Harry wrote:
>Web-based forum:
>- you have to subscribe to a commercial party, hence set your e-mail
>address open for spam;
I don't want to make publicity for the Barks and Rosa forum (which is pretty
dormant) but actually, no, you have the option to simply use an email that
Yahoo gives you. You may not use that email at all.
Francois
Author
Topic: 200106
(445 messages)
Francois Willot
Mailing list
Message 151 -
2001-06-12 at 23:21:40
Rob Klein
K.K. Publications/Gold Key
Message 152 -
2001-06-13 at 05:49:48
Hallo Kriton, - actually, I DID mean K.K. Publications, which was a
subsidiary of Whitman Publishing Co. - Gold Key and Dell were both the
magazine labels for Walt Disney's Comics and Stories. The Whitman
Publishing Company received primary publishing rights to Walt Disney's
characters in 1933, and they held those rights throughout the lives of
Mickey Mouse Magazine, and all US Disney comic books until the end of
Whitman's run in 1982-83. I believe Whitman still holds much of Disney's
book publishing rights.
You were right to mention that I overlooked "Gold Key", - but that is
mainly that I feel the differences between that period's artist's styles
was much less than the earlier period (and that K.K. Publications covered
the 1948 through whole Gold Key period in any case). I covered the pre-
K.K. period by including Disney and Whitman. Whitman actually oversaw
publication, through its comic book subsidiary publisher : Western
Publishing, the same as Dell, only without the logo in WDC & S before 1948.
Personally, I feel that the new (non-reprint) Duck Story artwork of the
various Western artists during the Gold Key period was not as varied in
style as it was during the 1940s and 1950s. I feel that the styles of Kay
Wright, Vic Lockman, the later style of Tony Strobl, and the other Duck
artists of that period (other than Barks) were much less varied from
eachother than the wider variety of earlier styles. Part of the reason for
that may be that Tony Strobl drew many of the pencils for several inkers
during that time.
Just a short comment about my comment above regarding the Western Duck
artists during the Gold Key period: This is just my own personal opinion,
based on an impression. It may not be based on a proper scientific sample.
I have not defined "variation", or placed a value on "degree of
variation". I haven't identified the total list of artists who worked on
Duck stories during that period, nor have I tabulated or enumerated the
total pages for each artist. I am not telling knowledgeable (or, more
importantly) casual list readers that what I say is "fact" or "Gospel". It
is only my own personal opinion. I give it, to initiate what I hope will be
eluminating discussion from knowledgeable members, AND to hear the opinions
of other members. These potentialities are some of the main reasons I
enjoy the DCML. I can learn things from a great variety of sources: fellow
fans, professional writers, artists, and editors. I hope to enjoy this
forum in that way.
I bring all this up because I have noticed recently, that several of my
comments have seemed to irritate several different people. I do NOT
expect anyone to think that I am trying to change their minds about the
quality of any artist's or writer's work based on MY opinions. I cannot
speak as an art expert. I only give my opinion (which is based on my
personal taste). It is not RIGHT, or WRONG. It is only what is more
pleasing, or less pleasing to me. I have never intended to be a JUDGE of
other artists' or writers' art. Therefore, I must assume that I have a
problem area in my command of the English language. it must be in the area
of "tone". I will try to be very careful to couch my comments in terms of
taste and opinion rather than to be implying (through poor use of language
or carelessness) that one's art is "better" or more "creative" than
another's, or that one type of story is less work than another.
I know very well, from my own storywriting experience, that weaving a story
around historical data provided by Barks is more work than starting from
scratch. I had no intention of implying the opposite. I had no intension
to imply that Frank McSavage's artwork is not "good quality" - or that it
is ANY particular level of quality. I intended to point out that it is one
of the styles of Ducks that was furthest off model of the Western artists -
AND that his extremely short beaks and distorted expressions (again
opinion) are less pleasing to me than most. I just want to say that I was
brought up to never hurt ANYONE or ANYTHING by anything I do or say.
Therefore, I NEVER intend to put down anyone for any reason. If it appears
that I have done so, it is through carelessness in making myself clear. I
apologise for being careless in the past, and will put much effort into
avoiding same in future.
I DO however welcome All the comments and opinions of others (as that is
what makes our list so interesting). I do hope we omit the comments that
seem to be aimed at personal vindictiveness. Are our readers really
interested in other members' comments as to whether or not someone intended
to slander another member or put someone down. I think most of our
membership is intellegent enough to identify such commentary for what it is
(even taking into consideration the large proportion of us for whom English
is not their first language). I hope we don't use a lot of valuable
reading time, reading name-calling back and forth.
Rob Klein
subsidiary of Whitman Publishing Co. - Gold Key and Dell were both the
magazine labels for Walt Disney's Comics and Stories. The Whitman
Publishing Company received primary publishing rights to Walt Disney's
characters in 1933, and they held those rights throughout the lives of
Mickey Mouse Magazine, and all US Disney comic books until the end of
Whitman's run in 1982-83. I believe Whitman still holds much of Disney's
book publishing rights.
