> From: "Olaf Solstrand" <olaf at andebyonline.com>
> Subject: Of Don and Daniel and destinies
> But... DID Hortense stay away from her own children Donald and Della since
> their childhood?
> Have I missed some vital facts here? If not, I'm honestly SURPRISED to see
> that Egmont thinks of Hortense as "deceased" - at least for that reason.
> Have we EVER seen anything suggesting or stating that Donald grew up away
> from his parents?
I can't read the comics that I receive with the "Donny Duck" (so you called
it) stories of Donald living on Grandma Duck's farm, so I don't know what
reasons are given, if any, in the storyline to explain why he's not with his
own parents. Egmont tells me that these stories make it clear that young
Donald *permanently* lives on the farm and that his parents are obviously
(to the readers) dead and gone. Izzat true?
But regardless of where his parents are when he grew up, where have they
been for the past 10-20 years of his adulthood if they are still alive
somewhere? If they live in another town, why haven't we ever seen them visit
their family in Duckburg in even one instance in the past 37,579 Duck
stories published worldwide? Even if they didn't want to associate with
$crooge, why couldn't they have avoided him and visited with others?
These are the questions that I would need to answer in any story in which I
reintroduced Hortense McDuck. I don't know if I want to try anything so
tricky. My idea that she (and Matilda) had been living at Castle McDuck for
many years could have simply not mentioned what happened to their husbands,
and we could assume at least those two are "deceased" in unspoken terms. But
at first Egmont refused to allow me to even use Matilda until I argued for
at least her being there... she doesn't have children in Duckburg. But
Egmont still said that if Hortense was alive, she would have appeared in
comics long before now.
So... well, there's lots of other stories to tell. Just lemmee finish this
interminable Templar story!!!!!!
> Just curious: Would you be allowed to write a story of HD&L's parents
> happening, say, in the late thirties, in the days around HD&L's birth? No,
> I'm not asking you to do that. I'm just being nosy.
I've never had a reason to ask. But to make any reference to HD&L's parents
even in a flashback would make it necessary to say what on earth happened to
them later. It's unavoidable. Not to do so would be painfully obvious, and
readers would start asking and Egmont doesn't have any reason to get into
all that.
> > the @#%& outta my flat page-rate so that it comes out to about $2 per
> hour.
> Literally, or are you just saying a very low number so that we will
> understand that it takes a lot of time?
Right. And there haven't really been 37,579 Duck stories published
worldwide. Or... maybe there've been more? I wouldn't be surprised....
Author
Topic: 200306
(426 messages)
Don Rosa
DCML Digest Issue 3
Message 31 -
2003-06-02 at 16:38:09
Stefan Persson
DCML Digest Issue 3
Message 32 -
2003-06-02 at 16:48:23
Don Rosa wrote:
> I can't read the comics that I receive with the "Donny Duck" (so you called
> it) stories of Donald living on Grandma Duck's farm, so I don't know what
> reasons are given, if any, in the storyline to explain why he's not with his
> own parents. Egmont tells me that these stories make it clear that young
> Donald *permanently* lives on the farm and that his parents are obviously
> (to the readers) dead and gone. Izzat true?
There has so far not been ANY mention of Donald's parents in the
Paperino Paperotto/Donny Duck stories, at least not in the Egmont
stories (haven't read most of the Disney Italia ones). This means that
Donald's parents do not necessarily have to be dead; they might be
living happily on the other side of the world, or anything else.
Stefan
> I can't read the comics that I receive with the "Donny Duck" (so you called
> it) stories of Donald living on Grandma Duck's farm, so I don't know what
> reasons are given, if any, in the storyline to explain why he's not with his
> own parents. Egmont tells me that these stories make it clear that young
> Donald *permanently* lives on the farm and that his parents are obviously
> (to the readers) dead and gone. Izzat true?
There has so far not been ANY mention of Donald's parents in the
Paperino Paperotto/Donny Duck stories, at least not in the Egmont
stories (haven't read most of the Disney Italia ones). This means that
Donald's parents do not necessarily have to be dead; they might be
living happily on the other side of the world, or anything else.
Stefan
Kristian Pedersen
Gladstone's luck
Message 33 -
2003-06-02 at 17:58:42
Donald Ault:
>Almost 20 years ago I, too, was thinking about a
similar problem and
>published an essay on Gladstone's luck in Set II
Volume 3 of the black
and
>white *Carl Barks Library* (1984) entitled "Luck's
Labors Lost" (pages
>525-26, 640). On page 640 the following statement of
mine appears:
>
>"the fragments of the map converging in the whirlpool
constitute
perhaps the
>most implausible bit of Barks' wizardly in
Gladstone's history."
and Stefan:
>Really! And here Kristian and I each thought we found
>out something
>original! :-)
Indeed! :)
I know for a fact that I have not read that essay, as
I have held a CBL volume in my hands, but I would
definitely love to read it.
As I remarked to Stefan in an email I forgot to cc the
list, a similar thing happens in a 10-page Barks story
in which a question by Scrooge is answered using a
contraption by Gyro: alphabet noodles boiled in a pot
together with a dictionary. Afterwards, the noodles
are poured onto Scrooge's desk and neatly spells out
the solution to his problem. Of course this is in no
way due to luck but to the genius of our favourite
inventor! Can somebody identify the story?
I was also intrigued by Cord's angle on the case.
(Energy and entropy). Continuing that line of thought
I suppose Gladstone would be the ultimate code breaker
- he would be able to break any security system merely
by guessing the secret key. Good thing that he is not
a computer hacker...
Kristian
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
>Almost 20 years ago I, too, was thinking about a
similar problem and
>published an essay on Gladstone's luck in Set II
Volume 3 of the black
and
>white *Carl Barks Library* (1984) entitled "Luck's
Labors Lost" (pages
>525-26, 640). On page 640 the following statement of
mine appears:
>
>"the fragments of the map converging in the whirlpool
constitute
perhaps the
>most implausible bit of Barks' wizardly in
Gladstone's history."
and Stefan:
>Really! And here Kristian and I each thought we found
>out something
>original! :-)
Indeed! :)
I know for a fact that I have not read that essay, as
I have held a CBL volume in my hands, but I would
definitely love to read it.
