Daniel van Eijmeren wrote:
>SIGVALD GROSFJELD to me, 17-08-2003:
>
>
>>>And that it's not up to you - or me - to tell which style and
>>>opinion is superior or inferior? Or do you like to *hurt* people
>>>by suggesting that your opinion is superior?
>>>
>>>
>>No I don't. I think however that what often have made me react is
>>when people for some reason seems to completely ignore Don Rosa's
>>explanations for things in the Duck-universe -
>>
>>
>
>Sigvald, there are people in this universe who call themselves serious
>readers and don't care about Don Rosa's work at all. Those people may
>be glad, they may be mad, they may be a little sad, (US 22) but they
>do have a right to live and enjoy discussing whatever they want to,
>without calling your favourite artist in order to make you happy.
>
>There also other people in this universe who just want to write about
>Disney comics, without naming your favourite artist. So, they are
>not "ignoring" Don Rosa, they're just discussing other subjects.
>And these people also have a right to live without being bothered by
>your erroneous, obsessed contributions, full of factual mistakes and
>complaints.
>
[Stepping out of temporal lurk-modus...]
Just wanted to say that this [ad nauseam] discussion about the
importance of Don Rosa is getting really tiresome as far as I'm
concerned. Is there anyone on this list who actually enjoys this?
I mean, all this discussion must be really tiresome for many and mostly
to Don Rosa himself. I consider him to be a friend and it really hurts
me to see that he is used as vehicle for petty arguing. I myself am a
huge fan of him, but I don't mind at all if someone doesn't mention him
in every possible conversation.
There are times when avoiding saying one's opinions is a good thing,
because it might offend somebody and generate useless fighting (matters
of taste can't really be argued). Everybody has a right to express
his/her opinions, but sometimes its just not a good idea. If you see
someone wearing a hat you consider to be ugly, you don't have to go over
and tell the person what you think of it.
I have no right to tell people that "you shouldn't write about this
topic, because I don't want to read about it", so ignore this at will.
Still, I have a profound feeling that this kind of discussion about Don
Rosa and his work is wrong. I believe it serves no purpose for majority
of readers, quite the contrary.
For Sigvald I'd like to say that Don is fully capable of defending his
own honor, if he feels it necessary. For those others who tend to reply
to Sigvald's sometimes inconsiderate and hasty messages: why not give it
a rest. I believe we all can form our own opinions about worth of each
message, so there is really no need for anyone to point out that
somebody said something "stupid" and then argue about it for days with
him/her.
Sigvald has often good questions and he starts many good topics, yet all
this fighting seems to create unnecessary preconceptions against
everything he writes. I'm seeing a tendency where some people attack
Sigvald every time he writes anything by giving his words the worst
possible meaning. At least consider replying on private level when arguing.
Oh, and this reply was not particularly written with Daniel in mind. I
think your reply was very good except for the last three lines.
Sheesh. I used more than 2 hours on this single mail... luckily all of
you can delete this in a matter of seconds.
- Kai Saarto
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Author
Topic: 200308
(787 messages)
Kai Saarto
Sigvald's universe
Message 421 -
2003-08-18 at 01:04:08
Danehog
Regarding Scarpa's Style...
Message 422 -
2003-08-18 at 01:05:16
Timo wrote:
> He made Mouse stories early in his career, and the his style was quite
> different from what it is nowadays.
> Even his ducks looked very different. He made his mice look
> a bit like
> Scarpa's, with his own twist. Goofy looked really goof :-)
Regarding Scarpa, what was the era in which he adopted a style that used lots of "lines" as shadows for all of the characters, particularly when shocked or generally excited. (I'm not sure of the technical term for this, or even a way of describing the effect accurately.) I remember reading a particular Scarpa story that featured this technique--which I thought was an excellent addition to an already-solid style--and another one that did not. The latter story just felt like there was something... missing, since I had seen his style, complete with the extra "line shadows," previously.
(I would give you the story codes, but I don't have access to my comic book collection at the moment.)
--
Dane
Wow. This was the most pathetically wordy message ever...
> He made Mouse stories early in his career, and the his style was quite
> different from what it is nowadays.
> Even his ducks looked very different. He made his mice look
> a bit like
> Scarpa's, with his own twist. Goofy looked really goof :-)
Regarding Scarpa, what was the era in which he adopted a style that used lots of "lines" as shadows for all of the characters, particularly when shocked or generally excited. (I'm not sure of the technical term for this, or even a way of describing the effect accurately.) I remember reading a particular Scarpa story that featured this technique--which I thought was an excellent addition to an already-solid style--and another one that did not. The latter story just felt like there was something... missing, since I had seen his style, complete with the extra "line shadows," previously.
