A little late, as usual, but about some recent discussions:
When doing the Swedish text for "World Wide Witch" a couple of years ago, I
corresponded with Geoffrey Blum and received much help from him. One
question I asked him was about Miss Typefast/Quackfaster's first name, much
the same as people have been wondering recently on this list.
I hope it's not a serious breach of privacy when I tell you that Blum,
predictably, answered that he freely invented a name for her, knowing that
Barks never used any. When I told him that we had used another first name
previously in stories by Don Rosa, he said that was fine and recommended me
to keep using the same name that we already had, in an effort to keep our
Swedish Duck universe somewhat consistent. (Which is obviously what I would
have done anyway, by the same reasoning, unless Blum had given me a very
good reason why another name should be used. And if Blum's story had
appeared before Rosa's, I'm sure I would have asked Rosa the same thing,
hoping to keep the name that was already in use.)
My personal assumption is that Blum, being a Barks scholar, wants to keep
the "facts" in his stories as much in the Barks tradition as possible, but
is less interested in keeping touch with every little detail that other
writers might have contributed later. This is also, by the way, very much
like I assume that Don Rosa generally is working. So we shouldn't expect
either of these fine writers to always be completely consistent with each
other, nor with all of the many other fine writers and artists who all have
made their personal interpretation of the Barks ducks. In fact, I was more
surprised that the editor at Egmont didn't make this change
(Florence/Emily) in the first place, since I believe that both writers'
stories usually are edited by the same person. However, it's very easy to
overlook minor details like this one, which now has evidently made its way
even into the American publishing of the story.
I might add that "World Wide Witch" probably made me work harder and took
me longer to finish than any other comic ever, possibly with the exception
of some Rosa stories. However different in style and personality, Geoff
Blum and Don Rosa may be the two writers I like and respect the most, not
the least from having had the good fortune to meet them both on a number of
occasions.
Finally, even though it already has been mentioned, Horst Schr?der is a
native German who took his literature degree in Frankfurt, but has been
living and working in Sweden since 1969. Although not as active nowadays,
he was widely distinguished for 20 years or more as Sweden's foremost
expert on comics, heavily involved in the business as a fan, collector,
dealer, author, and publisher - and a very recognizable character, at that.
I don't know about his citizenship, but I consider him fully qualified as a
Swede. Still, when I knew him in the 80's, we used to poke fun at his
accent and writing style - all in good, friendly humor, of course. And I
also find it funny that Cord jokingly referred to him as a "double spy"
some digests ago. It was a well-known fact among Swedish Donaldists that
Horst looked exactly like the "Down with America" spy in Barks' ski-race
story (WDC #114).
Sorry for rambling. If I have misunderstood something given out as a fact
above, I hope that somebody can correct me. Just don't try to make me
retract the spy issue!
Stefan Dios
Malmo, Sweden
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)
Stefan Diös
Florence + Horst
Message 736 -
2003-08-30 at 02:03:58
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Ghosts in Barks Stories
Message 737 -
2003-08-30 at 02:16:07
NILS KLARTEKST to DON ROSA, 29-08-2003:
> DON ROSA WROTE:
> Barks would *never* use a ghost in a story.
> AND I AGREE, BUT...
> there is one very interesting borderline case: "The [Ghost] Sheriff
> of Las Gasp" (WDC 176).
There's another one, the will-o-the-wisp (WDC 159) story. According to
that story, a will-o-the-wisp is a jack-o-lantern. Uncle Scrooge asks
Dr. Superthink to make "MORE than the LANTERN!" He wants the horrible,
slithering something that carries the lantern. Dr. Superthink captures
a jugful of marsh gas, and completes his "weird project" with some mold
from the mustiest depths of an old mine tunnel. He tests these gases
and molds in a vacuum tank. The gases fuse into swamp fire and then a
wispy shade is forming. Dr. Superthink asks for help to control it if
it breaks. Donald says: "It's just a bunch of marsh gas and mold spores,
but it looks like it's alive!" It gets bigger and then Donald concludes:
"It IS alive! It's a REAL will-o-the-wisp!" The nephews say it looks
hungry and call him(!) Willie - Wispy Willie!" According to Superthink
it's a "transparent being that looks like an oversized mold spore!" And
then he lets the nephews feed Willie, by grinding up some mold and tule
roots. On the next page, Uncle Scrooge asks the Willie to go to a window
to scare the house owners away. Donald and the nephews, to be exactly.
Willie follows(!) Scrooge's commands, and then Scrooge is astonished to
learn that Donald and the nephews already know Willie. And Willie looks
happy to see them, and he smacks his lips with closed eyes when he's
offered some tule roots.
I've never quite understood what is going on in this imaginative scenes,
other than that "will-o-the-wisp" is an interacting, consciousness,
living being, created by science.
If Barks has written a weird story like this, in his so-called "classic
years" (1950s), then I'm not so sure if he definitely would have objected
to ghosts appearing in his stories. I would like to see him being quoted
on that.
The money stairs to the top of a mountain (WDC 157), two issues earlier,
would look more realistic to me than Wispy Willie. And in 1973, Barks has
said that he thinks he decided to turn that story into a dream, because
the money stairs looked "too IMPOSSIBLE to be real". Go figure.
I've rarely seen Barks stating the limits of his imagination. And in his
stories, *anything* seems to have been possible. The word "never" doesn't
seem to have been in his dictionary. And mostly, he managed to make his
imagination believable with only little explanation. That's what I like
so much about his work, and that's why I tend to nitpick when the words
"Barks" and "never" are used in one line.
--- Dani?l
> DON ROSA WROTE:
> Barks would *never* use a ghost in a story.
> AND I AGREE, BUT...
> there is one very interesting borderline case: "The [Ghost] Sheriff
> of Las Gasp" (WDC 176).
There's another one, the will-o-the-wisp (WDC 159) story. According to
that story, a will-o-the-wisp is a jack-o-lantern. Uncle Scrooge asks
Dr. Superthink to make "MORE than the LANTERN!" He wants the horrible,
slithering something that carries the lantern. Dr. Superthink captures
a jugful of marsh gas, and completes his "weird project" with some mold
from the mustiest depths of an old mine tunnel. He tests these gases
and molds in a vacuum tank. The gases fuse into swamp fire and then a
wispy shade is forming. Dr. Superthink asks for help to control it if
it breaks. Donald says: "It's just a bunch of marsh gas and mold spores,
but it looks like it's alive!" It gets bigger and then Donald concludes:
"It IS alive! It's a REAL will-o-the-wisp!" The nephews say it looks
hungry and call him(!) Willie - Wispy Willie!" According to Superthink
it's a "transparent being that looks like an oversized mold spore!" And
then he lets the nephews feed Willie, by grinding up some mold and tule
roots. On the next page, Uncle Scrooge asks the Willie to go to a window
to scare the house owners away. Donald and the nephews, to be exactly.