As I remarked to Stefan in an email I forgot to cc the
list, a similar thing happens in a 10-page Barks story
in which a question by Scrooge is answered using a
contraption by Gyro: alphabet noodles boiled in a pot
together with a dictionary. Afterwards, the noodles
are poured onto Scrooge's desk and neatly spells out
the solution to his problem. Of course this is in no
way due to luck but to the genius of our favourite
inventor! Can somebody identify the story?
I was also intrigued by Cord's angle on the case.
(Energy and entropy). Continuing that line of thought
I suppose Gladstone would be the ultimate code breaker
- he would be able to break any security system merely
by guessing the secret key. Good thing that he is not
a computer hacker...
Kristian
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
Katie Sullivan
Generation gap in America
Message 34 -
2003-06-02 at 19:45:10
Hi, all!
I was active on this mailing list in the late 1990s but dropped
out when I started college, due to time constraints. I
graduated with a degree in Literature last month, so I'm back!
I've been lurking for awhile now but didn't see anything I felt
I had to respond to...until now! :)
"Plus, they are
not getting any reinforcement about Disney comics from
their parents; you would now have to go back two
generations to find that in any great amount."
Sadly, this is probably the case in most families. But I had to
jump in with my own experience. I am a 23-year-old woman living
in the midwestern United States. In the early 1980s when I was
a very small child, my father revived his own childhood interest
in Disney comics and began reading them to me. "Land Beneath the
Ground" and any story with Flintheart Glomgold were my
particular favorites, but all Barks stories were wonderful. Dad
read these stories and more to me over and over again before I
was even able to read them myself.
When I did learn to read, I kept on enjoying the duck
stories...and never stopped. I have a been a huge fan of Barks
since before I could read, and a huge fan of Rosa since I first
picked up "Son of the Sun." (I think I was around eight years
old then.)
Granted, I'm only one person and there always exceptions, but I
just wanted to speak out and say there is at least one young
person (and a female at that!) in America who still is an avid
duck fan. I cannot wait until the new Gemstones come out! :-D
Katie Sullivan (probably the biggest Glittering Goldie fan in
the world) ;)
http://www.sullivanet.com
http://www.sullivanet.com/duckburg/scrooge.html
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
I was active on this mailing list in the late 1990s but dropped
out when I started college, due to time constraints. I
graduated with a degree in Literature last month, so I'm back!
I've been lurking for awhile now but didn't see anything I felt
I had to respond to...until now! :)
"Plus, they are
not getting any reinforcement about Disney comics from
their parents; you would now have to go back two
generations to find that in any great amount."
Sadly, this is probably the case in most families. But I had to
jump in with my own experience. I am a 23-year-old woman living
in the midwestern United States. In the early 1980s when I was
a very small child, my father revived his own childhood interest
in Disney comics and began reading them to me. "Land Beneath the
Ground" and any story with Flintheart Glomgold were my
particular favorites, but all Barks stories were wonderful. Dad
read these stories and more to me over and over again before I
was even able to read them myself.
When I did learn to read, I kept on enjoying the duck
stories...and never stopped. I have a been a huge fan of Barks
since before I could read, and a huge fan of Rosa since I first
picked up "Son of the Sun." (I think I was around eight years
old then.)
Granted, I'm only one person and there always exceptions, but I
just wanted to speak out and say there is at least one young
person (and a female at that!) in America who still is an avid
duck fan. I cannot wait until the new Gemstones come out! :-D
Katie Sullivan (probably the biggest Glittering Goldie fan in
the world) ;)
http://www.sullivanet.com
http://www.sullivanet.com/duckburg/scrooge.html
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
Olaf Solstrand
Gladstone's luck
Message 35 -
2003-06-02 at 20:52:51
Kristian:
> I was also intrigued by Cord's angle on the case.
> (Energy and entropy). Continuing that line of thought
> I suppose Gladstone would be the ultimate code breaker
> - he would be able to break any security system merely
> by guessing the secret key. Good thing that he is not
> a computer hacker...
>
Indeed - that is also shown in a Disney comic. Annoyingly enough, I can't
remember what story it was or who wrote it, and it seems like most of the
dear old Onkel Skrue booklets I read in the early nineties are not indexed
in INDUCKS - but it was an Italian story, published in Norway somewhere
between 1991 and 1993.
In that story, Scrooge tried to access a strange, magic hand that followed
all of his commands. But this hand was protected by an ancient order, and a
code system. You had to press the correct number code on a keyboard, and if
you pressed the wrong code, lots of mechanical hands would slap you. Scrooge
tried several times, but it was hopeless - until he called Gladstone. Well,
Gladstone got the hand on his first attempt, and got a little fortune
selling it to Scrooge.
Note: This hand was stolen, and Scrooge had to get ANOTHER one to challenge
it - and again, he sent Gladstone out - with Donald - to get it. This time
Gladstone pressed the wrong code. And again, and again, and again... While
DONALD tried his phone number, which worked. Bad luck? Nah - that hand
destroyed the entire Money Bin, so Donald had to rebuild it while Gladstone
could go on a vacation...
I would guess that in most cases where we think "what if Donald or Scrooge
or Gladstone would do that" - they have probably already done it.
Best,
Olaf the Blue
> I was also intrigued by Cord's angle on the case.
> (Energy and entropy). Continuing that line of thought
> I suppose Gladstone would be the ultimate code breaker
> - he would be able to break any security system merely
> by guessing the secret key. Good thing that he is not
> a computer hacker...
>
Indeed - that is also shown in a Disney comic. Annoyingly enough, I can't
remember what story it was or who wrote it, and it seems like most of the
dear old Onkel Skrue booklets I read in the early nineties are not indexed
in INDUCKS - but it was an Italian story, published in Norway somewhere
between 1991 and 1993.