You were right to mention that I overlooked "Gold Key", - but that is
mainly that I feel the differences between that period's artist's styles
was much less than the earlier period (and that K.K. Publications covered
the 1948 through whole Gold Key period in any case). I covered the pre-
K.K. period by including Disney and Whitman. Whitman actually oversaw
publication, through its comic book subsidiary publisher : Western
Publishing, the same as Dell, only without the logo in WDC & S before 1948.
Personally, I feel that the new (non-reprint) Duck Story artwork of the
various Western artists during the Gold Key period was not as varied in
style as it was during the 1940s and 1950s. I feel that the styles of Kay
Wright, Vic Lockman, the later style of Tony Strobl, and the other Duck
artists of that period (other than Barks) were much less varied from
eachother than the wider variety of earlier styles. Part of the reason for
that may be that Tony Strobl drew many of the pencils for several inkers
during that time.
Just a short comment about my comment above regarding the Western Duck
artists during the Gold Key period: This is just my own personal opinion,
based on an impression. It may not be based on a proper scientific sample.
I have not defined "variation", or placed a value on "degree of
variation". I haven't identified the total list of artists who worked on
Duck stories during that period, nor have I tabulated or enumerated the
total pages for each artist. I am not telling knowledgeable (or, more
importantly) casual list readers that what I say is "fact" or "Gospel". It
is only my own personal opinion. I give it, to initiate what I hope will be
eluminating discussion from knowledgeable members, AND to hear the opinions
of other members. These potentialities are some of the main reasons I
enjoy the DCML. I can learn things from a great variety of sources: fellow
fans, professional writers, artists, and editors. I hope to enjoy this
forum in that way.
I bring all this up because I have noticed recently, that several of my
comments have seemed to irritate several different people. I do NOT
expect anyone to think that I am trying to change their minds about the
quality of any artist's or writer's work based on MY opinions. I cannot
speak as an art expert. I only give my opinion (which is based on my
personal taste). It is not RIGHT, or WRONG. It is only what is more
pleasing, or less pleasing to me. I have never intended to be a JUDGE of
other artists' or writers' art. Therefore, I must assume that I have a
problem area in my command of the English language. it must be in the area
of "tone". I will try to be very careful to couch my comments in terms of
taste and opinion rather than to be implying (through poor use of language
or carelessness) that one's art is "better" or more "creative" than
another's, or that one type of story is less work than another.
I know very well, from my own storywriting experience, that weaving a story
around historical data provided by Barks is more work than starting from
scratch. I had no intention of implying the opposite. I had no intension
to imply that Frank McSavage's artwork is not "good quality" - or that it
is ANY particular level of quality. I intended to point out that it is one
of the styles of Ducks that was furthest off model of the Western artists -
AND that his extremely short beaks and distorted expressions (again
opinion) are less pleasing to me than most. I just want to say that I was
brought up to never hurt ANYONE or ANYTHING by anything I do or say.
Therefore, I NEVER intend to put down anyone for any reason. If it appears
that I have done so, it is through carelessness in making myself clear. I
apologise for being careless in the past, and will put much effort into
avoiding same in future.
I DO however welcome All the comments and opinions of others (as that is
what makes our list so interesting). I do hope we omit the comments that
seem to be aimed at personal vindictiveness. Are our readers really
interested in other members' comments as to whether or not someone intended
to slander another member or put someone down. I think most of our
membership is intellegent enough to identify such commentary for what it is
(even taking into consideration the large proportion of us for whom English
is not their first language). I hope we don't use a lot of valuable
reading time, reading name-calling back and forth.
Rob Klein
Don Rosa
All our emotional problems
Message 153 -
2001-06-13 at 08:14:28
From: Krarup Olesen <raptus at stofanet.dk>
>>>Even *if* John and Daniel have
"emotional problems" (which of course is out of the question), why on
Earth bring this into the debate. To me this seems like the last thing
one would ever dare to do. You might have meant this as a pure
rethorical phrase, but still it's a bit "low" IMO.
Sorry, I can't help it. I really like the way people have expressed ideas
on this ML for many years without the emotional ranting that pervades other
newsgroups, and I hope it continues. I want it to. I grew up as a virtual
only-child (my sister was much older than me and moved away quite early,
probably because of the following) where my parents constantly, I mean
*constantly*, did nothing but bitterly argue and fight, using the nastiest
language they could muster. And I had to live in that house and take it....
which is probably why I turned to comics and movies as my insular life,
closing myself up in my own room with my comics and my TV and not venturing
out. When somebody comes at me with a nasty, insulting demeanor, I shut
down or try to do what I can to get them to control it. "Emotional
problems" is a buzz phrase that means just what I want it to mean, but
perhaps has such a connotation that perhaps I should not use it? I say
something a certain way, and then I am puzzled at the reaction, though I've
caused the reaction by my own phrasing? Yeah, I guess so. That leads me
to...
>>>I am a bit disappointed about the reaction from Don about me actually
liking his newest story. Why not just
enjoy that you actually managed to please one of your critics, one who
is not even a born Barksian.