Willie follows(!) Scrooge's commands, and then Scrooge is astonished to
learn that Donald and the nephews already know Willie. And Willie looks
happy to see them, and he smacks his lips with closed eyes when he's
offered some tule roots.
I've never quite understood what is going on in this imaginative scenes,
other than that "will-o-the-wisp" is an interacting, consciousness,
living being, created by science.
If Barks has written a weird story like this, in his so-called "classic
years" (1950s), then I'm not so sure if he definitely would have objected
to ghosts appearing in his stories. I would like to see him being quoted
on that.
The money stairs to the top of a mountain (WDC 157), two issues earlier,
would look more realistic to me than Wispy Willie. And in 1973, Barks has
said that he thinks he decided to turn that story into a dream, because
the money stairs looked "too IMPOSSIBLE to be real". Go figure.
I've rarely seen Barks stating the limits of his imagination. And in his
stories, *anything* seems to have been possible. The word "never" doesn't
seem to have been in his dictionary. And mostly, he managed to make his
imagination believable with only little explanation. That's what I like
so much about his work, and that's why I tend to nitpick when the words
"Barks" and "never" are used in one line.
--- Dani?l
Sigvald Grøsfjeld Jr.
Olaf's foreword
Message 738 -
2003-08-30 at 02:27:08
Olaf Solstrand <olaf at andebyonline.com> wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone could help me out
> here. A few months ago, I wrote a preface to
> one of the "De Komplette ?rgangene" books
> (1957 III, I think). And lately, I got a
> message on e-mail from someone who had read
> it and thought it was great - which must mean
> it is out.
Yes it is, I've got it and it's great indeed!
> Svein-Erik S?land in Egmont has promised to
> send me the book - but as I'm too curious to
> wait...
Aha! Is he the one to blame for *not* treating you in the same polite way as
our friend AC Sivebaek was treated by the Danish publisher? AC was allowed
to write 3 forewords (1955 I, II and III) and there was a photo of him
included with all of them.
> ....I was wondering if anyone here had this
> book and was able to scan these pages for me.
Off course:
http://duckman.pettho.com/olaf/olaf_01.jpg
http://duckman.pettho.com/olaf/olaf_02.jpg
http://duckman.pettho.com/olaf/olaf_03.jpg
http://duckman.pettho.com/olaf/olaf_04.jpg
http://duckman.pettho.com/olaf/olaf_05.jpg
http://duckman.pettho.com/olaf/olaf_06.jpg
http://duckman.pettho.com/olaf/olaf_07.jpg
http://duckman.pettho.com/olaf/olaf_08.jpg
http://duckman.pettho.com/olaf/olaf_09.jpg
May I suggest that you include these scans in your excellent Andeby-online
pages!
And by the way, hopefully our Danish friends won't blame you for using
nynorsk although I will guess that they would probably have found bokmaal
easier to read. This however leads me to a last question: did you reflect
much about whether to use nynorsk or bokmaal in that text? I mean given the
fact that the content of the book is in bookmaal using bokmaal would have
been a possibility and I guess nobody would have blamed you for such a
choice either.
Sigvald
> I was wondering if anyone could help me out
> here. A few months ago, I wrote a preface to
> one of the "De Komplette ?rgangene" books
> (1957 III, I think). And lately, I got a
> message on e-mail from someone who had read
> it and thought it was great - which must mean
> it is out.
Yes it is, I've got it and it's great indeed!
> Svein-Erik S?land in Egmont has promised to
> send me the book - but as I'm too curious to
> wait...
Aha! Is he the one to blame for *not* treating you in the same polite way as
our friend AC Sivebaek was treated by the Danish publisher? AC was allowed
to write 3 forewords (1955 I, II and III) and there was a photo of him
included with all of them.
> ....I was wondering if anyone here had this
> book and was able to scan these pages for me.
Off course:
http://duckman.pettho.com/olaf/olaf_01.jpg
http://duckman.pettho.com/olaf/olaf_02.jpg
http://duckman.pettho.com/olaf/olaf_03.jpg
http://duckman.pettho.com/olaf/olaf_04.jpg
http://duckman.pettho.com/olaf/olaf_05.jpg
http://duckman.pettho.com/olaf/olaf_06.jpg
http://duckman.pettho.com/olaf/olaf_07.jpg
http://duckman.pettho.com/olaf/olaf_08.jpg
http://duckman.pettho.com/olaf/olaf_09.jpg
May I suggest that you include these scans in your excellent Andeby-online
pages!
And by the way, hopefully our Danish friends won't blame you for using
nynorsk although I will guess that they would probably have found bokmaal
easier to read. This however leads me to a last question: did you reflect
much about whether to use nynorsk or bokmaal in that text? I mean given the
fact that the content of the book is in bookmaal using bokmaal would have
been a possibility and I guess nobody would have blamed you for such a
choice either.
Sigvald
Daniel Van Eijmeren
P.S. (Ghosts in Barks Stories)
Message 739 -
2003-08-30 at 02:27:28
I wrote, about the will-o-the-wisp story:
Dr. Superthink asks for help to control it if it breaks.
But I meant:
Dr. Superthink asks for help to control it if it breaks OUT.
That's quite a difference. :-)
--- Dani?l
"The only explanation is that I was born a hundred years too late!"
(Uncle Scrooge, WDC 159)
Dr. Superthink asks for help to control it if it breaks.
But I meant:
Dr. Superthink asks for help to control it if it breaks OUT.
That's quite a difference. :-)
--- Dani?l
"The only explanation is that I was born a hundred years too late!"
(Uncle Scrooge, WDC 159)
Don Rosa
DCML Digest Issue 77
Message 740 -
2003-08-30 at 02:33:11
> From: Rich Bellacera <xephyr at cwnet.com>
> Subject: Magica the Sorceress
> To those who submitted info related to Magica as a Sorceress,
> thanks. I shall
> have to remember that for her profile, though I must say, Gary is
> probably correct
> in the way most people will commonly perceive Magica whether or not it is
> technically accurate.