In that story, Scrooge tried to access a strange, magic hand that followed
all of his commands. But this hand was protected by an ancient order, and a
code system. You had to press the correct number code on a keyboard, and if
you pressed the wrong code, lots of mechanical hands would slap you. Scrooge
tried several times, but it was hopeless - until he called Gladstone. Well,
Gladstone got the hand on his first attempt, and got a little fortune
selling it to Scrooge.
Note: This hand was stolen, and Scrooge had to get ANOTHER one to challenge
it - and again, he sent Gladstone out - with Donald - to get it. This time
Gladstone pressed the wrong code. And again, and again, and again... While
DONALD tried his phone number, which worked. Bad luck? Nah - that hand
destroyed the entire Money Bin, so Donald had to rebuild it while Gladstone
could go on a vacation...
I would guess that in most cases where we think "what if Donald or Scrooge
or Gladstone would do that" - they have probably already done it.
Best,
Olaf the Blue
Sigvald Grøsfjeld Jr.
The ball is laid dead, but it won't lie down
Message 36 -
2003-06-02 at 22:12:13
<Halsten.Aastebol at elkraft.ntnu.no> wrote:
> Rodney at least speaks for me,
>
> He speaks for me to.
Why do you keep the negative focus going on? Aren't there more interesting
issues to be discussed here in DCML?
> I know for a fact that some of us have refused
> to post at all for weeks (as has been pointed
> out recently) because we don't like the
> direction DCML has taken lately. Please don't
> give us more reason to remain silent.
>
> I couldn't agree more.
>
> Regards
> Halsten
> Who denies to accept the notion that lack of
> knowledge of the English language is an excuse
> for using offensive language.
Apparently I have not been understood and thus I have to explain it all over
again in order to be understood correctly:
1)
Rodney addressed me particularly about the use of the word "dips**t". My
explanation for using this word is that I can't come up with a proper
English synonym for it. The word "dips**t" is not included in the English
dictionary on MS Word for Windows so I am left with three choices - using
the word I do know, using a whole bunch of words to explain the same thing,
or to stay quiet. As the right to free speech shouldn't be limited to those
with a huge vocabulary I decided to use that word. I am sorry if some/many
people here don't like that and I have already told you all in my response
to Rodney that I won't use it again.
2)
In a private mail I have been told that addressing Rodney as "This Rodney
guy" can be seen as offensive. I will thus here and now address my apology
to Rodney if that's also how he sees it. The reason I addressed him that way
though was that his name wasn't mentioned anywhere in his mail. I found his
first name in his mail-address. His full name, Rodney Bowcock, was first
mentioned to me in the private mail I have mentioned above. So please
everyone ? use your full name in your mails, at least when discussing
delicate matters.
3)
In the same private mail I was told that speaking for others can bee seen as
"to apply group pressure", and apparently that's not the kind of
argumentation people like to see in DCML ? at least so I have been very
clearly told lately. Still other persons do the same, whether their claim of
speaking for others is true or not, IMO doesn't change the fact that they
are using what seems to be an unwanted way of argumentation in DCML. IMO Mr.
Bowcock could have sent the same message without referring to anyone else
and I would still have taken his point. And even better he could also have
told me useful less- or non-offensive synonyms for that unwanted "dips**t"
word.
4)
FYI, I have decided to follow the very kind and most serious advice, given
in private by some of my good Scandinavian DCML-friends ? to go into
lurk-modus for a month or so to see how the situation here in DCML are
developing. Then I will decide whether to go back to be an active DCMLer, to
continue as a lurker or simply to leave this whole m-l.
5)
FYI2, I will still comment any mails coming up in DCML focusing around my
person *if* I find it necessary as I did with this mail from Halsten.
Sigvald
> Rodney at least speaks for me,
>
> He speaks for me to.
Why do you keep the negative focus going on? Aren't there more interesting
issues to be discussed here in DCML?
> I know for a fact that some of us have refused
> to post at all for weeks (as has been pointed
> out recently) because we don't like the
> direction DCML has taken lately. Please don't
> give us more reason to remain silent.
>
> I couldn't agree more.
>
> Regards
> Halsten
> Who denies to accept the notion that lack of
> knowledge of the English language is an excuse
> for using offensive language.
Apparently I have not been understood and thus I have to explain it all over
again in order to be understood correctly:
1)
Rodney addressed me particularly about the use of the word "dips**t". My
explanation for using this word is that I can't come up with a proper
English synonym for it. The word "dips**t" is not included in the English
dictionary on MS Word for Windows so I am left with three choices - using
the word I do know, using a whole bunch of words to explain the same thing,
or to stay quiet. As the right to free speech shouldn't be limited to those
with a huge vocabulary I decided to use that word. I am sorry if some/many
people here don't like that and I have already told you all in my response
to Rodney that I won't use it again.
2)
In a private mail I have been told that addressing Rodney as "This Rodney
guy" can be seen as offensive. I will thus here and now address my apology
to Rodney if that's also how he sees it. The reason I addressed him that way
though was that his name wasn't mentioned anywhere in his mail. I found his
first name in his mail-address. His full name, Rodney Bowcock, was first
mentioned to me in the private mail I have mentioned above. So please
everyone ? use your full name in your mails, at least when discussing
delicate matters.
3)
In the same private mail I was told that speaking for others can bee seen as
"to apply group pressure", and apparently that's not the kind of
argumentation people like to see in DCML ? at least so I have been very
clearly told lately. Still other persons do the same, whether their claim of
speaking for others is true or not, IMO doesn't change the fact that they
are using what seems to be an unwanted way of argumentation in DCML. IMO Mr.
Bowcock could have sent the same message without referring to anyone else
and I would still have taken his point. And even better he could also have
told me useful less- or non-offensive synonyms for that unwanted "dips**t"
word.