Well, I *was* pleased that you had liked the story, and I was going to
thank you... but you went on to phrase the compliment in a seeming "excuse"
for your liking the story, due to a lack of Barksian references, which
didn't make sense. I resisted saying anything at the time, which *was* my
way of enjoying the fact without questioning you. But I mentioned it
sometime later because several others picked up on the oddity as well, and
I wanted to acknowledge for them that there truly *were* many Barksian
references and that they were not imagining them. But I did so without
mentioning your name (though I knew who I was referring to) since I *did*
appreciate the fact you liked the story, but it was the Barksian facts I
was referring to, not your critique.
You don't understand why I can't simply enjoy that I pleased a critic, and
you can't admit to being pleased without offering a seemingly odd "excuse"
for the fact. So, as someone else said in the previous Digest, we each
express ourselves in such a way that it can't help but cause a response
inappropriate with the actual point trying to be made in either case?
Probably so. Sorry.
As for Mr. garvin, I was initially *quite* puzzled, not by his opinions,
but by his immediately nasty and long-winded vehemence in expressing them.
I've described why such arguing upsets me greatly. The only explanation I
could perceive was that he obviously had some vested interest in Barks
paintings, ergo my brusque crack at him in reaction to my being called
"ignorant and arrogant". But I read his message in the previous digest, and
I see that his vested interest in the paintings is that they are his
personal link to the memory and friendship of Mr. Barks, and perhaps
(according to the message) even the basis for his entire career. It's an
*emotional* vested-interest, not financial at all. I thought that was very
touching. Any comment anyone makes about those paintings is something that
he would naturally take *very* personally. I've already sent him an apology
for that knee-jerk one-liner about the "money tied up in lithographs".
>>>Even *if* John and Daniel have
"emotional problems" (which of course is out of the question), why on
Earth bring this into the debate. To me this seems like the last thing
one would ever dare to do. You might have meant this as a pure
rethorical phrase, but still it's a bit "low" IMO.
Sorry, I can't help it. I really like the way people have expressed ideas
on this ML for many years without the emotional ranting that pervades other
newsgroups, and I hope it continues. I want it to. I grew up as a virtual
only-child (my sister was much older than me and moved away quite early,
probably because of the following) where my parents constantly, I mean
*constantly*, did nothing but bitterly argue and fight, using the nastiest
language they could muster. And I had to live in that house and take it....
which is probably why I turned to comics and movies as my insular life,
closing myself up in my own room with my comics and my TV and not venturing
out. When somebody comes at me with a nasty, insulting demeanor, I shut
down or try to do what I can to get them to control it. "Emotional
problems" is a buzz phrase that means just what I want it to mean, but
perhaps has such a connotation that perhaps I should not use it? I say
something a certain way, and then I am puzzled at the reaction, though I've
caused the reaction by my own phrasing? Yeah, I guess so. That leads me
to...
>>>I am a bit disappointed about the reaction from Don about me actually
liking his newest story. Why not just
enjoy that you actually managed to please one of your critics, one who
is not even a born Barksian.
Well, I *was* pleased that you had liked the story, and I was going to
thank you... but you went on to phrase the compliment in a seeming "excuse"
for your liking the story, due to a lack of Barksian references, which
didn't make sense. I resisted saying anything at the time, which *was* my
way of enjoying the fact without questioning you. But I mentioned it
sometime later because several others picked up on the oddity as well, and
I wanted to acknowledge for them that there truly *were* many Barksian
references and that they were not imagining them. But I did so without
mentioning your name (though I knew who I was referring to) since I *did*
appreciate the fact you liked the story, but it was the Barksian facts I
was referring to, not your critique.
You don't understand why I can't simply enjoy that I pleased a critic, and
you can't admit to being pleased without offering a seemingly odd "excuse"
for the fact. So, as someone else said in the previous Digest, we each
express ourselves in such a way that it can't help but cause a response
inappropriate with the actual point trying to be made in either case?
Probably so. Sorry.
As for Mr. garvin, I was initially *quite* puzzled, not by his opinions,
but by his immediately nasty and long-winded vehemence in expressing them.
I've described why such arguing upsets me greatly. The only explanation I
could perceive was that he obviously had some vested interest in Barks
paintings, ergo my brusque crack at him in reaction to my being called
"ignorant and arrogant". But I read his message in the previous digest, and
I see that his vested interest in the paintings is that they are his
personal link to the memory and friendship of Mr. Barks, and perhaps
(according to the message) even the basis for his entire career. It's an
*emotional* vested-interest, not financial at all. I thought that was very
touching. Any comment anyone makes about those paintings is something that
he would naturally take *very* personally. I've already sent him an apology
for that knee-jerk one-liner about the "money tied up in lithographs".
Søren Krarup Olesen
All our emotional problems
Message 154 -
2001-06-13 at 08:36:58
DON:
> Well, I *was* pleased that you had liked the story, and I was going to
> thank you...but you went on to phrase the compliment in a seeming
> "excuse" for your liking the story, due to a lack of Barksian
> references, which didn't make sense.
Ah, but no reason to explicitly "thank" me :-) (you surely have better
things to do), anyways...
It was simply the only explanation I could come up with. Rob used the
term "[...] not slavishly tied to the information Barks provided in
previous stories [...]", and this is exactly how I read this story.