(I would give you the story codes, but I don't have access to my comic book collection at the moment.)
--
Dane
Wow. This was the most pathetically wordy message ever...
Danehog
Peg-Leg? Black? Something Else Entirely?
Message 423 -
2003-08-18 at 01:30:22
Francesco wrote:
> I also remember learning when I was a little kid that in English he was
> named "Peg-Leg Pete" and I grew up thinking he still was. I was a bit
> shocked to fin out that he's not anymore... even his entry in the wikipedia
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Pete says Black Pete (I've been tempted
> to change it, but it wouldn't be fair... I'll just add a
> note...)
I'm surprised "Black Pete" hasn't officially been changed by Disney, following their factuation for ridiculous politically-correctness.
Besides, "Peg-Leg Pete" just sounds better...
--
Dane
> I also remember learning when I was a little kid that in English he was
> named "Peg-Leg Pete" and I grew up thinking he still was. I was a bit
> shocked to fin out that he's not anymore... even his entry in the wikipedia
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Pete says Black Pete (I've been tempted
> to change it, but it wouldn't be fair... I'll just add a
> note...)
I'm surprised "Black Pete" hasn't officially been changed by Disney, following their factuation for ridiculous politically-correctness.
Besides, "Peg-Leg Pete" just sounds better...
--
Dane
Francesco Spreafico
Regarding Scarpa's Style...
Message 424 -
2003-08-18 at 01:34:49
Danehog at aol.com wrote:
> Regarding Scarpa, what was the era in which he adopted a style that
> used lots of "lines" as shadows for all of the characters,
> particularly when shocked or generally excited. (I'm not sure of the
> technical term for this, or even a way of describing the effect
> accurately.) I remember reading a particular Scarpa story that
> featured this technique--which I thought was an excellent addition to
> an already-solid style--and another one that did not. The latter
> story just felt like there was something... missing, since I had seen
> his style, complete with the extra "line shadows," previously.
>
> (I would give you the story codes, but I don't have access to my
> comic book collection at the moment.)
Well, without any hints about the stories I really don't know what to say...
still, check this out:
http://www-lce.eng.cam.ac.uk/~fms27/disney/scarpa/
It's a page by Frank Stajano (originally from this very ML, 8 years ago!)
about Scarpa's different styles. Maybe it can answer your question!
--
Francesco
http://www.dimensionedelta.net/scarpa/
"Vi faccio vedere *io* chi sono *io*!! *Io* vi compro la fabbrica e
*tutto*!!"
~ Scrooge, from I TL 174-A
> Regarding Scarpa, what was the era in which he adopted a style that
> used lots of "lines" as shadows for all of the characters,
> particularly when shocked or generally excited. (I'm not sure of the
> technical term for this, or even a way of describing the effect
> accurately.) I remember reading a particular Scarpa story that
> featured this technique--which I thought was an excellent addition to
> an already-solid style--and another one that did not. The latter
> story just felt like there was something... missing, since I had seen
> his style, complete with the extra "line shadows," previously.
>
> (I would give you the story codes, but I don't have access to my
> comic book collection at the moment.)
Well, without any hints about the stories I really don't know what to say...
still, check this out:
http://www-lce.eng.cam.ac.uk/~fms27/disney/scarpa/
It's a page by Frank Stajano (originally from this very ML, 8 years ago!)
about Scarpa's different styles. Maybe it can answer your question!
--
Francesco
http://www.dimensionedelta.net/scarpa/
"Vi faccio vedere *io* chi sono *io*!! *Io* vi compro la fabbrica e
*tutto*!!"
~ Scrooge, from I TL 174-A
Danehog
Dane (Stupidly) Refuses to Drop the Issue of Ingenuity
Message 425 -
2003-08-18 at 01:35:52
Sigvald wrote:
> a) The Italians have completely redrawn the Money Bin, they either don't
> like or they don't respect the original look Barks once
> gave it.
[snip other points of the same vein]
Er... what's the problem with this, again? If current Disney artists didn't have the freedom to alter and adjust things as they see fit, then where is the *ingenuity*? Should current artists have to follow Barks' pencil lines directly, when they should be creating Disney comics the way they *want* to?