Oh, yes, I certainly agree with that! If one is making a list of Disney
"witches", Magica should not only be on the list, she should be at the HEAD
of the list (naturally I'd think that!). But then the explanation would need
to be included as to how she is different from someone like a Witch Hazel or
Madam Mim or the Snow White witch.
> From: "Daniel van Eijmeren" <dve at kabelfoon.nl>
> Subject: Re: Ghosts in Barks Stories
> There's another one, the will-o-the-wisp (WDC 159) story.
> If Barks has written a weird story like this, in his so-called "classic
> years" (1950s), then I'm not so sure if he definitely would have objected
> to ghosts appearing in his stories.
His will-o-the-wisp is quite carefully described by the scientist as an
elusive, strange, *living* creature who needs food to survive, like a
Peeweegah, like a Terry, like a Larky, like an Awfultonian... clearly NOT a
supernatural being. In fact, this very story seems to be *debunking* the
very idea that will-o-the-wisps are the supernatural beings that folklore
holds them to be.
> Subject: Magica the Sorceress
> To those who submitted info related to Magica as a Sorceress,
> thanks. I shall
> have to remember that for her profile, though I must say, Gary is
> probably correct
> in the way most people will commonly perceive Magica whether or not it is
> technically accurate.
Oh, yes, I certainly agree with that! If one is making a list of Disney
"witches", Magica should not only be on the list, she should be at the HEAD
of the list (naturally I'd think that!). But then the explanation would need
to be included as to how she is different from someone like a Witch Hazel or
Madam Mim or the Snow White witch.
> From: "Daniel van Eijmeren" <dve at kabelfoon.nl>
> Subject: Re: Ghosts in Barks Stories
> There's another one, the will-o-the-wisp (WDC 159) story.
> If Barks has written a weird story like this, in his so-called "classic
> years" (1950s), then I'm not so sure if he definitely would have objected
> to ghosts appearing in his stories.
His will-o-the-wisp is quite carefully described by the scientist as an
elusive, strange, *living* creature who needs food to survive, like a
Peeweegah, like a Terry, like a Larky, like an Awfultonian... clearly NOT a
supernatural being. In fact, this very story seems to be *debunking* the
very idea that will-o-the-wisps are the supernatural beings that folklore
holds them to be.
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Sands of Time
Message 741 -
2003-08-30 at 02:43:47
CORD WILJES, 29-08-2003:
> If you read this message my mission has failed.
> I knew the risks and willingly accepted them.
*LOL*
Er... Oh no! This is terrible! How can time be so cruel! :-)
> Please do not mourn for me. I did what I believed in.
> Could there be a man more happy?
Hey, dear fellow Disney comics fans! There seems to be a vacant comic
book collection available! The owner won't be back for quite a while.
> I know that the day will come when people all over the world will
> rejoice over the glory of a public and complete edition of Floyd
> Gottfredson's Mickey Mouse strips.
Are there any willing people who are brave enough to go to the *future*,
to get this edition? I can't go, myself. I've got a belly ache. (I'm in
a hunger strike, you know.)
> And if my attempt to travel back in time, failed though it did,
> contributed just one small step to this goal, it will not have be
> in vain.
(Sob! Sob!) We will ALWAYS remember you, er... Cord!
--- Dani?l
> If you read this message my mission has failed.
> I knew the risks and willingly accepted them.
*LOL*
Er... Oh no! This is terrible! How can time be so cruel! :-)
> Please do not mourn for me. I did what I believed in.
> Could there be a man more happy?
Hey, dear fellow Disney comics fans! There seems to be a vacant comic
book collection available! The owner won't be back for quite a while.
> I know that the day will come when people all over the world will
> rejoice over the glory of a public and complete edition of Floyd
> Gottfredson's Mickey Mouse strips.
Are there any willing people who are brave enough to go to the *future*,
to get this edition? I can't go, myself. I've got a belly ache. (I'm in
a hunger strike, you know.)
> And if my attempt to travel back in time, failed though it did,
> contributed just one small step to this goal, it will not have be
> in vain.
(Sob! Sob!) We will ALWAYS remember you, er... Cord!
--- Dani?l
Sigvald Grøsfjeld Jr.
Names and statistics
Message 742 -
2003-08-30 at 03:22:25
Hi all!
Recently statistics has been used in the debate about whether Horst can be
seen as a Swedish name or not. Some people have also pointed out the fact
that my first name Sigvald is not a very common name in Sweden nor in
Norway. I have a few extra facts and comments to add to those comments:
a) According to Swedish statistics previous given by Michael and equal
Norwegian statistics that I have found on the internet there are:
462 men named "Sigvald" in Norway
250 men named "Sigvald" in Sweden
---------------------------------
Thus 712 men are named "Sigvald" in Norway + Sweden
So OK, Sigvald is *not* a common Scandinavian name, but it is of Norse
origin so there is no doubt that it is a *typical* Scandinavian name. I
guess you would only very rarely find it outside Scandinavia.
b) According to Swedish statistics previous given by Michael and equal
Norwegian statistics that I have found on the internet there are:
46 men named "Horst" in Norway
462 men named "Horst" in Sweden
---------------------------------
Thus 476 men are named "Horst" in Norway + Sweden
Thus Sigvald is a more common male name in Norway + Sweden than is Horst.
I don't know why the name Horst occurs so much more frequent in Sweden than
in Norway, but a good guess would be that it is because Sweden wasn't
invaded by the Germans from 1940 to 1945. Just remember that the Swedish
king from 1950 to 1973 was named Gustav 6 Adolf. I can't imagine that a
Norwegian or a Danish king could possibly have used the name Adolf after
WW2.
PS! Please notice that I don't intend to offend anyone with anything written
in this posting.
Sigvald
Recently statistics has been used in the debate about whether Horst can be
seen as a Swedish name or not. Some people have also pointed out the fact
that my first name Sigvald is not a very common name in Sweden nor in
Norway. I have a few extra facts and comments to add to those comments:
a) According to Swedish statistics previous given by Michael and equal
Norwegian statistics that I have found on the internet there are:
462 men named "Sigvald" in Norway
250 men named "Sigvald" in Sweden
---------------------------------
Thus 712 men are named "Sigvald" in Norway + Sweden
So OK, Sigvald is *not* a common Scandinavian name, but it is of Norse
origin so there is no doubt that it is a *typical* Scandinavian name. I
guess you would only very rarely find it outside Scandinavia.
b) According to Swedish statistics previous given by Michael and equal
Norwegian statistics that I have found on the internet there are:
46 men named "Horst" in Norway
462 men named "Horst" in Sweden
---------------------------------
Thus 476 men are named "Horst" in Norway + Sweden
Thus Sigvald is a more common male name in Norway + Sweden than is Horst.