4)
FYI, I have decided to follow the very kind and most serious advice, given
in private by some of my good Scandinavian DCML-friends ? to go into
lurk-modus for a month or so to see how the situation here in DCML are
developing. Then I will decide whether to go back to be an active DCMLer, to
continue as a lurker or simply to leave this whole m-l.
5)
FYI2, I will still comment any mails coming up in DCML focusing around my
person *if* I find it necessary as I did with this mail from Halsten.
Sigvald
Arie Fachrisal
Rosa Analysis, Disney Cmics in States
Message 37 -
2003-06-02 at 22:46:05
When i read that story, i got different "meaning/impression" from that
story. The 1st page showed scrooge has a softer side for the animals. and at
the last page, he was seen using the "plate" to serve the birds the food.
though he was once a king, once it's over, scrooge saw the "plate" nothing
but mere old metal suited to feed the pigeons.
The "message" that i developed after reading that story is one can be a
ruler of the earth but eventually it's the little things that make ur inner
heart happy, not the things that make u "look" happy/powerful.
The same goes for the money he amassed, in stories by Barks, and later
stressed by Don, the money he collected act as a "time capsule".
But i hafta disagree with u Nils. Though the morale message(s) may be seemed
hard/tough for kids. But it's only because we read it as adults and we might
have been underestimate the children ability to learn the harsh things of
the world through a funny animal comic book medium. I could be wrong though.
I remember reading an Uncle Scrooge story when i was a kid. It was about the
goose that lays golden eggs and with gold feathers. the last message of the
lady is very deep but it made a deep impression on me even when i was a kid.
But the more i read Barks stories again and again when i reached older age,
i began to find other hidden details/message(s) in the stories.
So i believe that a funny animal comics such as Disney ducks, even though
have a hard/tough morale message, kids can absorb it at certain level and
will be able to fully understand it if they re-read it when they get more
mature.
Keep On Quacking,
Arie Fachrisal and a guy named Joe from Singapore ;-)
> From: "Klartekst" <info at klartekst.no>
> Subject: The List, Favorite Disney Comics and Rosa Analysis
***snipped***
> ROSA ANALYSIS:
>
> Moahmed, I'm not sure if this is the kind of analysis you had in mind, but
I would like to say a few words about "His Majesty McDuck".
>
***snipped***
> Quite a heavy message for a comic book 'just for kids'.
>
> Anyway, that's how I read the story. Any other comments?
>
> Nils from Norway
story. The 1st page showed scrooge has a softer side for the animals. and at
the last page, he was seen using the "plate" to serve the birds the food.
though he was once a king, once it's over, scrooge saw the "plate" nothing
but mere old metal suited to feed the pigeons.
The "message" that i developed after reading that story is one can be a
ruler of the earth but eventually it's the little things that make ur inner
heart happy, not the things that make u "look" happy/powerful.
The same goes for the money he amassed, in stories by Barks, and later
stressed by Don, the money he collected act as a "time capsule".
But i hafta disagree with u Nils. Though the morale message(s) may be seemed
hard/tough for kids. But it's only because we read it as adults and we might
have been underestimate the children ability to learn the harsh things of
the world through a funny animal comic book medium. I could be wrong though.
I remember reading an Uncle Scrooge story when i was a kid. It was about the
goose that lays golden eggs and with gold feathers. the last message of the
lady is very deep but it made a deep impression on me even when i was a kid.
But the more i read Barks stories again and again when i reached older age,
i began to find other hidden details/message(s) in the stories.
So i believe that a funny animal comics such as Disney ducks, even though
have a hard/tough morale message, kids can absorb it at certain level and
will be able to fully understand it if they re-read it when they get more
mature.
Keep On Quacking,
Arie Fachrisal and a guy named Joe from Singapore ;-)
> From: "Klartekst" <info at klartekst.no>
> Subject: The List, Favorite Disney Comics and Rosa Analysis
***snipped***
> ROSA ANALYSIS:
>
> Moahmed, I'm not sure if this is the kind of analysis you had in mind, but
I would like to say a few words about "His Majesty McDuck".
>
***snipped***
> Quite a heavy message for a comic book 'just for kids'.
>
> Anyway, that's how I read the story. Any other comments?
>
> Nils from Norway
Arie Fachrisal
Sigvald
Message 38 -
2003-06-02 at 23:03:40
Hi Sigvald,
I guess most(?) people here would hate to see u lurk. I personally prefer if
u will still be active in this list. But in a more carefully arranged
writings. I am also a foreigner and i always double double check my messages
before i sent it to the list. I understand a bit of variation of words can
cause misunderstanding and unpleasant situations. but if we're careful on
what we write, we can reduce the probabilities of such things to happen.
also if using a questionable word and explaining what u mean in long
sentences, you might want to prefer the latter. I know i always chose the
latter one cause im afraid if i chose the inappropriate shorter word, some
people will look negatively upon me because of what i write even if i didnt
mean to.
Simple example: this email, rotfl.
Other people might be able to make a way shorter message that implies the
same meaning. But i chose to write it longer and a bit detailed so that i
wont cause any misunderstanding with you or anyone else.
Opinions are always welcome and insightful, including controversy ones.
what's good if all people in the list always agree to another's initial
statement/opinion. But please present ur opinions with caerfully chosen
writings. We're here to discuss, not to force opinion or argue endlessly.
Note that i dont mean u forced ur opinion or u argued endlessly but merely
as a reminder to everyone that this is a place to discuss, not forcing
opinion or petty bickering. I am certainly not forcing u to change the way u
present urself in english language, but to implore you to carefully choose
ur wordings in future emails in order to prevent further unnecessary
misunderstandings. Cheers.
Keep On Quacking,
Arie Fachrisal and a guy named Joe from Singapore.