I enjoy Disney comics because the creators have much more freedom to alter and adjust than their animation counterparts. There's still creativity in Disney comics, unlike other Disney material.
(This isn't meant to be an Offensive Flame; just an observation, perhaps written a little too harshly. Or passionately, for that matter. That's the scary part.)
What am I saying? We've been over this again and again. New topic.
--
Dane
> a) The Italians have completely redrawn the Money Bin, they either don't
> like or they don't respect the original look Barks once
> gave it.
[snip other points of the same vein]
Er... what's the problem with this, again? If current Disney artists didn't have the freedom to alter and adjust things as they see fit, then where is the *ingenuity*? Should current artists have to follow Barks' pencil lines directly, when they should be creating Disney comics the way they *want* to?
I enjoy Disney comics because the creators have much more freedom to alter and adjust than their animation counterparts. There's still creativity in Disney comics, unlike other Disney material.
(This isn't meant to be an Offensive Flame; just an observation, perhaps written a little too harshly. Or passionately, for that matter. That's the scary part.)
What am I saying? We've been over this again and again. New topic.
--
Dane
Klartekst
Barks consistency
Message 426 -
2003-08-18 at 02:22:47
Barks was not consistent when it came to details. For example, in
"The Lemming with the Locket" the money bin looks quite
different - although it still seems to be located on Killmotor Hill.
But the CHARACTERS are consistent, right? Well, yes and no.
To me, the lack of consistency in the Barks Ducks is part of the
magic of reading the stories. Donald is cocky and childish
in one story, and a responsible parent in the next.Scrooge
is a ruthless businessman one week, and reduced to a
nervous, worrying wreck a week later. Does that mean they are
not the same persons from week to week? Of course not! It simply
means they have complex, multi-layered personalities like the rest of us.
It also means that although we feel we know them, we can never
PREDICT them, and THAT'S what make Barks' stories so great.
Leonard Nimoy of Star Trek fame was once asked why his
Mr. Spock was so popular. He said he thought it was
because he made the alien so open to interpretation that anyone
could read into the character exactly what he or she wanted (he
used the words "open texture").
So for myself, I don't want a duck universe where everything is
nailed down. I want an open texture so that I can do some
creating myself when I read the stories.
Did that make any sense at all? If not, I'm sorry. It's late but I just
had to get this off my chest.
Nils from Norway
"The Lemming with the Locket" the money bin looks quite
different - although it still seems to be located on Killmotor Hill.
But the CHARACTERS are consistent, right? Well, yes and no.
To me, the lack of consistency in the Barks Ducks is part of the
magic of reading the stories. Donald is cocky and childish
in one story, and a responsible parent in the next.Scrooge
is a ruthless businessman one week, and reduced to a
nervous, worrying wreck a week later. Does that mean they are
not the same persons from week to week? Of course not! It simply
means they have complex, multi-layered personalities like the rest of us.
It also means that although we feel we know them, we can never
PREDICT them, and THAT'S what make Barks' stories so great.
Leonard Nimoy of Star Trek fame was once asked why his
Mr. Spock was so popular. He said he thought it was
because he made the alien so open to interpretation that anyone
could read into the character exactly what he or she wanted (he
used the words "open texture").
So for myself, I don't want a duck universe where everything is
nailed down. I want an open texture so that I can do some
creating myself when I read the stories.
Did that make any sense at all? If not, I'm sorry. It's late but I just
had to get this off my chest.
Nils from Norway
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Sigvald's universe
Message 427 -
2003-08-18 at 02:42:34
KAI SAARTO to me, 18-08-2003:
> Just wanted to say that this [ad nauseam] discussion about the
> importance of Don Rosa is getting really tiresome as far as I'm
> concerned. Is there anyone on this list who actually enjoys this?
I enjoy listing what I know about Carl Barks. I don't enjoy the
discussing around it. In fact, I'm sick of it! So, I'm now at the
point of just contributing what I know, without paying any attention
to Sigvald himself anymore.
> I believe we all can form our own opinions about worth of each
> message, so there is really no need for anyone to point out that
> somebody said something "stupid" and then argue about it for days
> with him/her.
The discussion is not just about opinions, but about wrong information.
*That's* what bothers me.
> I'm seeing a tendency where some people attack Sigvald every time
> he writes anything by giving his words the worst possible meaning.
Please, Kai. When Sigvald writes something, his words often already
*have* the worst possible meaning!
I understand your email, but I object against victimizing Sigvald.