The two outer extremes are 1) Everything is "steered" by old Barks
events and 2) Everything is steered by you (the author) nomatter how
many elements and references there are to older Barks facts etc.
Your latest story is of "type 2" IMO and that's why I enjoyed reading
it. I even appreciate its inconsistence with "The Coin", where the
Beagles apparantly manage to find the right way through the money bin in
less than ten panels. :-)
Søren
> Well, I *was* pleased that you had liked the story, and I was going to
> thank you...but you went on to phrase the compliment in a seeming
> "excuse" for your liking the story, due to a lack of Barksian
> references, which didn't make sense.
Ah, but no reason to explicitly "thank" me :-) (you surely have better
things to do), anyways...
It was simply the only explanation I could come up with. Rob used the
term "[...] not slavishly tied to the information Barks provided in
previous stories [...]", and this is exactly how I read this story.
The two outer extremes are 1) Everything is "steered" by old Barks
events and 2) Everything is steered by you (the author) nomatter how
many elements and references there are to older Barks facts etc.
Your latest story is of "type 2" IMO and that's why I enjoyed reading
it. I even appreciate its inconsistence with "The Coin", where the
Beagles apparantly manage to find the right way through the money bin in
less than ten panels. :-)
Søren
Kenneth Glendinning
It happens again
Message 155 -
2001-06-13 at 08:47:51
This mailing list is a full time job I don't check it for a day or two and I
get swamped by messages on the DCML.
And again it is an argument over nothing.
Why cannot everybody remember Barks in there own way so just state you
opinion and move on?
Instead you argue about whom is correct well guess what no one is.
It is a matter of your point of view.
And Don Rosa you claim you are attacked when all I can see is you doing the
attacking when other are just trying to tell you and others there point of
view.
If some one told you that you had emotional problems how would you respond?
OK I think I have got my point of view across just remember that is all it
is.
It is not personal.
Kenneth
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
get swamped by messages on the DCML.
And again it is an argument over nothing.
Why cannot everybody remember Barks in there own way so just state you
opinion and move on?
Instead you argue about whom is correct well guess what no one is.
It is a matter of your point of view.
And Don Rosa you claim you are attacked when all I can see is you doing the
attacking when other are just trying to tell you and others there point of
view.
If some one told you that you had emotional problems how would you respond?
OK I think I have got my point of view across just remember that is all it
is.
It is not personal.
Kenneth
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
John Garvin
An apology
Message 156 -
2001-06-13 at 09:45:07
Looking back over my initial response to Mr. Rosa's reporting on the
Barrier article, I see that indeed my use of the terms "ignorant" and
"arrogant" could be rightfully considered "fighting words." I know better
than to use such inflammatory rhetoric, since all that usually results, is
in fact what did result. I honestly did not think it possible that
someone could not value Barks's painting work as I do, and that for
someone to say that this work should be forgotten created a knee jerk
reaction in me as well: that such attitudes could only come from ignorance
of Barks work, or an arrogant disregard for it. So I apologize for using
such confrontative and argumentative language.
How much more productive it would have been, I think, for me to have
uploaded scans of my favorite Barks paintings, and to have provided links
to them and a thoughtful discussion of why those paintings will be
remembered as the beginning of another manner of painting. Indeed, I can
see that perhaps an entire book is in order on the subject. And I do not
believe that the appreciation of art is at all subjective. I may not
personally want to hang a Picasso in my home, but I understand the
important place Picasso occupies in the history and development of modern
art. But perhaps this is a discussion better left to a different mailing
list.
I've sent Mr. Rosa a personal apology as well.
Barrier article, I see that indeed my use of the terms "ignorant" and
"arrogant" could be rightfully considered "fighting words." I know better
than to use such inflammatory rhetoric, since all that usually results, is
in fact what did result. I honestly did not think it possible that
someone could not value Barks's painting work as I do, and that for
someone to say that this work should be forgotten created a knee jerk
reaction in me as well: that such attitudes could only come from ignorance
of Barks work, or an arrogant disregard for it. So I apologize for using
such confrontative and argumentative language.
How much more productive it would have been, I think, for me to have
uploaded scans of my favorite Barks paintings, and to have provided links
to them and a thoughtful discussion of why those paintings will be
remembered as the beginning of another manner of painting. Indeed, I can
see that perhaps an entire book is in order on the subject. And I do not
believe that the appreciation of art is at all subjective. I may not
personally want to hang a Picasso in my home, but I understand the
important place Picasso occupies in the history and development of modern
art. But perhaps this is a discussion better left to a different mailing
list.
I've sent Mr. Rosa a personal apology as well.
Olaf Solstrand
Woooops! Donald's Childhood
Message 157 -
2001-06-13 at 12:29:20
Hehe... my last mail was supposed to be FIRST the part of Don Rosa's
so-called arrogance, then something about Donald's childhood, and then
something connected to Lo$. Unfortunately, I wrote it at school, and when
the bell rang, I had to run to class. I wrote nothing about D's childhood or
Lo$, but I still forgot to delete it from the Subject. Anyway, here it
comes...