I guess most(?) people here would hate to see u lurk. I personally prefer if
u will still be active in this list. But in a more carefully arranged
writings. I am also a foreigner and i always double double check my messages
before i sent it to the list. I understand a bit of variation of words can
cause misunderstanding and unpleasant situations. but if we're careful on
what we write, we can reduce the probabilities of such things to happen.
also if using a questionable word and explaining what u mean in long
sentences, you might want to prefer the latter. I know i always chose the
latter one cause im afraid if i chose the inappropriate shorter word, some
people will look negatively upon me because of what i write even if i didnt
mean to.
Simple example: this email, rotfl.
Other people might be able to make a way shorter message that implies the
same meaning. But i chose to write it longer and a bit detailed so that i
wont cause any misunderstanding with you or anyone else.
Opinions are always welcome and insightful, including controversy ones.
what's good if all people in the list always agree to another's initial
statement/opinion. But please present ur opinions with caerfully chosen
writings. We're here to discuss, not to force opinion or argue endlessly.
Note that i dont mean u forced ur opinion or u argued endlessly but merely
as a reminder to everyone that this is a place to discuss, not forcing
opinion or petty bickering. I am certainly not forcing u to change the way u
present urself in english language, but to implore you to carefully choose
ur wordings in future emails in order to prevent further unnecessary
misunderstandings. Cheers.
Keep On Quacking,
Arie Fachrisal and a guy named Joe from Singapore.
Sigvald Grøsfjeld Jr.
A final notion before going into lurk-modus!
Message 39 -
2003-06-02 at 23:05:06
Hi all!
Before I am going into lurk-modus as I have stated in an other mail very
recently, there is a few notions that have to be done:
1)
There seems to have been some confusion here about the word "Riddiculus".
FYI What I meant was "Ridiculous" = absurd. Such words taken up into English
from Latin (I guess) can be difficult for others to spell them correctly,
specially when the mail-program doesn't have any spell check built into it.
So there was no cursing what-so-ever involved in this from me.
2)
I don't go into lurk-modus as the result of any kind of pressure, critics or
blaming from anyone in this m-l. My reason for going into lurk-modus is my
respect for my many good friends in the m-l. who has no reason to be happy
with the recent development in the m-l. By going into lurking modus I
sincerely hope I can help my friends have a m-l. they can be happy with.
Sigvald
Before I am going into lurk-modus as I have stated in an other mail very
recently, there is a few notions that have to be done:
1)
There seems to have been some confusion here about the word "Riddiculus".
FYI What I meant was "Ridiculous" = absurd. Such words taken up into English
from Latin (I guess) can be difficult for others to spell them correctly,
specially when the mail-program doesn't have any spell check built into it.
So there was no cursing what-so-ever involved in this from me.
2)
I don't go into lurk-modus as the result of any kind of pressure, critics or
blaming from anyone in this m-l. My reason for going into lurk-modus is my
respect for my many good friends in the m-l. who has no reason to be happy
with the recent development in the m-l. By going into lurking modus I
sincerely hope I can help my friends have a m-l. they can be happy with.
Sigvald
Arie Fachrisal
Sigvald
Message 40 -
2003-06-02 at 23:10:51
Oh yeah, and i want to add that even though i always write long messages,
eventually when i re-read my messages, i always found myself still mumbling
unclearly and couldve used other better words to express myself. Cant help
that, i guess. Since english not my 1st language, such problems still exist.
Keep On Quacking,
Arie Fachrisal who might find better words to express himself in this email
after he read this email thru the DCML Digest.
eventually when i re-read my messages, i always found myself still mumbling
unclearly and couldve used other better words to express myself. Cant help
that, i guess. Since english not my 1st language, such problems still exist.
Keep On Quacking,
Arie Fachrisal who might find better words to express himself in this email
after he read this email thru the DCML Digest.
Thomas Pryds Lauritsen
Rosa Analysis
Message 41 -
2003-06-02 at 23:57:33
Arie Fachrisal wrote:
> When i read that story, i got different "meaning/impression" from that
> story. The 1st page showed scrooge has a softer side for the animals. and at
> the last page, he was seen using the "plate" to serve the birds the food.
> though he was once a king, once it's over, scrooge saw the "plate" nothing
> but mere old metal suited to feed the pigeons.
I think too, that Scrooge has a much softer heart than he shows to his
surroundings -- something we see both with the pigeons in His Majesty
McDuck and in other stories.
But I'm not sure I agree 100% that at the end of the story, Scrooge saw
the plate as nothing more than a metal plaque suitable for feeding
pigeons. As I see it, he's still sad that it wasn't worth it being king
(i.e. have a lot of money repaid) -- too much trouble in it -- and he
keeps the plaque as a (secret) memory of the whole incident, and
probably to remind him that it's the little things that make your inner
heart happy, not the things that make you look happy or powerful (as you
put it) for when he's in a sentimental mood (and indeed it *has* a
practical use, too). After all, he could have used any other flat object
(wooden plate, etc.) for feeding the pigeons. But he didn't.
Thomas
> When i read that story, i got different "meaning/impression" from that
> story. The 1st page showed scrooge has a softer side for the animals. and at
> the last page, he was seen using the "plate" to serve the birds the food.
> though he was once a king, once it's over, scrooge saw the "plate" nothing
> but mere old metal suited to feed the pigeons.
I think too, that Scrooge has a much softer heart than he shows to his
surroundings -- something we see both with the pigeons in His Majesty
McDuck and in other stories.
But I'm not sure I agree 100% that at the end of the story, Scrooge saw
the plate as nothing more than a metal plaque suitable for feeding
pigeons. As I see it, he's still sad that it wasn't worth it being king
(i.e. have a lot of money repaid) -- too much trouble in it -- and he
keeps the plaque as a (secret) memory of the whole incident, and
probably to remind him that it's the little things that make your inner
heart happy, not the things that make you look happy or powerful (as you
put it) for when he's in a sentimental mood (and indeed it *has* a
practical use, too). After all, he could have used any other flat object
(wooden plate, etc.) for feeding the pigeons. But he didn't.
Thomas
Donald D. Markstein
DCML Digest #62 & 63
Message 42 -
2003-06-03 at 00:38:07
> The only thing that keeps me going is that I recall that one other
adventure
> that I was certain was a dreadful mistake from start to finish was "The
> Guardians of the Lost Library", a story which some readers have said was
> their favorite Duck story ever and a few have even said it was their
> favorite comic book story they'd ever read, period (take that with a grain
> of salt -- you know there's NO accounting for tastes!).
I hope it'll sound less unbelievable if I merely thought it was the best
comic book story of the single paltry year in which it appeared (and voted
for it as such, in whichever awards I voted on that year). (Which is not to
say, necessarily, that it's YOUR best.)
> Any problems with this ML lately
> are definitely not due to just ONE person. One person cannot childishly
> squabble with himself... that takes several people... even if one person
is
> the catalyst.
I confess I've had occasional things to say to a person here who annoys me
(who may or may not be the one others have alluded to). But I've avoided
lengthy squabbles simply by dropping it after one round. If he has a reply
to anything I say, fine, he's entitled, and that's the end of the exchange.
Annoying me isn't a very serious crime, and shouldn't lead to weeks of
back-and-forth in public.
> Yes. I say the author stole the basic plot from a favorite, though
obscure,
> movie of his named "Passport to Pimlico", Ealing Studios, Great Britain,
> 1949. He's always lifting ideas from favorite old movies and old comic
> books. The cad. A pox on him.
If you start with an idea you picked up elsewhere and hang it on different
characters, you'll get a different story -- especially if one of the
additions is as strong as Scrooge. The basic idea is one of the least
important parts of a story. What really counts is the hard work and talent
you put into developing and rendering it.
Quack, Don
Today in Toons: Every day's an anniversary.
http://www.toonopedia.com/today.htm
adventure
> that I was certain was a dreadful mistake from start to finish was "The
> Guardians of the Lost Library", a story which some readers have said was
> their favorite Duck story ever and a few have even said it was their
> favorite comic book story they'd ever read, period (take that with a grain
> of salt -- you know there's NO accounting for tastes!).
I hope it'll sound less unbelievable if I merely thought it was the best
comic book story of the single paltry year in which it appeared (and voted
for it as such, in whichever awards I voted on that year). (Which is not to
say, necessarily, that it's YOUR best.)
> Any problems with this ML lately
> are definitely not due to just ONE person. One person cannot childishly
> squabble with himself... that takes several people... even if one person
is
> the catalyst.
I confess I've had occasional things to say to a person here who annoys me
(who may or may not be the one others have alluded to). But I've avoided
lengthy squabbles simply by dropping it after one round. If he has a reply
to anything I say, fine, he's entitled, and that's the end of the exchange.
Annoying me isn't a very serious crime, and shouldn't lead to weeks of
back-and-forth in public.
> Yes. I say the author stole the basic plot from a favorite, though
obscure,
> movie of his named "Passport to Pimlico", Ealing Studios, Great Britain,
> 1949. He's always lifting ideas from favorite old movies and old comic
> books. The cad. A pox on him.
If you start with an idea you picked up elsewhere and hang it on different
characters, you'll get a different story -- especially if one of the
additions is as strong as Scrooge. The basic idea is one of the least
important parts of a story. What really counts is the hard work and talent
you put into developing and rendering it.
Quack, Don
Today in Toons: Every day's an anniversary.
http://www.toonopedia.com/today.htm
Lunnan & Hjort
Whaling the blazes
Message 43 -
2003-06-03 at 03:51:19
Remaining Barks quote, from Daniel van Eijmeren:
<<Glory be! Then it's okay to whale the blazes out of' em
if I do it with a SMILE! >>
This was epressed with a big relief by Donald, who after
nine or so pages of hard parental-unclental life was given
the following interesting piece of 1946 advice by Daisy:
"Why, spank them of course!".
Nils Lid Hjort
... from Oslo, where we enjoy the many events filling the week of
the very first Abel Prize. 6 million crowns to Serre (76), who gave
a wonderful lecture with chalk & blackboard & no manuscript;
speeches, dinners, receptions, garden parties, music, King & Queen
& Prime Minister, VIPs flown in (hello, Sir John), the works.
The person leading today's meeting twice said "Nobel Prize";
mathematician's Freudian slip of the tongue.
<<Glory be! Then it's okay to whale the blazes out of' em
if I do it with a SMILE! >>
This was epressed with a big relief by Donald, who after
nine or so pages of hard parental-unclental life was given
the following interesting piece of 1946 advice by Daisy:
"Why, spank them of course!".
Nils Lid Hjort
... from Oslo, where we enjoy the many events filling the week of
the very first Abel Prize. 6 million crowns to Serre (76), who gave
a wonderful lecture with chalk & blackboard & no manuscript;
speeches, dinners, receptions, garden parties, music, King & Queen
& Prime Minister, VIPs flown in (hello, Sir John), the works.
The person leading today's meeting twice said "Nobel Prize";
mathematician's Freudian slip of the tongue.
Lunnan & Hjort
Duckburgian improbabilities
Message 44 -
2003-06-03 at 04:33:40
Kristian Pedersen mentions the glorious improbabilities we meet
in Duckburg, and more specifically those concerning Gladstone's luck.
His speculations brought smiles upon the faces of Stefan Di?s and
then Donald Ault -- and then mine. Stefan writes,
<<Or how about the coincidence that two donaldists will, separately,
reach the same conclusion from all these vast, huge, enormous sources
of Gladstoneness? :-) >>
exhibiting incidentally what we maillisters must acknowledge as a
perfectly valid & appropriate smiley (a rare thing) -- since the coincidence
he alludes to is a small & tiny & natural one, compared to the events
Pedersen has tried to analyse. If A = a typical Gladstone event
and B = the event that gentlemen Pedersen, Di?s, Ault and Hjort all
thought about these things, then Prob(B) / Prob(A) is about (hum-tee-dum,
where's my abakus) 10^47. Event B is relatively likely, conditional on
the fact that we all read the Barks stories with open hearts and minds;
that Barks in these cases very clearly point to them (that's the point!,
and we, the readers, we got it!); and that our minds do not shy away
from speculation & generalisation & quantification & comparison.