People have had an enormous lot of patience with him. For months.
Sigvald has got lots of chances, and he *still* gets chances. But he
just keeps going on with forcing Don Rosa's name into discussions,
almost as if he's being paid for it.
So, I don't want to hear anything like "please people, don't be so
hard on Sigvald". That's putting the situation upside down, IMO.
--- Dani?l
> Just wanted to say that this [ad nauseam] discussion about the
> importance of Don Rosa is getting really tiresome as far as I'm
> concerned. Is there anyone on this list who actually enjoys this?
I enjoy listing what I know about Carl Barks. I don't enjoy the
discussing around it. In fact, I'm sick of it! So, I'm now at the
point of just contributing what I know, without paying any attention
to Sigvald himself anymore.
> I believe we all can form our own opinions about worth of each
> message, so there is really no need for anyone to point out that
> somebody said something "stupid" and then argue about it for days
> with him/her.
The discussion is not just about opinions, but about wrong information.
*That's* what bothers me.
> I'm seeing a tendency where some people attack Sigvald every time
> he writes anything by giving his words the worst possible meaning.
Please, Kai. When Sigvald writes something, his words often already
*have* the worst possible meaning!
I understand your email, but I object against victimizing Sigvald.
People have had an enormous lot of patience with him. For months.
Sigvald has got lots of chances, and he *still* gets chances. But he
just keeps going on with forcing Don Rosa's name into discussions,
almost as if he's being paid for it.
So, I don't want to hear anything like "please people, don't be so
hard on Sigvald". That's putting the situation upside down, IMO.
--- Dani?l
Sigvald Grøsfjeld Jr.
Summary and conclusion
Message 428 -
2003-08-18 at 03:02:28
Hi all!
I can now see that more and more people thinks that the ongoing dispute
about Italian VS American Disney culture is boring and that it should be
brought to an end. Due to this I will shortly summarize what this has been
about, and then give my final word about this matter.
1. There has recently been an ongoing debate about the possibility of having
someone doing a "Life of Pete" tale.
2. At a point a person says that he would prefer that such a task should be
given to an Italian. My interpretation of this persons statement is that it
seems that this persons personal taste is his only argument for that
opinion.
3. My thoughts and arguments about the same is:
a)
IMO A "Life of Pete" tale should be a serious work based on thorough
research of all relevant material about Pete - and not just another funny
tale, more or less made up from scratch.
b)
Pete (as most other Disney characters) is American.
c)
Pete's character is well described and developed in the well-known stories
by the Americans Floyd Gottfredson and Paul Murry.
d)
Due to points a,b and c, a "Life of Pete" tale should IMO be written by
someone well familiar with these creators/artists in particular, and the
American interpretation of Pete in general.
e)
Based on what I know about the Italian Disney Culture, I fear that an
Italian writer could accidentally or deliberately ignore parts of the
American tradition when it comes to Pete.
f)
Based on the good impressions I have got of Mr. David Gerstein (I have met
him twice) I have suggested him for such a task.
4. I *like* Italian comics and is a hard-core collector of the DD pocket
books. By reading that huge amount of Italian Disney stories over the years
I have got a clear impression that the Italians are proud of their own
Disney culture which to some extent differs from the American one, just like
the American pan-pizza differs from the original Italian pizza. IMO it's
fully possible - yes even completely normal to love/enjoy both these
versions of the Disney culture.
5. I have never meant to insult the Italians or the Italian Disney culture.
I am thus very sorry if anything I have stated during this last debate has
been interpreted that way.
Hopefully we have now said what there is to be said about this topic. I
always try to faithfully answer if someone in DCML have questions for me,
but I it makes me sad whenever my answers/comments causes upset reactions
among DCMLs readers. Personally I prefer more positive discussions on DCML.
That's why I recently addressed the MLers about what stories they want to
see in print in their own language. Hopefully we can soon have an
interesting discussion about that matter instead of the US/Italian topic
that most people now finds boring.
Sigvald
I can now see that more and more people thinks that the ongoing dispute
about Italian VS American Disney culture is boring and that it should be
brought to an end. Due to this I will shortly summarize what this has been
about, and then give my final word about this matter.
1. There has recently been an ongoing debate about the possibility of having
someone doing a "Life of Pete" tale.
2. At a point a person says that he would prefer that such a task should be
given to an Italian. My interpretation of this persons statement is that it
seems that this persons personal taste is his only argument for that
opinion.