Do we know anything about Donald's childhood? I have tried to gather some
loose treads... (but I'm totally ignoring "From duck to egg" by Marco Rota)
1. According to Don Rosa, Donald was born around 1920. Or was he? In Life of
Scrooge part 12, HD&L asks Donald what this Uncle Scrooge is like. Donald
answers that "I have only met him once, and then I was younger than you are
know." Since the meeting Donald refers to is about 1930 (at least it is
after the Wall Street Crack), he must back then have been younger than HD&L
was in 1947. If Donald is born in 1920 and HD&L in 1940, that is not
correct. Can Donald be born later - or the boys born later? I doubt it.
Donald and Della was twins, and I can't imagine a Disney Duck having babies
even YOUNGER than 20 years old... The most obvious solution here is that
Donald remembered wrong, and that he IS born in 1920.
2. When Donald was a child in Duckburg, he must have lived somewhere with
his parents. This could have been in a house in Duckburg, at Grandma Duck's
farm or in the Money Bin (11th floor). I doubt it was the Money Bin, since
Donald in Life of Scrooge don't believe that the building is full of cash,
which he would know if he had lived there the 10 first years of his life.
Kari Korhonen's stories about Donald's childhood shows him growing up on
Grandma Duck's farm. Since both his parents were working all day in the
Money Bin, that seems logical. That he either lived there, or she was his
babysitter all day long. But he probably lived there. From Don Rosa's The
Sign of the Triple (something) and lots of other stories we know that all
family celebrations are hold on the farm. Therefor, let's suppose he lived
there.
3. In modern Duckburg, we never see Hortense, Matilda, Della or Quackmore.
Probably because they, in 1930, moved away - left Duckburg. At least that is
my theory. We see them leaving the Money Bin - they probably left the city
as well. Where should they have gone, you say? My theory is Scotland. As you
know I haven't read "The Secret of the old castle", but I guess there's
nothing that says that they couldn't have lived in Scotland for a while - on
the castle or somewhere near it - and that Donald also was with'em.
4. We know a few things Donald has done in his youth. What appears in Barks
stories are probably most bragging (like all his hunter stories), but I
believe in the happenings of two cartoons - "The wise little hen" and "The
three cabarellos". I haven't SEEN the three cabarellos, but especially since
the figures is re-used by D.R. - and Carioca even has his own story - I
guess they have met in their youth, probably somewhere in Latin America.
5. In "the wice little hen", we see that Donald once lived on a boat, and
that he had a good friend in that pig I don't know the english name of. If
this has happened, which I choose to believe since it was "Donald"'s first
appearance, it must have been BEFORE he moved back to Duckburg.
6. Why did Donald move back to Duckburg? My theory; his grandfather, Grandpa
Duck, died, and Donald came back to take part in his funeral (if that is the
right word). He then helped Grandma on her farm for a while, until she got
to hire someone to help her (Gus). At this time, Donald bought a house in
Duckburg and moved in here.
All these are my personal theories. I want to hear what you know.
One day, I hope I get to write a story about Donald's childhood and youth!!!
By the way, remember that I told you 'bout the story I wrote? It's right now
in the hands of BYRON ERICKSON, which is reading it and evaluating it. This
is kinda big for me, since Byron Erickson in a long time has been a man
mentioned by Don Rosa in appendixes etc., where I have started thinking of
him as a very important person - maybe even a god. Call me crazy.
-olaf-
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
so-called arrogance, then something about Donald's childhood, and then
something connected to Lo$. Unfortunately, I wrote it at school, and when
the bell rang, I had to run to class. I wrote nothing about D's childhood or
Lo$, but I still forgot to delete it from the Subject. Anyway, here it
comes...
Do we know anything about Donald's childhood? I have tried to gather some
loose treads... (but I'm totally ignoring "From duck to egg" by Marco Rota)
1. According to Don Rosa, Donald was born around 1920. Or was he? In Life of
Scrooge part 12, HD&L asks Donald what this Uncle Scrooge is like. Donald
answers that "I have only met him once, and then I was younger than you are
know." Since the meeting Donald refers to is about 1930 (at least it is
after the Wall Street Crack), he must back then have been younger than HD&L
was in 1947. If Donald is born in 1920 and HD&L in 1940, that is not
correct. Can Donald be born later - or the boys born later? I doubt it.
Donald and Della was twins, and I can't imagine a Disney Duck having babies
even YOUNGER than 20 years old... The most obvious solution here is that
Donald remembered wrong, and that he IS born in 1920.
2. When Donald was a child in Duckburg, he must have lived somewhere with
his parents. This could have been in a house in Duckburg, at Grandma Duck's
farm or in the Money Bin (11th floor). I doubt it was the Money Bin, since
Donald in Life of Scrooge don't believe that the building is full of cash,
which he would know if he had lived there the 10 first years of his life.
Kari Korhonen's stories about Donald's childhood shows him growing up on
Grandma Duck's farm. Since both his parents were working all day in the
Money Bin, that seems logical. That he either lived there, or she was his
babysitter all day long. But he probably lived there. From Don Rosa's The
Sign of the Triple (something) and lots of other stories we know that all
family celebrations are hold on the farm. Therefor, let's suppose he lived
there.
