
>about "Uncle Scrooge," not for stories "by Don Rosa," or "Carl Barks"
>for that matter.

What the vast majority of comics readers don't know is that it is
Rosa's or Barks' magic that makes it work out as well as it does.
Certainly, if I started drawing Uncle Scrooge for Disney, it would be
a total disaster. Public education I think is a positive action, and
Rosa's comments help in that education. Again, it's not an all or
nothing deal: Rosa's US is the way it is because of Rosa AND Disney.
I'd press for change that put them both on equal footing on the
contract table, and I think the current advantage is titled toward
Disney. Of course, you can say Rosa could leave Disney, but perhaps
that's not his goal. I think in the long run Disney's policies
/could/ be changed if enough creators and consumers speak up.

>As I said, I am aware that Disney is very protective of its
>copyrights and that it has a tenacious legal department.

I think Disney crosses the line often.

>> Barks may not express anger, but what I think has been done to Barks
>> is an injustice by Disney. Again, I'd take a survey of people and ask
>> them who created Uncle Scrooge.
>
>I've talked to Barks about this.

Well, he may be pleased. But that doesn't on any logical grounds say
whether he was treated justly or not. The sweatshop factory worker
may be pleased at earning $2 a day (which would be a lot in some
countries), but I'd consider that an injustice none the less.

I think if Disney had given more credit to Barks, I don't think the
sales would've sufered at all.

>Barks recognised that without Disney, he would probably have been a
>chicken farmer somewhere.

And without Barks Disney might never have seen characters like Uncle
Scrooge, the three Nephews, etc. and made all the revenue it did. It
goes BOTH WAYS. But it seems to me one side has benefitted more than
the other. Now you can say it was Barks' choice, but that doesn't
excuse anything. Like wise with Rosa... we might never have seen a
Life and Times (which I think is one of the greatest works in comic
book history) or a sequel to Lost in the Andes, etc.

>I'm not sure what you mean by "injustice."

Injustice is in the fact that Barks' contribution is valued less than
Disney's contribution. We could argue for years about who is more
important in this "partnership" (the problem is that it really isn't),
but I'd say it's at least equal.

>Well this is the whole issue, isn't it? Corporate change is brought
>about by consumer "action" not talk.

I disagree if you mean action to include only boycotting. I consider
boycotts to generally be self-defeating. However, it can be useful in
a limited manner: if you like Rosa's comics, you might avoid buying
other comics or other Disney products (which I do) or supporting
Disney in other ways (like not buying its stock).

>boycott a product, wouldn't that take away the living that all these
>creators are making?

Perhaps, but that's a decision you have to make. Again, it's not a
zero sum game. You could support Disney by buying its comics and not
support it by not buying its stock. In fact, from my perspective, I
have to do both since I think some of Disney's policies are good and
some are bad. I try to make it known as much as possible why I don't
support Disney in some ways in the hopes someone will listen (I do
make it known why when I do support Disney). Today I am not at all
influential in this regard. But that may change, and others may be
more influential than I.

>This _is_ ironic since you will argue in the next paragraphs that you
>_don't_ work for Disney. So why do they tell you anything?

Well, he could not work Disney but by using Disney characters he is
obligated to follow their license terms. If I license Mickey Mouse
from Disney to sell Mickey Mouse cups, I don't think I'm working for
Disney, but at the same time, under the law at least, I'm legally
obligated to follow their contractual terms.

Actually if Rosa works like a contractee as opposed to an employee
(i.e., with benefits similar to a regular employee) (i.e., he's paid
per page), then I'd say he doesn't work for Disney or Egmont. Of
course, Disney benefits from what he does, but this is not the same as
"working for Disney".

>No creator has the right to complain about rights that he/she has
>signed away.

I vehemently disagree. Creators not only do complain, but the courts
have found them to be right as well (I know of at least one striking
example). Notwithstanding the appeal to authority (courts), logically
there's no reason anything "signed away" can't be disputed.

>No one has the right to profit from the characters that belong to
>someone.

I presume you would qualify that to include permission of the "owner".
I have chosen in life not to follow this path: everything I create is
freely copiable and I am very happy when people profit from it without
compensating me, and I refuse to enter into any situation where what I
create cannot be placed in the public domain. However, I think Don
Rosa is perfectly justified in doing what he's doing.

--Ram

(Email removed) || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th
TWISTED HELICES' Traversing a Twisted Path is now out on CD, with over
70 minutes of music.

"Der Donaldist" #104 arrived yesterday! That was the issue I was
afraid I'd missed out on a couple of months ago, so they are not
exactly up to their usual frequency. Apart from a long, boring
story about the 21.st congress and a highly academical article
about the different intelligent species in and around Duckburg,
there was also an article about Freddy Milton + an index.

Very interestingly there was also a reprint of D 90234, which
it appears was written by Milton and prolific Egmont writer Gorm
Transgaard. It was thought of as a try-out for Milton to work for
Egmont. The script was accepted by Byron Erickson, and Freddy
went on to draw it, but then was told that he couldn't work with
Byron as his editor (remember Egmont has several story editors,
each with their own associated writers), and because ONLY Byron's
writers were allowed to draw their own stories, the script was
handed on to Tino Santanach, who did the art for the story that
was published in Danish "Anders And Ekstra" #9/1994.

"Der Donaldist" prints the two versions alongside each other
(including two pages left out in the published version), so now
I guess Disney owns Milton's finished art, even if they don't
want it. :-) Our story code for "Knowing Women" could BTW be
D 90234H, Harry? ("But it's got NOTHING to do with Holland!")

Another example of mysterious Egmont policies is a reprint of
a Walsh/Gonzales Goofy sunday page - and thanks for finally having
credits on those - ZM 47-02-02, formerly only known as W WDC 114-06.
It's the story where Goofy turns a Native American fashion window
display into a - very realistic - display of Custer's Last Stand.

I say "reprint", because it was in "Anders And" #10/1950, probably
as published in WDC 114, i.e. re-formatted from sideways 3 tier to
"normal" 4 tier comic book size.
But in the newest version, the panels have been cut differently -
it's hard to say exactly how without knowing the original, but it
is now definitely two panels shorter!

As we all know by now, there is no such thing as integrity of a
creator or a work of art when we're talking Disney comics, but
I don't get it in this instance. Probably the story was just
in a batch of Mickey sundays that got re-worked recently, and
no-one noticed, or cared, if it had ever been printed before?
It WAS nicely done, and if I hadn't remembered and compared it
to the first printing, I'd have considered it a "pure" version.

Why not try the proper side-ways printing, as it can be currently
be seen in the (sadly too small for this purpose) German "Lustige
Taschenbucher"?

Nice job Egmont is doing all the same. As I've said at least a couple
of times before, the Egmont weeklies are the best in the world
right now. Especially the Mickey stories are terrific these days,
almost regardless of who is doing them, though Stefan Petruchka
deserves a special pat on the back. I can't say whether Paul Murry
"spoiled" Mickey Mouse, but he DID make me lose my appetite for the
mouse (as well as his own, I suspect).

It's really a shame that the American audience don't have - and
probably won't get - the chance to see the rebirth of the mouse:
it may be happening in Europe, but the people behind are apple-pie-
eyed Americans, and there's no cultural gap to cross with Mickey
on his new adventures. If you only knew what you are missing.

Well, at least you won't miss next week's sequel to Don Rosa's
omni-solvent story, but you'll have to wait for it... and wait for
it... and wait for it. But I'll enjoy just two weeks of suspense.

oLe "RoC" Reichstein Nielsen
V (Why isn't my name in the digest headlines?)

OLE:

and because ONLY Byron's
> writers were allowed to draw their own stories,=20

Hm, when I read the last of Egmont's scribbles "Rota rules the runes" I=
got
the impression that Lars Bergstro=A8m is Marco Rota's editor, and Rota =
sure
draws his own strories.=20
=09
Best,
Per-Erik

Whew! Got hit with FIVE Gladstone albums at my comics shop today, all costing
$9.95. Had to put one back. If the high-prices books are what Gladstone is
doing, they need to space out their release dates or they're going to drive
some good customers away.

Hi!

***Evidental SPOILER?***

In Sweden this week, Don Rosa's "The Black Knight" (24 p) was published as a
1-parter (!). But has it been published as 2-parter anywhere (yet)?

Thanks in advance for any info regarding this matter!

---
_//\|<()|}

*********************************************************
* E-mail: (Email removed) *
* Disney Comics page: http://home4.swipnet.se/~w-47991/ *
*********************************************************