3. My thoughts and arguments about the same is:
a)
IMO A "Life of Pete" tale should be a serious work based on thorough
research of all relevant material about Pete - and not just another funny
tale, more or less made up from scratch.
b)
Pete (as most other Disney characters) is American.
c)
Pete's character is well described and developed in the well-known stories
by the Americans Floyd Gottfredson and Paul Murry.
d)
Due to points a,b and c, a "Life of Pete" tale should IMO be written by
someone well familiar with these creators/artists in particular, and the
American interpretation of Pete in general.
e)
Based on what I know about the Italian Disney Culture, I fear that an
Italian writer could accidentally or deliberately ignore parts of the
American tradition when it comes to Pete.
f)
Based on the good impressions I have got of Mr. David Gerstein (I have met
him twice) I have suggested him for such a task.
4. I *like* Italian comics and is a hard-core collector of the DD pocket
books. By reading that huge amount of Italian Disney stories over the years
I have got a clear impression that the Italians are proud of their own
Disney culture which to some extent differs from the American one, just like
the American pan-pizza differs from the original Italian pizza. IMO it's
fully possible - yes even completely normal to love/enjoy both these
versions of the Disney culture.
5. I have never meant to insult the Italians or the Italian Disney culture.
I am thus very sorry if anything I have stated during this last debate has
been interpreted that way.
Hopefully we have now said what there is to be said about this topic. I
always try to faithfully answer if someone in DCML have questions for me,
but I it makes me sad whenever my answers/comments causes upset reactions
among DCMLs readers. Personally I prefer more positive discussions on DCML.
That's why I recently addressed the MLers about what stories they want to
see in print in their own language. Hopefully we can soon have an
interesting discussion about that matter instead of the US/Italian topic
that most people now finds boring.
Sigvald
Sigvald Grøsfjeld Jr.
A calculation of the size of $crooges fortune
Message 429 -
2003-08-18 at 03:40:02
Hi all!
I just recieved he following very interesting mail in my Yahoo-mail box:
Sigvald
----------------------------------
Scrooge McDuck -- How rich was he?
----------------------------------
Skip Newhall <x at sn.to> wrote:
> Hi --
>
> As a youngster in the 1940s, I was a super-fan
> of Donald Duck. I recall the claim that Scrooge
> McDuck was the world's richest being, having
> three cubic acres of money. Well, almost 60
> years later I decided to investigate the
> details. Here are my results:
>
> 1. An acre is a measure of area, so, strictly
> speaking, a cubic acre is a misuse of units
> and makes no sense. However, a reasonable
> interpretation of cubic acre is the volume of
> a cube, each of whose sides is one acre in
> area.
>
> 2. An acre is defined to be 43,560 square feet;
> therefore the side of a cubic acre is the
> square root of 43,560, or 208.71 feet.
>
> 3. The volume of a cube that is 208.71 feet
> on a side is 9,091,422 cubic feet. Therefore,
> three cubic acres is 27,274,265 cubic feet.
>
> 4. There are 1,728 (12 x 12 x 12) cubic inches
> in a cubic foot, so three cubic acres = 1,728
> x 27,274,265 = 47,129,930,540 cubic inches.
>
> 5. The dimensions of US currency are 6.14 by
> 2.61 by .0043 inches, giving a volume of .0689
> cubic inches per bill.
>
> 6. Three cubic acres will contain approximately
> 47,129,930,540/.0689 =
> 683,942,302,000 bills.
>
> 7. The six most common US currency
> denominations are $1, $5, $10, $20, $50, and
> $100. If we assume that Scrooge's money bin
> has equal amounts of each denomination, then
> the average is $31 per bill.
>
> 8. THEREFORE, Scrooge's official wealth is 31 x
> 683,942,302,000, or $21.2 trillion. And,
> allowing a factor of ten for inflation to
> today's dollars, his fortune would be around
> $210 trillion.
>
> - Bill Gates, eat your heart out!!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Skip Newhall
> Valencia, California
I just recieved he following very interesting mail in my Yahoo-mail box:
Sigvald
----------------------------------
Scrooge McDuck -- How rich was he?
----------------------------------
Skip Newhall <x at sn.to> wrote:
> Hi --
>
> As a youngster in the 1940s, I was a super-fan
> of Donald Duck. I recall the claim that Scrooge
> McDuck was the world's richest being, having
> three cubic acres of money. Well, almost 60
> years later I decided to investigate the
> details. Here are my results:
>
> 1. An acre is a measure of area, so, strictly
> speaking, a cubic acre is a misuse of units
> and makes no sense. However, a reasonable
> interpretation of cubic acre is the volume of
> a cube, each of whose sides is one acre in
> area.
>
> 2. An acre is defined to be 43,560 square feet;
> therefore the side of a cubic acre is the
> square root of 43,560, or 208.71 feet.
>
> 3. The volume of a cube that is 208.71 feet
> on a side is 9,091,422 cubic feet. Therefore,
> three cubic acres is 27,274,265 cubic feet.
>
> 4. There are 1,728 (12 x 12 x 12) cubic inches
> in a cubic foot, so three cubic acres = 1,728
> x 27,274,265 = 47,129,930,540 cubic inches.
>
> 5. The dimensions of US currency are 6.14 by
> 2.61 by .0043 inches, giving a volume of .0689
> cubic inches per bill.
>
> 6. Three cubic acres will contain approximately
> 47,129,930,540/.0689 =
> 683,942,302,000 bills.
>
> 7. The six most common US currency
> denominations are $1, $5, $10, $20, $50, and
> $100. If we assume that Scrooge's money bin
> has equal amounts of each denomination, then
> the average is $31 per bill.
>
> 8. THEREFORE, Scrooge's official wealth is 31 x
> 683,942,302,000, or $21.2 trillion. And,
> allowing a factor of ten for inflation to
> today's dollars, his fortune would be around
> $210 trillion.
>
> - Bill Gates, eat your heart out!!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Skip Newhall
> Valencia, California
Katie Sullivan
Barksian admirers for Scrooge
Message 430 -
2003-08-18 at 04:57:33
> And, when it comes to Brigitta: What's so
> disrespectful in showing that Scrooge
> has an admirer? He's the richest duck in the
> world, so anything else would be strange.
> Brigitta McBridge does most certainly not
> contradict anything Barks has written!
Sigvald wrote:
>Well, AFAIK he *never* showed any such admirer of $crooge.
>Anyway, I guess
>that Katie kan tell us more about this - as she's AFAIK DCMLs
>expert on THIS
>particular topic.
Heehee...I guess I am, at that. You need look no further than
"Back to the Klondike" to see Goldie's reaction to Scrooge when
he shows up at her doorstep. "You're still just as handsome as
ever, Scrooge!" she says, after having rushed to dress up in her
best gown and jewelry to greet him.
Goldie aside, the only other Barks-canon romantic admirer of
Scrooge that I can think of is in "The Ten-Cent Valentine." Is
that the title? I'm embarassed to admit I don't have the story
handy, but from what I remember, Magica DeSpell sent a letter to
Scrooge laced with a love potion perfume. If I remember the
story correctly, no one thought it particularly odd that he was
getting a letter from a lady admirer.
As for Brigitta MacBridge, Carl Barks liked the character so
well that he drew a sketch of her using money perfume to attract
Scrooge's attention and sent it to Romano Scarpa.
http://www.sullivanet.com/duckburg/loves/brigitta-barks.gif
So obviously Barks was open to the idea of an admirer for
Scrooge, even if he didn't create the character himself.
Katie Sullivan
http://www.sullivanet.com/
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
> disrespectful in showing that Scrooge
> has an admirer? He's the richest duck in the
> world, so anything else would be strange.
> Brigitta McBridge does most certainly not
> contradict anything Barks has written!
Sigvald wrote:
>Well, AFAIK he *never* showed any such admirer of $crooge.
>Anyway, I guess
>that Katie kan tell us more about this - as she's AFAIK DCMLs
>expert on THIS
>particular topic.
Heehee...I guess I am, at that. You need look no further than
"Back to the Klondike" to see Goldie's reaction to Scrooge when
he shows up at her doorstep. "You're still just as handsome as
ever, Scrooge!" she says, after having rushed to dress up in her
best gown and jewelry to greet him.
Goldie aside, the only other Barks-canon romantic admirer of
Scrooge that I can think of is in "The Ten-Cent Valentine." Is
that the title? I'm embarassed to admit I don't have the story
handy, but from what I remember, Magica DeSpell sent a letter to
Scrooge laced with a love potion perfume. If I remember the
story correctly, no one thought it particularly odd that he was
getting a letter from a lady admirer.