I don't know why the name Horst occurs so much more frequent in Sweden than
in Norway, but a good guess would be that it is because Sweden wasn't
invaded by the Germans from 1940 to 1945. Just remember that the Swedish
king from 1950 to 1973 was named Gustav 6 Adolf. I can't imagine that a
Norwegian or a Danish king could possibly have used the name Adolf after
WW2.
PS! Please notice that I don't intend to offend anyone with anything written
in this posting.
Sigvald
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Ghosts in Barks (and Rosa) stories
Message 743 -
2003-08-30 at 04:12:55
DON ROSA to me, 29-08-2003:
>> There's another one, the will-o-the-wisp (WDC 159) story.
>> If Barks has written a weird story like this, in his so-called
>> "classic years" (1950s), then I'm not so sure if he definitely
>> would have objected to ghosts appearing in his stories.
> His will-o-the-wisp is quite carefully described by the scientist
> as an elusive, strange, *living* creature who needs food to survive,
> like a Peeweegah, like a Terry, like a Larky, like an Awfultonian...
> clearly NOT a supernatural being.
I agree that Peeweegahs and Awfultonians could be real existant people.
But what is the clear difference between supernatural beings and Terries,
Fermies, and Larkies?
Barks's Magica does some pretty weird things, like turning the Ducks into
animals with a wand. I find that rather supernatural. Or do I understand
the word "supernatural" in a wrong way?
BTW. Hypocritical as my taste is, while praising Barks's imagination,
I've never really liked "Land Beneath the Ground" (US 13). One reason is
that the story is cut, but the other reason is that I found the idea of
those creatures causing earthquackes rather silly. I don't know why. I've
never had any problems Gneezles bouncing around like giant rubber balls,
for example. :-)
> In fact, this very story seems to be *debunking* the very idea that
> will-o-the-wisps are the supernatural beings that folklore holds them
> to be.
I agree. The will-o-the-wisp certainly doesn't come from nowhere. Barks
explains its birth. It didn't make much difference to me, though, because
I found the whole idea rather odd anyway. And to my eyes this is/was one
of the instances where Barks put his explanations way too far. It ruined
that part of the story for me. But maybe a reason could be that I've never
heard about will-o-the-wisp folklore? (Is that American folkore?)
For me, Barks explanation was an *introduction* to the whole idea. I've
only heard of swamp fires in the technical sense. (Little lights that
seem to tell passengers the right direction, leading them into the marsh
instead. Or something like that.) I've never realised that Barks explanation
could be a *clarifaction* of folklore, instead. That would make quite a
difference to me.
About ghosts. Would you use ghosts in your stories? How do you define the
imaginative scenes in "Quest For Kalevala" (D 99078), for example? I've
never really understood what was going on there, in connection to "reality".
(I knew beforehand it refers to folklore, though.) I wouldn't have expected
you to write such a story, and maybe that's why I didn't get what was going
on in there. It looks rather supernatural to me.
BTW. Even though I didn't understand the Kalevala story, the drawings of
that giant creature are great! It looks very real and scary, but it still
has something zany in its behaviour and movement. I wish I could draw that
way!
--- Dani?l
>> There's another one, the will-o-the-wisp (WDC 159) story.
>> If Barks has written a weird story like this, in his so-called
>> "classic years" (1950s), then I'm not so sure if he definitely
>> would have objected to ghosts appearing in his stories.
> His will-o-the-wisp is quite carefully described by the scientist
> as an elusive, strange, *living* creature who needs food to survive,
> like a Peeweegah, like a Terry, like a Larky, like an Awfultonian...
> clearly NOT a supernatural being.
I agree that Peeweegahs and Awfultonians could be real existant people.
But what is the clear difference between supernatural beings and Terries,
Fermies, and Larkies?
Barks's Magica does some pretty weird things, like turning the Ducks into
animals with a wand. I find that rather supernatural. Or do I understand
the word "supernatural" in a wrong way?
BTW. Hypocritical as my taste is, while praising Barks's imagination,
I've never really liked "Land Beneath the Ground" (US 13). One reason is
that the story is cut, but the other reason is that I found the idea of
those creatures causing earthquackes rather silly. I don't know why. I've
never had any problems Gneezles bouncing around like giant rubber balls,
for example. :-)
> In fact, this very story seems to be *debunking* the very idea that
> will-o-the-wisps are the supernatural beings that folklore holds them
> to be.
I agree. The will-o-the-wisp certainly doesn't come from nowhere. Barks
explains its birth. It didn't make much difference to me, though, because
I found the whole idea rather odd anyway. And to my eyes this is/was one
of the instances where Barks put his explanations way too far. It ruined
that part of the story for me. But maybe a reason could be that I've never
heard about will-o-the-wisp folklore? (Is that American folkore?)
For me, Barks explanation was an *introduction* to the whole idea. I've
only heard of swamp fires in the technical sense. (Little lights that
seem to tell passengers the right direction, leading them into the marsh
instead. Or something like that.) I've never realised that Barks explanation
could be a *clarifaction* of folklore, instead. That would make quite a
difference to me.
About ghosts. Would you use ghosts in your stories? How do you define the
imaginative scenes in "Quest For Kalevala" (D 99078), for example? I've
never really understood what was going on there, in connection to "reality".
(I knew beforehand it refers to folklore, though.) I wouldn't have expected
you to write such a story, and maybe that's why I didn't get what was going
on in there. It looks rather supernatural to me.
BTW. Even though I didn't understand the Kalevala story, the drawings of
that giant creature are great! It looks very real and scary, but it still
has something zany in its behaviour and movement. I wish I could draw that
way!
--- Dani?l
Daniel Van Eijmeren
P.S. (Ghosts in Barks (and Rosa) stories)
Message 744 -
2003-08-30 at 04:24:14
Just a disclaimer:
I can't underscore enough that there may be a language difference
popping up when discussing rather abstract subjects in a foreign
language. What's the difference between supernatural and paranormal,
for example? And do they mean the same in English as in Dutch?
