Keskustelujen arkisto

>From: "Olaf Solstrand" <harryklein at hotmail.com>
>I have always thought of Magica as a witch. But now - I'm confused.
>What's your opinions on this matter, dear friends?

What is the definition of witch? Is witch a person who *really* is dealing
with dark powers, and has made some kind of agreement with devil?(then one
must *really* exist).
Or is it enough to be a witch if someone claims to be a witch (a la Anton la
Vay or some other "self made" witch)? Or is witch a person who is said to be
witch, but no one really knows?
How can you prove that someone is a witch? (ha, here is a place for Monty
Python once again!).
I think Magica is a person who has read some occult litterature and decided
to try to use black magic to achieve her mundane and somewhat selfish goal.
To get rich easy! Which most of us would like to do. If Magica used half the
efforts she has made to get that #1 dime, to ordinary work she'd be quite
welthy. :-) But that's how things goes, when you get obsessed.

Timo

^^''*''^^
Cartoonist - writer - donaldist -
Timo Ronkainen ---------------- -
YO-kylä 52 A 26 --------------- -
20540 Turku ------------------- -
Finland ----------------------- -
timoro at hotmail.com
timoro at sunpoint.net
¨¨ Personal:
http://www.geocities.com/timoro2/
¨¨ Ankkalinnan Pamaus:
http://welcome.to/ankistit
.................................
"Rumble on, buxom bumble bee!
Go sit on cowslip - far from me!"

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

At 14:38 09.10.01 +0200, Olaf Solstrand wrote:
> But about Magica not being a real witch?
>
>I have always thought of Magica as a witch. But now - I'm confused.
>
>What's your opinions on this matter, dear friends?

I think this can be explained from the difference between the two terms
"witch" and "sorceress". Don Rosa has discussed about this some time ago on
this list. According to Rosa and Barks, Magica is a sorceress, not a witch.
I think the difference is that Magica always has to use some kind of
chemicals to perform her spells. She is not able to perform black magic
with her bare hands like a real witch (like say Madam Mim). If I understand
correctly.

This difference is not easily translated into for instance Norwegian,
although witch = heks and sorceress = trollkvinne might be a possibility.

Halsten

Timo:
- But what about the "Attaaaaack" -story? Half
-ruined...?

Well, luckily this wasn't about human lives, because those blocks were
evacuated by the army before.

From: "Olaf Solstrand" <harryklein at hotmail.com>
>>>>I have always thought of Magica as a witch. But now - I'm confused.
What's your opinions on this matter, dear friends?

There's every reason for you to be confused since for decades the European
writers have made Barks' Magica into a witch rather than a sorceress. But
since Byron Erickson became the editor, he has returned Magica to her
original version.
I was trying to do that, myself, in the Magica stories that I did before
Byron came along, and I recall that I confused the then-editor when I
referred to Magica as a "amateur sorceress", and they refused to use that
reference because they said that she was an omnipotent witch. But that's
how they'd used her for years.
But the replies you've already received are 100% corect. Magica is a normal
hoomin bean who seeks out ancient alchemy and potions and wands and spells
and seeks to use them to her evil ends... which is to get rich quick. A
"witch" is an occult being with inherent magical powers to do just about
anything at any time. I never could figure out how the Euro writers could
think Magica was a witch who sought $crooge's #1 Dime for some reason -- if
she had such magic powers as she exhibits in those stories, why doesn't she
just conjur up a stack of gold bars whenever she wants? It makes more sense
if, in between each "attack", she must slink off and hunt down some other
wand or spell before she comes back... and it's funnier when she isn't
quite sure how these spells will backfire on her due to her inexperience.

From: joe gouldIII <joegouldiii at yahoo.com>
>>>>I am VERY much aware that
Western does not own any rights to Disney ( , or WB ,
or Walter Lantz , or 40s B-western stars' ) copyrights
, and , I think you'll find that , my original posting
did NOT state that .

I saw some evidence of that, but then, if you knew that, I couldn't figure
out why you thought that simply because a company bought out some
properties (not licenses) that Western owned, why would this be any reason
they would want to pursue a Disney comics license (a much different puppy!)
anymore than anyone else? You referred to this company obtaining "that many
valuable copyrights", but they had *not* acquired anything like that, so
you musta been referring to WB or Lantz or Disney or something. I just
couldn't make sense of your point, and I figured you *must* be
misunderstanding something somewhere. Sorry!!!

>>>Indeed , as far as properties widely used/successful
in comic books in NA , Western owned:
The semi-superhero/adventure properties you alluded
to ( Turok , Magnus , etc. ) .

But not for years... those were sold off long ago, along with DOCTOR SOLAR.

>>>> " LITTLE LULU " - originally , I guess , owned by
one " Marge " , its original creator , but , purchased
by Western -

That's true... but do you think, even if you could find some children in
America who wanted to read comics, would they have ever heard of "Little
Lulu" who was popular before even when some of their parents were reading
comics? Their grandparents would more likely recall LITTLE LULU comics (and
they were good... Western's second best stuff besides Barks'). That doesn't
seem like a valuable property in the 21st Century. I'm afraid it would
attract as many buyers as Western's TRAGG AND THE SKYGODS. Well....
actually probably less... something called "Tragg and the Skygods" would
sound much more interesting to "these darn kids nowadays".