3. In modern Duckburg, we never see Hortense, Matilda, Della or Quackmore.
Probably because they, in 1930, moved away - left Duckburg. At least that is
my theory. We see them leaving the Money Bin - they probably left the city
as well. Where should they have gone, you say? My theory is Scotland. As you
know I haven't read "The Secret of the old castle", but I guess there's
nothing that says that they couldn't have lived in Scotland for a while - on
the castle or somewhere near it - and that Donald also was with'em.
4. We know a few things Donald has done in his youth. What appears in Barks
stories are probably most bragging (like all his hunter stories), but I
believe in the happenings of two cartoons - "The wise little hen" and "The
three cabarellos". I haven't SEEN the three cabarellos, but especially since
the figures is re-used by D.R. - and Carioca even has his own story - I
guess they have met in their youth, probably somewhere in Latin America.
5. In "the wice little hen", we see that Donald once lived on a boat, and
that he had a good friend in that pig I don't know the english name of. If
this has happened, which I choose to believe since it was "Donald"'s first
appearance, it must have been BEFORE he moved back to Duckburg.
6. Why did Donald move back to Duckburg? My theory; his grandfather, Grandpa
Duck, died, and Donald came back to take part in his funeral (if that is the
right word). He then helped Grandma on her farm for a while, until she got
to hire someone to help her (Gus). At this time, Donald bought a house in
Duckburg and moved in here.
All these are my personal theories. I want to hear what you know.
One day, I hope I get to write a story about Donald's childhood and youth!!!
By the way, remember that I told you 'bout the story I wrote? It's right now
in the hands of BYRON ERICKSON, which is reading it and evaluating it. This
is kinda big for me, since Byron Erickson in a long time has been a man
mentioned by Don Rosa in appendixes etc., where I have started thinking of
him as a very important person - maybe even a god. Call me crazy.
-olaf-
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Francois Willot
New online story: Donald Duck in Kite Weather
Message 158 -
2001-06-13 at 12:40:42
This famous Barks story is available online, thanks to "ZapJones".
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/duckcomicsofbarksandrosa (registration req'd)
Then, go the "Photo section".
Francois http://www2.ec-lille.fr/coa/coa/c1/
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/duckcomicsofbarksandrosa (registration req'd)
Then, go the "Photo section".
Francois http://www2.ec-lille.fr/coa/coa/c1/
Daniel Van Eijmeren
For Wouter
Message 159 -
2001-06-13 at 13:33:40
WOUTER, 12-06-2001:
> And Daniel: this is between them, you only use it to attack Don
> one more time,
This is not true.
Best wishes,
--- Daniel
> And Daniel: this is between them, you only use it to attack Don
> one more time,
This is not true.
Best wishes,
--- Daniel
SRoweCanoe
DCML digest, Vol 1 #567 - 13 msgs
Message 160 -
2001-06-13 at 13:34:06
In a message dated 6/12/2001 10:54:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Rob wrote:
> I believe Whitman still holds much of Disney's
> book publishing rights.
>
Not anymore; this made the news last year (or so), when "Golden Press" (as
Whitman is now known) did not renew, saying that the rights were now too
expensive for them.
Steven Rowe
Rob wrote:
> I believe Whitman still holds much of Disney's
> book publishing rights.
>
Not anymore; this made the news last year (or so), when "Golden Press" (as
Whitman is now known) did not renew, saying that the rights were now too
expensive for them.
Steven Rowe
Søren Krarup Olesen
558: Rant rave reaction and new Rosa story, art and other things
Message 161 -
2001-06-13 at 13:42:17
AC:
> Just a teaser: Did you not notice the trophy room? The
> barks-references are nice and not at all heavy or something [...]
Agreed. And you don't have to know every single of them to enjoy the
story.
> Reindeers? It's not reindeers, it's those with the big antlers, red
> deers (the male is a stag). Sorry that I laughed.
> [...]
> remember: reindeers are in front of santa's sled, stags are at the
> forest lake (big clichees here)
Are you telling me that reindeer-without-the-s do *not* live in forests?
But then where does Santa collect them? I looked it up and in fact
there are "reindeer flies" as well. Imagine little flies attacking
Santa's pets, nah... ;-)
Søren
(...ka' du hilse på en kronhjort og vinke til en stær...tralulalej)
> Just a teaser: Did you not notice the trophy room? The
> barks-references are nice and not at all heavy or something [...]
Agreed. And you don't have to know every single of them to enjoy the
story.
> Reindeers? It's not reindeers, it's those with the big antlers, red
> deers (the male is a stag). Sorry that I laughed.
> [...]
> remember: reindeers are in front of santa's sled, stags are at the
> forest lake (big clichees here)
Are you telling me that reindeer-without-the-s do *not* live in forests?
But then where does Santa collect them? I looked it up and in fact
there are "reindeer flies" as well. Imagine little flies attacking
Santa's pets, nah... ;-)
Søren
(...ka' du hilse på en kronhjort og vinke til en stær...tralulalej)
Halsten Aastebol
558: Rant rave reaction and new Rosa story, art and other
Message 162 -
2001-06-13 at 14:45:44
At 12:42 13.06.01 +0200, S?ren Krarup Olesen wrote:
>Are you telling me that reindeer-without-the-s do *not* live in forests?