Please keep this in mind when reading my email(s).
--- Dani?l (looking like a ghost himself, but taking some sleep at night
doesn't seem to fit in his logic)
I can't underscore enough that there may be a language difference
popping up when discussing rather abstract subjects in a foreign
language. What's the difference between supernatural and paranormal,
for example? And do they mean the same in English as in Dutch?
Please keep this in mind when reading my email(s).
--- Dani?l (looking like a ghost himself, but taking some sleep at night
doesn't seem to fit in his logic)
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Mickey Dailies and Carl Barks, Frank Stajano, Leonardo Gori
Message 745 -
2003-08-30 at 05:14:00
DONALD AULT, 28-08-2003:
> Regarding the Stajano/Gori interview as it appeared in Carl Barks:
> Conversations:
>
> Frank Stajano sent me the ORIGINAL questions and answers in English, from
> which I edited the version that appears in the Conversations book. As far as
> I know, it was NOT a back-translation from Italian but a transcription of
> the original mailed questions and answers (see below).
Francesco Spreafico has replied on DCML that the Barks interview that Frank
Stajano and Leonardo Gori had, took place in Grants Pass, on August 6 and
September 5, 1998. Francesco seems to have this information from their book
"Il Grande Floyd Gottfredson". What do these dates stand for?
I'm also a bit confused by the report on Frank Stajano's page at
http://www-lce.eng.cam.ac.uk/~fms27/disney/barks/
Here's a small part from Frank's webpage. It refers to an (1998?) interview:
"I spent the morning interviewing Carl for the book about him I will write
one day (probably with Leonardo again -- but this time it's got to be in
English!). His nicest words were for his dear wife Gar?. Hanging on the
wall in front of us was a really beautiful painting of a mountain lake
with deer. One of hers. "She was born with only this much of a left arm.
No hand.", he told me. "When her parents saw the newborn baby without a
hand, they cried." Then he pointed at the painting, explaining how she had
to do everything she did, including of course painting, with just one hand.
The love in his eyes, in his body language, in his words, was moving. He
communicated the joy of the achievement of having created such beauty
despite the handicap. "When her parents saw *this*, they cried." We both
laughed, perhaps because we were about to cry too. He really made me feel
the strength of their bond. It was beautiful."
BTW. I didn't know that Barks has ever explained this subject.
> Also, Frank could not remember the precise dates, in part because neither
> Frank not Leonardo was physically present at the "interview," which was
> conducted by mail. Here is part of the exchange Frank Stajano and I had
> back in June 2002:
>>> The interview was definitely done in 1998. I won't be able to give you an
>>> exact DAY because I wasn't even there: I sent off the questions and some
>>> time later I got the answers back. It must have been mid-1998, say between
>>> May and July. I can probably find out at least the month once I'm back at
>>> home. The book was published in November.
What are the exact dates of Barks's letters? Or didn't he date them?
Frank shows two dated letters from Barks on his page. One seems to be dated
November 21, 1993. The other is dated December 22, 1998.
http://www-lce.eng.cam.ac.uk/~fms27/disney/barks/first-letter.jpg
http://www-lce.eng.cam.ac.uk/~fms27/disney/barks/letter-19981222.jpg
These letters don't seem to be part of this interview correspondence, though.
--- Dani?l
> Regarding the Stajano/Gori interview as it appeared in Carl Barks:
> Conversations:
>
> Frank Stajano sent me the ORIGINAL questions and answers in English, from
> which I edited the version that appears in the Conversations book. As far as
> I know, it was NOT a back-translation from Italian but a transcription of
> the original mailed questions and answers (see below).
Francesco Spreafico has replied on DCML that the Barks interview that Frank
Stajano and Leonardo Gori had, took place in Grants Pass, on August 6 and
September 5, 1998. Francesco seems to have this information from their book
"Il Grande Floyd Gottfredson". What do these dates stand for?
I'm also a bit confused by the report on Frank Stajano's page at
http://www-lce.eng.cam.ac.uk/~fms27/disney/barks/
Here's a small part from Frank's webpage. It refers to an (1998?) interview:
"I spent the morning interviewing Carl for the book about him I will write
one day (probably with Leonardo again -- but this time it's got to be in
English!). His nicest words were for his dear wife Gar?. Hanging on the
wall in front of us was a really beautiful painting of a mountain lake
with deer. One of hers. "She was born with only this much of a left arm.
No hand.", he told me. "When her parents saw the newborn baby without a
hand, they cried." Then he pointed at the painting, explaining how she had
to do everything she did, including of course painting, with just one hand.
The love in his eyes, in his body language, in his words, was moving. He
communicated the joy of the achievement of having created such beauty
despite the handicap. "When her parents saw *this*, they cried." We both
laughed, perhaps because we were about to cry too. He really made me feel
the strength of their bond. It was beautiful."
BTW. I didn't know that Barks has ever explained this subject.
> Also, Frank could not remember the precise dates, in part because neither
> Frank not Leonardo was physically present at the "interview," which was
> conducted by mail. Here is part of the exchange Frank Stajano and I had
> back in June 2002:
>>> The interview was definitely done in 1998. I won't be able to give you an
>>> exact DAY because I wasn't even there: I sent off the questions and some
>>> time later I got the answers back. It must have been mid-1998, say between
>>> May and July. I can probably find out at least the month once I'm back at
>>> home. The book was published in November.
What are the exact dates of Barks's letters? Or didn't he date them?
Frank shows two dated letters from Barks on his page. One seems to be dated
November 21, 1993. The other is dated December 22, 1998.
http://www-lce.eng.cam.ac.uk/~fms27/disney/barks/first-letter.jpg
http://www-lce.eng.cam.ac.uk/~fms27/disney/barks/letter-19981222.jpg
These letters don't seem to be part of this interview correspondence, though.
--- Dani?l
Don Rosa
DCML Digest Issue 78
Message 746 -
2003-08-30 at 09:49:27
> From: "Daniel van Eijmeren" <dve at kabelfoon.nl>
> Subject: Ghosts in Barks (and Rosa) stories
> I agree that Peeweegahs and Awfultonians could be real existant people.
> But what is the clear difference between supernatural beings and Terries,
> Fermies, and Larkies?
You can accept little square people (Awfultonians) but not little round
people (Terries/Firmies)? As I said, these Barks characters are certainly
all impossible in the real world, but they are not depicted as magical or
supernatural... the Peeweegahs, Awfultonians, Terries/Firmies were weird
comicbook beings who apparently evolved into their forms due to some
separation from the rest of the world into remote and isolated regions. The
Larkies flew because they had wings, not because they had magic broomsticks.
These are "natural" beings (though admitted they are of a comicbook
"natural"). A supernatural being would be... Santa Claus. The Easter Bunny.
Casper the Dead Baby. See? I don't know how else to explain it.
> Barks's Magica does some pretty weird things, like turning the Ducks into
> animals with a wand. I find that rather supernatural.
Of course it's supernatural. She performs magic. But she needs TOOLS to
perform that magic or special study of secret incantations... she is not
*inherently* magical like Witch Hazel or Louhi.
> I've never really liked "Land Beneath the Ground" (US 13). One reason is
> that the story is cut, but the other reason is that I found the idea of
> those creatures causing earthquackes rather silly. I don't know why.
You don't? Because it IS silly. I always *loved* "Land Beneath the Ground"!
But only in Barks' hands. I can't tell a Terrie/Firmie story because that
whole idea is too silly for my style. The best I could force myself to do
was allow them to make a cameo appearance in my "Universal Solvent" story
since they were in and out before they got too silly on me.
> About ghosts. Would you use ghosts in your stories?
I've done so on several occasions. I will again. I already said that I LIKE
ghost stories.
> How do you define the
> imaginative scenes in "Quest For Kalevala" (D 99078), for example? I've
> never really understood what was going on there, in connection to
> "reality". It looks rather supernatural to me.
Of course it is! I *said* I am ready and willing (and perhaps even eager) to
use supernatural ideas in my stories even though Barks seemed to avoid it.
"My" Kalevala characters performed impossible, magical feats, appearing and
disappearing at will into an extra-dimensional reality. Larkies lived on a
remote mountain having cooking contests and flew around because they had
wings.
> What's the difference between supernatural and paranormal,
> for example?
Supernatural is that which is clearly impossible by normal physical laws.
Paranormal or preternatural is that which is not understood or not
completely understood by current science but which may be scientifically
explained and understood someday. But that's as far into that subject as
I'll get. I still recall a frustrating conversation 'way back in my college
days with someone who just couldn't understand why scientists would explore
the possibility of large sea creatures in Loch Ness or the so-called
"abominable snowmen" in the Himalayas, but they were not investigating the
existence of werewolves in the suburbs or vampires at the all-night grocery.
I could not get through to him. He had "supernatural" logic.
But step back everyone and notice what I face. On one hand is a reader who
doesn't like some of my stories because they are too fanciful. Fine. On the
other hand is a reader who complains that he doesn't like some of my stories
because they are not fanciful enough, set too much in real history & the
real world. Also fine. But how do I react to such polar opposition in reader
comments? Simple... I just I don't. There's never been a truer axiom than
"you can't please everyone, so don't even try". I just follow Frank and
"dooooo it myyyyyy waaaayyyyyyy".
> Subject: Ghosts in Barks (and Rosa) stories
> I agree that Peeweegahs and Awfultonians could be real existant people.
> But what is the clear difference between supernatural beings and Terries,
> Fermies, and Larkies?
You can accept little square people (Awfultonians) but not little round
people (Terries/Firmies)? As I said, these Barks characters are certainly
all impossible in the real world, but they are not depicted as magical or
supernatural... the Peeweegahs, Awfultonians, Terries/Firmies were weird
comicbook beings who apparently evolved into their forms due to some
separation from the rest of the world into remote and isolated regions. The
Larkies flew because they had wings, not because they had magic broomsticks.
These are "natural" beings (though admitted they are of a comicbook
"natural"). A supernatural being would be... Santa Claus. The Easter Bunny.
Casper the Dead Baby. See? I don't know how else to explain it.
> Barks's Magica does some pretty weird things, like turning the Ducks into
> animals with a wand. I find that rather supernatural.
Of course it's supernatural. She performs magic. But she needs TOOLS to
perform that magic or special study of secret incantations... she is not
*inherently* magical like Witch Hazel or Louhi.
> I've never really liked "Land Beneath the Ground" (US 13). One reason is
> that the story is cut, but the other reason is that I found the idea of
> those creatures causing earthquackes rather silly. I don't know why.
You don't? Because it IS silly. I always *loved* "Land Beneath the Ground"!
But only in Barks' hands. I can't tell a Terrie/Firmie story because that
whole idea is too silly for my style. The best I could force myself to do
was allow them to make a cameo appearance in my "Universal Solvent" story
since they were in and out before they got too silly on me.
> About ghosts. Would you use ghosts in your stories?
I've done so on several occasions. I will again. I already said that I LIKE
ghost stories.
> How do you define the
> imaginative scenes in "Quest For Kalevala" (D 99078), for example? I've
> never really understood what was going on there, in connection to
> "reality". It looks rather supernatural to me.
Of course it is! I *said* I am ready and willing (and perhaps even eager) to
use supernatural ideas in my stories even though Barks seemed to avoid it.
"My" Kalevala characters performed impossible, magical feats, appearing and
disappearing at will into an extra-dimensional reality. Larkies lived on a
remote mountain having cooking contests and flew around because they had
wings.
> What's the difference between supernatural and paranormal,
> for example?
Supernatural is that which is clearly impossible by normal physical laws.
Paranormal or preternatural is that which is not understood or not
completely understood by current science but which may be scientifically
explained and understood someday. But that's as far into that subject as
I'll get. I still recall a frustrating conversation 'way back in my college
days with someone who just couldn't understand why scientists would explore
the possibility of large sea creatures in Loch Ness or the so-called
"abominable snowmen" in the Himalayas, but they were not investigating the
existence of werewolves in the suburbs or vampires at the all-night grocery.
I could not get through to him. He had "supernatural" logic.
But step back everyone and notice what I face. On one hand is a reader who
doesn't like some of my stories because they are too fanciful. Fine. On the
other hand is a reader who complains that he doesn't like some of my stories
because they are not fanciful enough, set too much in real history & the
real world. Also fine. But how do I react to such polar opposition in reader
comments? Simple... I just I don't. There's never been a truer axiom than
"you can't please everyone, so don't even try". I just follow Frank and
"dooooo it myyyyyy waaaayyyyyyy".
Olivier
Ghosts, spooks, and things that go BUMP in the night
Message 747 -
2003-08-30 at 13:40:31
Dani?l:
>>>>There's another one, the will-o-the-wisp (WDC 159) story.
Ohhhh, I have always loved that one! Don Rosa's debunking reading sounds
good.
Don Rosa:
>>>> "natural"). A supernatural being would be... Santa Claus. The Easter
Bunny.
>>>> Casper the Dead Baby. See? I don't know how else to explain it.
I've never heard Casper called that way. that's really creepy. But then,
that's exactly what he is. Quite gruesome.
Nils:
>>>>there is one very interesting borderline case: "The Gost
>>>>Sheriff of Las Gasp" (WDC 176). [...]
>>>when I read the story for the first time way back
>>>in the fifties I thought what had REALLY happened
>>>was that the guy had turned into a ghost without knowing it.
I like that idea.
Another story in which Barks walks the line is "House of Haunts" (U$ 63,
May '66). I love those pages where Scrooge thinks he's a ghost.
Olivier
>>>>There's another one, the will-o-the-wisp (WDC 159) story.
Ohhhh, I have always loved that one! Don Rosa's debunking reading sounds
good.
Don Rosa:
>>>> "natural"). A supernatural being would be... Santa Claus. The Easter
Bunny.
>>>> Casper the Dead Baby. See? I don't know how else to explain it.
I've never heard Casper called that way. that's really creepy. But then,
that's exactly what he is. Quite gruesome.
Nils:
>>>>there is one very interesting borderline case: "The Gost
>>>>Sheriff of Las Gasp" (WDC 176). [...]
>>>when I read the story for the first time way back
>>>in the fifties I thought what had REALLY happened
>>>was that the guy had turned into a ghost without knowing it.
I like that idea.
Another story in which Barks walks the line is "House of Haunts" (U$ 63,
May '66). I love those pages where Scrooge thinks he's a ghost.
Olivier
Olaf Solstrand
Olaf's foreword
Message 748 -
2003-08-30 at 13:43:01
Sigvald:
>
> Aha! Is he the one to blame for *not* treating you in the same polite way
> as our friend AC Sivebaek was treated by the Danish publisher? AC was
> allowed to write 3 forewords (1955 I, II and III) and there was a photo of
> him included with all of them.
Oh, I have been treated very polite. They not including a photo of me... Uhm,
that's something I've never even thought of. Neither have they, I suppose -
anyhow I sincerely doubt that is something done to be rude. I'm not the one to
say whether it's normal to add a photo to these prefaces in Denmark - but there
hasn't been in Norway. I don't see that as a big loss, since the words are more
important than the author in my opinion.
(and if anyone REALLY want to see a photo of me, they can just type my name in
Google, like Dani?l did.)
> > ....I was wondering if anyone here had this
> > book and was able to scan these pages for me.
>
> Off course:
> [...]
Thank you very much, Sigvald! Although I've read the words before, it's nice to
see how they have illustrated it.
> May I suggest that you include these scans in your excellent Andeby-online
> pages!
That won't happen. AO has no place for scanned prefaces... it does not "belong"
there. We haven't scanned the earlier prefaces either.
> And by the way, hopefully our Danish friends won't blame you for using
> nynorsk although I will guess that they would probably have found bokmaal
> easier to read.
I feel CERTAIN that no Danish friends will blame me for using nynorsk, since I
didn't write this for our Danish friends, and nynorsk is an official language
in Norway. If ANY Danish friends even THINKS of "blaming me" for this, they're
most certainly not MY friends.
> This however leads me to a last question: did you reflect
> much about whether to use nynorsk or bokmaal in that text?
And no, I didn't reflect much on whether to use nynorsk or bokm?l. I use
nynorsk for everything, as that is my official language, and even though the
DD&Co magazine itself has a prohibition against using nynorsk, that prohibition
does not include these prefaces. We've seen that on several occations in
earlier prefaces (I think this is the third preface written in nynorsk). So
naturally, I wrote this in nynorsk.
> I mean given the
> fact that the content of the book is in bookmaal using bokmaal would have
> been a possibility and I guess nobody would have blamed you for such a
> choice either.
Then you don't know my friends in the language movement. They would have
slaughtered me. :-)
Olaf
>
> Aha! Is he the one to blame for *not* treating you in the same polite way
> as our friend AC Sivebaek was treated by the Danish publisher? AC was
> allowed to write 3 forewords (1955 I, II and III) and there was a photo of
> him included with all of them.
Oh, I have been treated very polite. They not including a photo of me... Uhm,
that's something I've never even thought of. Neither have they, I suppose -
anyhow I sincerely doubt that is something done to be rude. I'm not the one to
say whether it's normal to add a photo to these prefaces in Denmark - but there
hasn't been in Norway. I don't see that as a big loss, since the words are more
important than the author in my opinion.
(and if anyone REALLY want to see a photo of me, they can just type my name in
Google, like Dani?l did.)
> > ....I was wondering if anyone here had this
> > book and was able to scan these pages for me.
>
> Off course:
> [...]
Thank you very much, Sigvald! Although I've read the words before, it's nice to
see how they have illustrated it.
> May I suggest that you include these scans in your excellent Andeby-online
> pages!
That won't happen. AO has no place for scanned prefaces... it does not "belong"
there. We haven't scanned the earlier prefaces either.
> And by the way, hopefully our Danish friends won't blame you for using
> nynorsk although I will guess that they would probably have found bokmaal
> easier to read.
I feel CERTAIN that no Danish friends will blame me for using nynorsk, since I
didn't write this for our Danish friends, and nynorsk is an official language
in Norway. If ANY Danish friends even THINKS of "blaming me" for this, they're
most certainly not MY friends.
> This however leads me to a last question: did you reflect
> much about whether to use nynorsk or bokmaal in that text?
And no, I didn't reflect much on whether to use nynorsk or bokm?l. I use
nynorsk for everything, as that is my official language, and even though the
DD&Co magazine itself has a prohibition against using nynorsk, that prohibition
does not include these prefaces. We've seen that on several occations in
earlier prefaces (I think this is the third preface written in nynorsk). So
naturally, I wrote this in nynorsk.
> I mean given the
> fact that the content of the book is in bookmaal using bokmaal would have
> been a possibility and I guess nobody would have blamed you for such a
> choice either.
Then you don't know my friends in the language movement. They would have
slaughtered me. :-)
Olaf
Olaf Solstrand
Names and statistics
Message 749 -
2003-08-30 at 14:08:24
Our favorite Sigvald wrote:
> Recently statistics has been used in the debate about whether Horst can be
> seen as a Swedish name or not. Some people have also pointed out the fact
> that my first name Sigvald is not a very common name in Sweden nor in
> Norway.