Events of type A are indeed improbably implausible & implausibly
improbable -- in our universe. Clearly, since the reports from Duckburg
give us long catalogues of such events, not only involving Gladstone,
but also Donald and the others -- probability parameters have different
priors and simultaneous probability distributions have different structure
than we are used to. We should find it significant that when these
for us so extraterrestially strange things happen in Duckburg, then these
do *not* cause extreme alarm or uproar or a feeling of wild surprise.
When Gyro and Scrooge lose control over their spaceship and
land in Money Bin, of all places on the surface of the globe, there's
some alarm and action, but mostly because of the money that is lying
around, not because of the witnessed improbability. Similar remarks
apply to most of the other gladstonean incidents, etc.
One might dream up interesting "science fiction" stories, in the minds
of the Kilgore Trouts of Duckburg -- where the new, scary, strange,
otherworldly aspects of the stories they write are that probabilities
and expectations behave ... as in California, or Florida, or Denmark!
That would be shocking and interesting stories, with many potential
embellishments to shock and enlighten the readers of Duckburg.
Douglas Adams lead his characteres through similar improbabilities,
I believe via a certain elegant device termed an "improbability drive",
which can operate at different magnitudes of speed and strength
[I'll ask the local adamsian for a more precise reference]. Obviously
similar devices are at work in Duckburg.
Dostoyevskij was occasionally criticised for having his characters
experiencing "too incredible" events. I believe he answered (this is
imperfect translation from an imperfectly remembered Russian phrase
late in my night): "Nothing in my books is so improbable as the events
which actually take place in ordinary people's ordinary lives."
Perhaps Barks can say this too.
Nils Lid Hjort
... who would very much like to see your "scientific paper" on these
matters, Kristian P.
in Duckburg, and more specifically those concerning Gladstone's luck.
His speculations brought smiles upon the faces of Stefan Di?s and
then Donald Ault -- and then mine. Stefan writes,
<<Or how about the coincidence that two donaldists will, separately,
reach the same conclusion from all these vast, huge, enormous sources
of Gladstoneness? :-) >>
exhibiting incidentally what we maillisters must acknowledge as a
perfectly valid & appropriate smiley (a rare thing) -- since the coincidence
he alludes to is a small & tiny & natural one, compared to the events
Pedersen has tried to analyse. If A = a typical Gladstone event
and B = the event that gentlemen Pedersen, Di?s, Ault and Hjort all
thought about these things, then Prob(B) / Prob(A) is about (hum-tee-dum,
where's my abakus) 10^47. Event B is relatively likely, conditional on
the fact that we all read the Barks stories with open hearts and minds;
that Barks in these cases very clearly point to them (that's the point!,
and we, the readers, we got it!); and that our minds do not shy away
from speculation & generalisation & quantification & comparison.
Events of type A are indeed improbably implausible & implausibly
improbable -- in our universe. Clearly, since the reports from Duckburg
give us long catalogues of such events, not only involving Gladstone,
but also Donald and the others -- probability parameters have different
priors and simultaneous probability distributions have different structure
than we are used to. We should find it significant that when these
for us so extraterrestially strange things happen in Duckburg, then these
do *not* cause extreme alarm or uproar or a feeling of wild surprise.
When Gyro and Scrooge lose control over their spaceship and
land in Money Bin, of all places on the surface of the globe, there's
some alarm and action, but mostly because of the money that is lying
around, not because of the witnessed improbability. Similar remarks
apply to most of the other gladstonean incidents, etc.
One might dream up interesting "science fiction" stories, in the minds
of the Kilgore Trouts of Duckburg -- where the new, scary, strange,
otherworldly aspects of the stories they write are that probabilities
and expectations behave ... as in California, or Florida, or Denmark!
That would be shocking and interesting stories, with many potential
embellishments to shock and enlighten the readers of Duckburg.
Douglas Adams lead his characteres through similar improbabilities,
I believe via a certain elegant device termed an "improbability drive",
which can operate at different magnitudes of speed and strength
[I'll ask the local adamsian for a more precise reference]. Obviously
similar devices are at work in Duckburg.
Dostoyevskij was occasionally criticised for having his characters
experiencing "too incredible" events. I believe he answered (this is
imperfect translation from an imperfectly remembered Russian phrase
late in my night): "Nothing in my books is so improbable as the events
which actually take place in ordinary people's ordinary lives."
Perhaps Barks can say this too.
Nils Lid Hjort
... who would very much like to see your "scientific paper" on these
matters, Kristian P.
Deanmary
This and That
Message 45 -
2003-06-03 at 07:58:16
I am yet another person who thinks "Guardians of the Lost Library" is one of Don Rosa's BEST stories. I love all the mystery and detective work done which pays off with a great ending. Perhaps though I am biased as my girlfriend is a library director and I went to school to be a librarian! :) So if Don thinks "A Letter from Home" is a "bad" story from him, I imagine that I will be delighted with it!
This is kind of off topic, but I have two book suggestions for people who like "GotLL" and other Barks and Rosa classic adventure stories. Both books are adventurous mysteries by Dan Brown and both feature Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon as the main character. The first, "Angels and Demons" is out in paperback in the US and deals with the Illuminati and intrigue at the Vatican. The second one, "The Da Vinci Code" came out in hardcover a few months back and is about the Knights Templar and the Holy Grail. I think many people who like long Donald and Scrooge adventures/mysteries would like these books.