>But then where does Santa collect them? I looked it up and in fact
>there are "reindeer flies" as well. Imagine little flies attacking
>Santa's pets, nah... ;-)
Hm? What's this? Reindeer live in the mountains and in the arctic regions
(that's why Santa use them, there's not much to choose from). They do
certainly not live in lowland forests except in the far north.
Halsten
>Are you telling me that reindeer-without-the-s do *not* live in forests?
>But then where does Santa collect them? I looked it up and in fact
>there are "reindeer flies" as well. Imagine little flies attacking
>Santa's pets, nah... ;-)
Hm? What's this? Reindeer live in the mountains and in the arctic regions
(that's why Santa use them, there's not much to choose from). They do
certainly not live in lowland forests except in the far north.
Halsten
Fluks, H.W.
Other things
Message 163 -
2001-06-13 at 16:42:52
S?ren:
> But then where does Santa collect them? I looked it up and in fact
> there are "reindeer flies" as well.
Usually it's "one reindeer fly", "two reindeer flies".
But in Santa's case it's "one reindeer flies", "two reindeer fly".
English is an interesting language...
--Ha8-)rry.
> But then where does Santa collect them? I looked it up and in fact
> there are "reindeer flies" as well.
Usually it's "one reindeer fly", "two reindeer flies".
But in Santa's case it's "one reindeer flies", "two reindeer fly".
English is an interesting language...
--Ha8-)rry.
Don Rosa
DCML digest #568
Message 164 -
2001-06-13 at 17:06:36
From: Krarup Olesen <raptus at stofanet.dk>
>>>The two outer extremes are 1) Everything is "steered" by old Barks
events and 2) Everything is steered by you (the author)
Don't do that to me again so soon. No matter how many Barks references I
use in a story, even if it's one of my direct Barks-sequels, nobody is
doing the "steering" but me. It is an entirely new plot so I am in complete
control of the vehicle at all times. If you need an analogy, you can say
that I am using a Barks-map from the Dell Auto Club and I (I) am steering
past famous landmarks, stopping at each for a scenic overlook and a picnic
lunch.
>>>Your latest story is of "type 2" IMO and that's why I enjoyed reading
it. I even appreciate its inconsistence with "The Coin", where the
Beagles apparantly manage to find the right way through the money bin in
less than ten panels. :-)
As I've said, I have no intention of being forever consistent to those
blueprints when it will someday be easier or more dramatic to draw a room
in the Bin in a different shape than those drawings show. However, there
was nothing inconsistent between the two stories you mention, and let's
make sure that your translator was not lopping out important bits of
dialogue, and that you understood what was going on there: in my original
text the Beagles see the Bin office and vault entrance (this is the room
they attain in "The Coin"), they see it both on the blueprints and through
a ceiling vent, and clearly say "We've been there lotsa times! This is no
help." The blueprints in this story were a "red herring"... a Hitchcockian
McGuffin... they really had nothing to do with the plot! I used the story
as an excuse to create those blueprints which I had originally intended to
draw without a story to frame them. The single element of the blueprints
that the BB's used was the fact that there was an "existing well" on the
Bin site. After that, they did not use the blueprints at all, you'll notice
that they did not even have the blueprints with them when they entered the
Bin. The new twist was that they had an alarmed door to contend with in the
basement, perhaps added after they entered from that same direction in "The
Coin". They then decided on a whole new plan to find their way blind
through the maze of air vents, someplace they had never been before. They
*know* the way straight into the Bin office via the normal route -- they've
all been there hundreds of times in the past 50 years. But that's not where
they wanted to go in this story. So, I have had inconsistencies, accidental
or on purpose, but this isn't one of 'em.
From: "Olaf Solstrand" <harryklein at hotmail.com>
>>>All these are my personal theories. I want to hear what you know.
I can tell you are having fun with my stories and Barks' the way I play
with the Barks stories I grew up with. But I wish you and others would stop
using one bit of information that has never been stated to be a "fact", not
even a comic-book fact. You keep listing birthyears for Donald and HDL and
the other Ducks and saying these are *my* dates. Not really! I once showed
someone a copy of my private notes on the Duck Family Tree where I had
penciled in *approximate* birthyears for future reference or adjustment,
though I knew this is something I would never need to use (or be allowed to
use in print). Don't you notice that *all* of the birthyears you have seem
to strangely be 1920, 1940 or other mysteriously even numbers? That's a
clue that you should read them as "circa 1920", "circa 1940". If you forced
me to specify a birthyear for Donald, I would probably make it more like
1923... but I really don't wish to be so precise about such a thing.
There's even *less* reason to do that than with all the other junk I am so
precise about!