(sigh!) Sigvald, I WAS BEING IRONIC! When people say "Sigvald is not a that
common name either", it's not in an attempt to prove that you're not Norwegian.
It's an attempt to make you understand that people can be Swedish even though
they don't have a typical common Swedish name. Also: One can be Swedish and
still have a German name. Is that really so hard?
> Thus 712 men are named "Sigvald" in Norway + Sweden
And how many women?
> I don't know why the name Horst occurs so much more frequent in Sweden than
> in Norway, but a good guess would be that it is because Sweden wasn't
> invaded by the Germans from 1940 to 1945. Just remember that the Swedish
> king from 1950 to 1973 was named Gustav 6 Adolf. I can't imagine that a
> Norwegian or a Danish king could possibly have used the name Adolf after
> WW2.
Oh no... That can only mean... Horst Schroeder is really Hitler? :-)
And, correct me if I'm wrong, as Swedish monarchy has never been one of my
favorite subjects, but... if he was king from 1950 to 1973, wouldn't that mean
he was given that name _long before_ WW2?
Olaf
not a that common name, either.
> Recently statistics has been used in the debate about whether Horst can be
> seen as a Swedish name or not. Some people have also pointed out the fact
> that my first name Sigvald is not a very common name in Sweden nor in
> Norway.
(sigh!) Sigvald, I WAS BEING IRONIC! When people say "Sigvald is not a that
common name either", it's not in an attempt to prove that you're not Norwegian.
It's an attempt to make you understand that people can be Swedish even though
they don't have a typical common Swedish name. Also: One can be Swedish and
still have a German name. Is that really so hard?
> Thus 712 men are named "Sigvald" in Norway + Sweden
And how many women?
> I don't know why the name Horst occurs so much more frequent in Sweden than
> in Norway, but a good guess would be that it is because Sweden wasn't
> invaded by the Germans from 1940 to 1945. Just remember that the Swedish
> king from 1950 to 1973 was named Gustav 6 Adolf. I can't imagine that a
> Norwegian or a Danish king could possibly have used the name Adolf after
> WW2.
Oh no... That can only mean... Horst Schroeder is really Hitler? :-)
And, correct me if I'm wrong, as Swedish monarchy has never been one of my
favorite subjects, but... if he was king from 1950 to 1973, wouldn't that mean
he was given that name _long before_ WW2?
Olaf
not a that common name, either.
Olaf Solstrand
Magica
Message 750 -
2003-08-30 at 14:30:03
> A witch (or warlock) is a supernatural being with inherent
> supernatural/magical powers who can call forth mystic powers from his/her
> fingertips. In ancient and pop fiction they are hideously ugly and evil and
> often shown flying through the air on a broom, which is to say they can fly
> on a broom or a Hoover or anything they wish, or just plain fly at will,
> broomstick or not... they can just about do anything.
Hmm... but if Magica, the non-magical-human-being, can access magic by using a
WAND that is full of magic, why can't she access magic by using a BROOMSTICK
that is full of magic? I mean, why can't the broom be a magical object just
like the wands are?
> Egmont's "official" policy: When Byron Erickson first took over the
> editorship of the comic creation department, with no prompting from me,
> also decided that it was time to return Magica to her roots. He said
> Egmont would eliminate the use of Magica as a "witch" who flew around on
> a broomstick. He would see that she returned to the original Barks
> version since that is the only version that would make sense (for reasons
> I mention above). Now, has Egmont stuck to Byron's policy? I don't know, I
> can't read the comics.
An interesting question, as the latest Donald Duck & Co (35) contains a story
(D 2002-229, J. Gilbert/Rodriques) where Magica comes flying in on a
broomstick. Yes, not only does she come flying in on a broomstick, but that's
the ENTIRE POINT of the whole story. In this story, the broomstick can't fly
without a special fuel, leaves from the onion roses. Unfortunately Donald has
bought the last box as they're great fishing bait, and when Magica attacks him
to get the onion rose leaves, all leaves are destroyed - and Donald and Magica
has to go to the Amazon (more or less as a team) to find more of these roses. I
actually liked this version, as it showed *Magica* not being the one holding
the magic, she had to trust in a supernatural broomstick. Magica is also
thinking "If I can't find the onion rose, I must start taking the bus!"
By the way, Carl Barks had a cameo in this story. He's sitting in a boat
painting a picture of Scrooge.
Best,
Olaf
> supernatural/magical powers who can call forth mystic powers from his/her
> fingertips. In ancient and pop fiction they are hideously ugly and evil and
> often shown flying through the air on a broom, which is to say they can fly
> on a broom or a Hoover or anything they wish, or just plain fly at will,
> broomstick or not... they can just about do anything.
Hmm... but if Magica, the non-magical-human-being, can access magic by using a
WAND that is full of magic, why can't she access magic by using a BROOMSTICK
that is full of magic? I mean, why can't the broom be a magical object just
like the wands are?
> Egmont's "official" policy: When Byron Erickson first took over the
> editorship of the comic creation department, with no prompting from me,
> also decided that it was time to return Magica to her roots. He said
> Egmont would eliminate the use of Magica as a "witch" who flew around on
> a broomstick. He would see that she returned to the original Barks
> version since that is the only version that would make sense (for reasons
> I mention above). Now, has Egmont stuck to Byron's policy? I don't know, I
> can't read the comics.
An interesting question, as the latest Donald Duck & Co (35) contains a story
(D 2002-229, J. Gilbert/Rodriques) where Magica comes flying in on a
broomstick. Yes, not only does she come flying in on a broomstick, but that's
the ENTIRE POINT of the whole story. In this story, the broomstick can't fly
without a special fuel, leaves from the onion roses. Unfortunately Donald has
bought the last box as they're great fishing bait, and when Magica attacks him
to get the onion rose leaves, all leaves are destroyed - and Donald and Magica
has to go to the Amazon (more or less as a team) to find more of these roses. I
actually liked this version, as it showed *Magica* not being the one holding
the magic, she had to trust in a supernatural broomstick. Magica is also
thinking "If I can't find the onion rose, I must start taking the bus!"
By the way, Carl Barks had a cameo in this story. He's sitting in a boat
painting a picture of Scrooge.
Best,
Olaf