As far as Gemstone succeeding, I think one important point is to get these comics into libraries. For whatever reason, graphic novels aka trade paperbacks (TPB's) are currently one of the hottest topics in the library world in the US. Not only are comic books no longer dismissed, but they are instead considered a serious art form. Obviously few if any public libraries subscribe to regular "pamphlet" comics due to their flimsy format. However collections of comic stories in the TPB format are becoming very popular. The in between size of the upcoming "Donald Duck Adventures" series is better, but I think that Disney comics in the more traditional TPB format would be very popular in libraries and the best format for libraries
I got my monthly Westfield Comics order form in the mail today and was happy to see what is upcoming from Gemstone. Uncle Scrooge # 321 will include Don Rosa's "Attaaaack", and a Duck story by Geoffrey Blum based on some notes from Carl Barks. WDC&S # 636 will include a William Van Horn Duck story, and Noel Van Horn Mickey story, and the second of three installments of Rosa's "Three Caballeros Ride Again". The only possible negative thing that I saw was that Westfield listed each of these as 48 pages instead on the normal 64 pages. I hope and imagine that this was just a mistake by Westfield and not a reduction in pages by Gemstone. Perhaps you can clarify Gary?
I am not really good at picking my favorite 3, 5, 10, etc. of things, so I won't bothering listing my ultimate Disney comic stories Perhaps we can start another thread though about "Unlikely Favorites". By that term I mean personal favorites that we love, but are not often mentioned as among the best or most famous of Disney stories. I will start the ball rolling by bringing up Barks' long story "Big-Top Bedlam". It was published as Four Color # 300 in 1950 and I believe most recently reprinted in the USA in Donald Duck #261 in 1988. One of the things that make this one of my unlikely favorites is for what it is not. Unlike most Barks' long stories, Donald and the boys don't travel far, meet strange natives, solve mysteries, etc. In fact the entire 28 page story takes place in Duckburg! The story revolves around Donald losing Daisy's heirloom brooch and what lengths he goes to retrieve it. It sounds more like the plot of one of Barks' 10 pagers, but this "simple" story works just swell in this longer page count. So while I love the exotic adventures that most of Barks long stories contain, this makes a nice change of pace.
Since this story was published in 1950, you get to see Unca Carl's art at its finest. Barks art is very fresh and inventive here with panels that are not just square shaped as most of his artwork was done. Also, this is one of Barks' rare stories in which all of the non-Duck characters are totally drawn as human -- not even dog noses or white "Mickey" gloves. So if you have not read this story for awhile, it is well worth a second look.
I'd love to hear what are some unlikely favorites of other list members!
Finally, a hearty welcome back to Katie Sullivan! I always enjoyed your postings and have missed your presence on the mailing list. When you last contributed I remember you mentioning that you were starting college, and now you are 23 and have a degree in Literature! Boy, does time fly by!!! By the way, did you get to use any of Barks' stories for literature term papers? :)
Dean Rekich
This is kind of off topic, but I have two book suggestions for people who like "GotLL" and other Barks and Rosa classic adventure stories. Both books are adventurous mysteries by Dan Brown and both feature Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon as the main character. The first, "Angels and Demons" is out in paperback in the US and deals with the Illuminati and intrigue at the Vatican. The second one, "The Da Vinci Code" came out in hardcover a few months back and is about the Knights Templar and the Holy Grail. I think many people who like long Donald and Scrooge adventures/mysteries would like these books.
As far as Gemstone succeeding, I think one important point is to get these comics into libraries. For whatever reason, graphic novels aka trade paperbacks (TPB's) are currently one of the hottest topics in the library world in the US. Not only are comic books no longer dismissed, but they are instead considered a serious art form. Obviously few if any public libraries subscribe to regular "pamphlet" comics due to their flimsy format. However collections of comic stories in the TPB format are becoming very popular. The in between size of the upcoming "Donald Duck Adventures" series is better, but I think that Disney comics in the more traditional TPB format would be very popular in libraries and the best format for libraries
I got my monthly Westfield Comics order form in the mail today and was happy to see what is upcoming from Gemstone. Uncle Scrooge # 321 will include Don Rosa's "Attaaaack", and a Duck story by Geoffrey Blum based on some notes from Carl Barks. WDC&S # 636 will include a William Van Horn Duck story, and Noel Van Horn Mickey story, and the second of three installments of Rosa's "Three Caballeros Ride Again". The only possible negative thing that I saw was that Westfield listed each of these as 48 pages instead on the normal 64 pages. I hope and imagine that this was just a mistake by Westfield and not a reduction in pages by Gemstone. Perhaps you can clarify Gary?
I am not really good at picking my favorite 3, 5, 10, etc. of things, so I won't bothering listing my ultimate Disney comic stories Perhaps we can start another thread though about "Unlikely Favorites". By that term I mean personal favorites that we love, but are not often mentioned as among the best or most famous of Disney stories. I will start the ball rolling by bringing up Barks' long story "Big-Top Bedlam". It was published as Four Color # 300 in 1950 and I believe most recently reprinted in the USA in Donald Duck #261 in 1988. One of the things that make this one of my unlikely favorites is for what it is not. Unlike most Barks' long stories, Donald and the boys don't travel far, meet strange natives, solve mysteries, etc. In fact the entire 28 page story takes place in Duckburg! The story revolves around Donald losing Daisy's heirloom brooch and what lengths he goes to retrieve it. It sounds more like the plot of one of Barks' 10 pagers, but this "simple" story works just swell in this longer page count. So while I love the exotic adventures that most of Barks long stories contain, this makes a nice change of pace.
Since this story was published in 1950, you get to see Unca Carl's art at its finest. Barks art is very fresh and inventive here with panels that are not just square shaped as most of his artwork was done. Also, this is one of Barks' rare stories in which all of the non-Duck characters are totally drawn as human -- not even dog noses or white "Mickey" gloves. So if you have not read this story for awhile, it is well worth a second look.
I'd love to hear what are some unlikely favorites of other list members!
Finally, a hearty welcome back to Katie Sullivan! I always enjoyed your postings and have missed your presence on the mailing list. When you last contributed I remember you mentioning that you were starting college, and now you are 23 and have a degree in Literature! Boy, does time fly by!!! By the way, did you get to use any of Barks' stories for literature term papers? :)
Dean Rekich