As for Brigitta MacBridge, Carl Barks liked the character so
well that he drew a sketch of her using money perfume to attract
Scrooge's attention and sent it to Romano Scarpa.
http://www.sullivanet.com/duckburg/loves/brigitta-barks.gif
So obviously Barks was open to the idea of an admirer for
Scrooge, even if he didn't create the character himself.
Katie Sullivan
http://www.sullivanet.com/
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Katie Sullivan
DCML Digest, Vol 6, Issue 46
Message 431 -
2003-08-18 at 05:22:15
Regaring Scrooge's lack of a butler and mansion, Sigvald wrote:
>Only in "Christmas on Bear Mountain". He sold it shortly after,
>early 1948 I would guess - just read the end of Lo$.
Someone has aleady pointed out how silly it is to use Rosa
stories to "prove" Barks canon, so I'll scrap what I was going
to say about it.
Daniel wrote:
>So what? Glittering Goldie also is a one-time Barks fenomenon.
In the comics, true. But she popped up in an awful lot of his
oil paintings.
http://www.sullivanet.com/duckburg/barksoils/
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any other character
who appeared in only one of his stories has appeared in so many
oil paintings. This would indicate to me that he thought her to
be an important character--or at least an important symbol of
his characterization of Scrooge (rough and grouchy on the
outside, kind-hearted deep down.)
But then I'm extremely biased in favor of her character, so
don't mind me. ;)
Kai Saarto wrote:
> I myself am a huge fan of [Rosa], but I don't mind at all if
>someone doesn't mention him in every possible conversation.
Exactly. I absolutely adore Rosa's work, but other discussions
are fun, too, and I'm certainly not going to protest if his name
doesn't come up in every single digest! Besides, it's gotten to
the point where I'm hesitant to mention his work or "universe"
in discussions for fear of sounding like a certain other member
who's gotten a lot of people's hackles up. I'd like to be able
to mention Rosa in a positive way without causing the impression
that I share some of the extreme, and at times inflammatory,
opinions offered by another member.
Katie Sullivan
http://www.sullivanet.com/
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>Only in "Christmas on Bear Mountain". He sold it shortly after,
>early 1948 I would guess - just read the end of Lo$.
Someone has aleady pointed out how silly it is to use Rosa
stories to "prove" Barks canon, so I'll scrap what I was going
to say about it.
Daniel wrote:
>So what? Glittering Goldie also is a one-time Barks fenomenon.
In the comics, true. But she popped up in an awful lot of his
oil paintings.
http://www.sullivanet.com/duckburg/barksoils/
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any other character
who appeared in only one of his stories has appeared in so many
oil paintings. This would indicate to me that he thought her to
be an important character--or at least an important symbol of
his characterization of Scrooge (rough and grouchy on the
outside, kind-hearted deep down.)
But then I'm extremely biased in favor of her character, so
don't mind me. ;)
Kai Saarto wrote:
> I myself am a huge fan of [Rosa], but I don't mind at all if
>someone doesn't mention him in every possible conversation.
Exactly. I absolutely adore Rosa's work, but other discussions
are fun, too, and I'm certainly not going to protest if his name
doesn't come up in every single digest! Besides, it's gotten to
the point where I'm hesitant to mention his work or "universe"
in discussions for fear of sounding like a certain other member
who's gotten a lot of people's hackles up. I'd like to be able
to mention Rosa in a positive way without causing the impression
that I share some of the extreme, and at times inflammatory,
opinions offered by another member.
Katie Sullivan
http://www.sullivanet.com/
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Daniel Van Eijmeren
DCML Digest, Vol 6, Issue 46
Message 432 -
2003-08-18 at 05:53:53
KATIE SULLIVAN, 17-08-2003:
> Goldie aside, the only other Barks-canon romantic admirer of
> Scrooge that I can think of is in "The Ten-Cent Valentine."
> Is that the title? I'm embarassed to admit I don't have the
> story handy, but from what I remember, Magica DeSpell sent a
> letter to Scrooge laced with a love potion perfume. If I
> remember the story correctly, no one thought it particularly
> odd that he was getting a letter from a lady admirer.
It's "Ten-cent Valentine" (WDC 258). Another Barks story with a
similar motive is "Oddball Odyssey" (US 40).
In "The Thrifty Spendthrift" (US 47), Scrooge is flattered by a
lady. And no, I don't mean the dog. :-)
--- Dani?l
> Goldie aside, the only other Barks-canon romantic admirer of
> Scrooge that I can think of is in "The Ten-Cent Valentine."
> Is that the title? I'm embarassed to admit I don't have the
> story handy, but from what I remember, Magica DeSpell sent a
> letter to Scrooge laced with a love potion perfume. If I
> remember the story correctly, no one thought it particularly
> odd that he was getting a letter from a lady admirer.
It's "Ten-cent Valentine" (WDC 258). Another Barks story with a
similar motive is "Oddball Odyssey" (US 40).
In "The Thrifty Spendthrift" (US 47), Scrooge is flattered by a
lady. And no, I don't mean the dog. :-)
--- Dani?l
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Scrooge women
Message 433 -
2003-08-18 at 06:10:24
(My previous email has a wrong subject, with a wrong digest number.)
KATIE SULLIVAN to me, 17-08-2003:
>> Glittering Goldie also is a one-time Barks fenomenon.
> In the comics, true. But she popped up in an awful lot of his
> oil paintings. http://www.sullivanet.com/duckburg/barksoils/
I like "Business Long Overdue" (75-15) very much.
http://www.sullivanet.com/duckburg/barksoils/reunionoil.jpg
It's one of my most favourite Barks paintings.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any other character
> who appeared in only one of his stories has appeared in so many
> oil paintings.
Is that so? Can't think of any exception now. It's too late.
So for the moment, you win! (Bah!) :-)
Er... what did I say? Discussing comics is not about winning at all!
Blah blah preach preach... Oh me! Oh my! I really need to have some
sleep now. :-)
--- Dani?l
KATIE SULLIVAN to me, 17-08-2003:
>> Glittering Goldie also is a one-time Barks fenomenon.
> In the comics, true. But she popped up in an awful lot of his
> oil paintings. http://www.sullivanet.com/duckburg/barksoils/
I like "Business Long Overdue" (75-15) very much.
http://www.sullivanet.com/duckburg/barksoils/reunionoil.jpg
It's one of my most favourite Barks paintings.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any other character
> who appeared in only one of his stories has appeared in so many
> oil paintings.
Is that so? Can't think of any exception now. It's too late.
So for the moment, you win! (Bah!) :-)
Er... what did I say? Discussing comics is not about winning at all!
Blah blah preach preach... Oh me! Oh my! I really need to have some
sleep now. :-)
--- Dani?l
Danehog
Scarpa's Mickey Mouse Stories in Gemstone's Pocket Books
Message 434 -
2003-08-18 at 06:34:10
Frank Bubacz wrote:
>There are still about ten of his MM stories from that era
> that are absolutely indispensable. I guess the problem is >they are drawn to
> fit a pocket book format, and of course it's sacrilege to >change a 3-tier
> into a 4-tier.
If the stories are as good as you say they are, they would be perfect additions to Gemstone's "take-along" line of books, maybe as a backup "classic" feature, added to the newer stories. (Maybe they could even work as serials, or would that destroy the entire story, due to pacing and whatnot?)
--
Dane
>There are still about ten of his MM stories from that era
> that are absolutely indispensable. I guess the problem is >they are drawn to
> fit a pocket book format, and of course it's sacrilege to >change a 3-tier
> into a 4-tier.
If the stories are as good as you say they are, they would be perfect additions to Gemstone's "take-along" line of books, maybe as a backup "classic" feature, added to the newer stories. (Maybe they could even work as serials, or would that destroy the entire story, due to pacing and whatnot?)
--
Dane
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Vicar's vegetarian
Message 435 -
2003-08-18 at 06:44:22
SOEREN OLESEN to me, 16-08-2003:
> The story is probably D 5273 ("The Vegetarian") drawn by Vicar,
Yes, it's the story I meant. It's one of my all-time favourites.
Thanks for finding it back!
> but there is no breaking windows, so perhaps I am wrong.
Indeed, there's no bouncing vegetarian meatball going through a
window at all. You're right! My memory has been playing a trick on
me, mixing up different stories.
Anyway, even without my breaking windows, the story still stands. :-)
I hope Gemstone will use it. It's only 8 pages.
--- Dani?l
> The story is probably D 5273 ("The Vegetarian") drawn by Vicar,
Yes, it's the story I meant. It's one of my all-time favourites.
Thanks for finding it back!
> but there is no breaking windows, so perhaps I am wrong.
Indeed, there's no bouncing vegetarian meatball going through a
window at all. You're right! My memory has been playing a trick on
me, mixing up different stories.
Anyway, even without my breaking windows, the story still stands. :-)
I hope Gemstone will use it. It's only 8 pages.
--- Dani?l