>>>The two outer extremes are 1) Everything is "steered" by old Barks
events and 2) Everything is steered by you (the author)
Don't do that to me again so soon. No matter how many Barks references I
use in a story, even if it's one of my direct Barks-sequels, nobody is
doing the "steering" but me. It is an entirely new plot so I am in complete
control of the vehicle at all times. If you need an analogy, you can say
that I am using a Barks-map from the Dell Auto Club and I (I) am steering
past famous landmarks, stopping at each for a scenic overlook and a picnic
lunch.
>>>Your latest story is of "type 2" IMO and that's why I enjoyed reading
it. I even appreciate its inconsistence with "The Coin", where the
Beagles apparantly manage to find the right way through the money bin in
less than ten panels. :-)
As I've said, I have no intention of being forever consistent to those
blueprints when it will someday be easier or more dramatic to draw a room
in the Bin in a different shape than those drawings show. However, there
was nothing inconsistent between the two stories you mention, and let's
make sure that your translator was not lopping out important bits of
dialogue, and that you understood what was going on there: in my original
text the Beagles see the Bin office and vault entrance (this is the room
they attain in "The Coin"), they see it both on the blueprints and through
a ceiling vent, and clearly say "We've been there lotsa times! This is no
help." The blueprints in this story were a "red herring"... a Hitchcockian
McGuffin... they really had nothing to do with the plot! I used the story
as an excuse to create those blueprints which I had originally intended to
draw without a story to frame them. The single element of the blueprints
that the BB's used was the fact that there was an "existing well" on the
Bin site. After that, they did not use the blueprints at all, you'll notice
that they did not even have the blueprints with them when they entered the
Bin. The new twist was that they had an alarmed door to contend with in the
basement, perhaps added after they entered from that same direction in "The
Coin". They then decided on a whole new plan to find their way blind
through the maze of air vents, someplace they had never been before. They
*know* the way straight into the Bin office via the normal route -- they've
all been there hundreds of times in the past 50 years. But that's not where
they wanted to go in this story. So, I have had inconsistencies, accidental
or on purpose, but this isn't one of 'em.
From: "Olaf Solstrand" <harryklein at hotmail.com>
>>>All these are my personal theories. I want to hear what you know.
I can tell you are having fun with my stories and Barks' the way I play
with the Barks stories I grew up with. But I wish you and others would stop
using one bit of information that has never been stated to be a "fact", not
even a comic-book fact. You keep listing birthyears for Donald and HDL and
the other Ducks and saying these are *my* dates. Not really! I once showed
someone a copy of my private notes on the Duck Family Tree where I had
penciled in *approximate* birthyears for future reference or adjustment,
though I knew this is something I would never need to use (or be allowed to
use in print). Don't you notice that *all* of the birthyears you have seem
to strangely be 1920, 1940 or other mysteriously even numbers? That's a
clue that you should read them as "circa 1920", "circa 1940". If you forced
me to specify a birthyear for Donald, I would probably make it more like
1923... but I really don't wish to be so precise about such a thing.
There's even *less* reason to do that than with all the other junk I am so
precise about!
Fluks, H.W.
Studio years
Message 165 -
2001-06-13 at 18:55:49
Vic asked:
> What's the story with "the studio years"? Many
> messages refer vaguely to this time with an air of
> horror...can someone explain what was going on?
A few years ago, shortly before Barks' wife died, Barks put his public
relations and other matters into the hands of Bill Grandey and Kathy Morby,
who then called themselves the "Carl Barks Studio". They took care of all
the work Barks did (paintings, drawings, etc.) and they were also the
organisers of Barks' big tour through Europe.
They handled their business in such a way that they ended up fighting with
lots of people, including Barks himself. Their nicknames became Greedy and
Morbid. In the end, everyone was relieved that the Barks Studio was stopped.
Many people, also on this mailing list, have not-so-fond memories about what
happened during the "Studio years", that's why we don't discuss it that much
anymore.
> Why is
> ebay often full of animation cels signed by Barks?
My guess is that the forementioned Barks Studio made Barks sign a lot of
stuff that he didn't have anything to do with, including newspaper strips
and animation cels. With the sole purpose of making money out of it. I think
some people bought it (in 2 ways), and are now trying to get rid of it again
through eBay.
--Harry.
> What's the story with "the studio years"? Many
> messages refer vaguely to this time with an air of
> horror...can someone explain what was going on?
A few years ago, shortly before Barks' wife died, Barks put his public
relations and other matters into the hands of Bill Grandey and Kathy Morby,
who then called themselves the "Carl Barks Studio". They took care of all
the work Barks did (paintings, drawings, etc.) and they were also the
organisers of Barks' big tour through Europe.
They handled their business in such a way that they ended up fighting with
lots of people, including Barks himself. Their nicknames became Greedy and
Morbid. In the end, everyone was relieved that the Barks Studio was stopped.
Many people, also on this mailing list, have not-so-fond memories about what
happened during the "Studio years", that's why we don't discuss it that much
anymore.
> Why is
> ebay often full of animation cels signed by Barks?
My guess is that the forementioned Barks Studio made Barks sign a lot of
stuff that he didn't have anything to do with, including newspaper strips
and animation cels. With the sole purpose of making money out of it. I think
some people bought it (in 2 ways), and are now trying to get rid of it again
through eBay.
--Harry.