In France, Sorceress and witch is translated the same word : "Sorci?re"

For instance, we could say that Hazel is a witch (but a gentle witch), but
not the same kind of the one from Barks' "The Golden Christmas Tree" from OS
203 ( A witch who looks a lot like the one from Snow white--personnaly, I
hate to see Madam Mim or the Witch from Snow white in comicbooks...), or
another one (I dunno what story she is frpm, but she is seen in a oilpainting
with Smorgie too, and she is human, tall, blach haired and wearing a red
dress). They are evil and deal with dark powers, but Hazel is nicer.
I don't know, for Magica, as , even in Don Rosa's stories, she has bones and
human skulls in her house... In Ducktales, she made her own brother become a
raven, and in videogames, she lives in a manor and flyes... Maybe she is just
a sorceress in Barks/Rosa universe, who buys unexpensive magic stuffs in
stores, but she is definitely a witch in the whole Disney universe...

So don't mistake sorceress, evil witches, and gentle witches ;-)

GILLES

Gilles:

> I dunno what story she is frpm, but she is seen
> in a oilpainting with Smorgie too, and she is human, tall,
> blach haired and wearing a red dress

This is not a Disney character. Barks drew her in a painting for Michael
Barrier (used on the cover of a Funnyworld issue). That painting showed some
secundary characters from Barks stories, but they were obscure enough, so
Disney wouldn't notice they are Disney characters. But the student witch in
the painting is all-new.

--Harry.

...I'm glad that you saw what I meant , and , no
offense is taken , but , to explain some of my
points...( I will , probably , do this in a couple of
little postings , rather than one long one . For ONE
thing ( As I , indeed , mentioned before . ) , I'm ,
oftrn , called away from the computer . Also ( Silly
American slang approaching ! ) , I'm going to be so
nurdish , I guess , that I may , actually , put
footnotes in here !
Also , Don , though I'm , now , in a sense , "
addressing " you , I am also , of course , addressing
the - generally European , I believe ! - DCML audience
, so , I may put in some interjections/" breaking the
fourth wall " that you , yourself , may not need
explaining .
Actually , my initial posting was kept down to a
relative minimum of words , at least in part , so as
NOT to confuse the DCML audience/take it greatly
off-track , which may have been the source of you
thinking I thought , etc. , while " seeing some sign
"...The " copyrights " that I referred to as now being
owned by
the new owner(s) , ( apparently , Classic Media , for
the properties relevant to comic books . ) included
the Harvey characters ( Richie Rich , Spooky , etc. )
, with my thought being that the combination of the
Harvey characters , and the , yes , relatively few ,
Western-owned " kiddie " oriented characters , was ,
yes , quite a # of kiddie-oriented characters . I
don't know , really , how popular they've been ,
historically , in Europe , but , as I'm sure you know
, the Harveys WERE big NA comic-book sellers for many
years...And , from the " business property " sense ,
though little had been done with the Harveys for much
of the Nineties as far as comic books featuring them
went , they'd , apparently , been considered valuable
enogh properties for a # of movies/TV cartoons (
Primarily second-level " direct-to-video " movies ,
but , still...) to be made .
Likewise , actually , optimism aside , the American "
premium " cable TV network HBO showed a " Little Lulu
" cartoon series , which followed Stanley's approach
quite closely , in the late-ish Nineties - ( I don't
have HBO - I don't have a working TV now , actually
!!!!!!!!! ) I guess it's in limbo now ( Presumably ,
at least in part , due to the bankruptcy of Golden
that lead to the bankruptcy sale/acqisition by
Random/Classic in the first place ? ) , but , I would
assume - hope - that it might be re-sold to TV in NA (
And elsewhere . ) , presumably to over-the-air TV
stations , or , at least , to " basic " cable stations
, as programs produced for premium cable networks in
the US often end up having done with them , getting a
" second " ( or more ) run , at " more popular prices
" ???????
In other words , with a recnt , contemporary , TV
series behind it , ready for a " wider " run than it
had already had , MAYBE there could be some interest
in comic books of Little Lulu again ? Yepper , I know
, optimism . Well , at least there's more hope for
that than for optimism regarding DC's SUGAR AND SPIKE
, which DC seems determined to leave in a much-honored
, presiegous limbo !!!!!!!!! Sigh...
Obviously , explaining all of this , HAS , required
me to go , greatly , off the topic of Dis. comics ,
specifically . However , perhaps I'll " lasso them in
" , more , in later installments ?????????

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com

4. Translating help needed! (Arttu Salminen)

Message: 4
From: "Arttu Salminen" <arttu4 at hotmail.com>
To: dcml at stp.ling.uu.se
>Subject: Translating help needed!
>Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 16:42:39 +0300
>
>
>I would need somebody to translate the Marco Rota article, that is
>in every Scandinavian Disney-weeklie's site, to English or Finnish.
>Is here anyone who could help me?
>
>Arttu Salminen
>arttu4 at hotmail.com
>http://www.angelfire.com/comics/donrosa/
>
>
>

My Finnish is terrible. But I can translate it into English (if you mean the
article at www.donald.no?) and send it to you in a few days... Just for
pleasure.

-olaf-

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp