Hello to Don Rosa and all other list-members,
Don, thank you for kindly answering my questions (Fri Oct 17).
>> I was thinking of tales from the 'Lo$ 11B'-period, when
>> $crooge gradually looses contact with his family.
> I didn't think that $crooge "gradually" lost contact with his
> family after chapter 11 of my "Lo$" -- I saw that as a clean
> break for the next 15 years, 25 years as regards Matilda, and
> *forever* as regards Hortense [...]
Well, in that case I meant Lo$ 10B or Lo$ 11' or whatever is
the right formula to identify the period 1902-1930, before the
big break-up. And I saw that break-up as the outcome of a
gradual process of loosing contact: Hortense and Matilda's
detest of $crooge's greed grows and $crooge spends years of
travelling around the world and doing business without his
sisters. That's what I meant. But maybe this wouldn't make a
very interesting subject for Lo$-B-stories. I don't know.
Will Sir Quackly's ghost ever turn up again? I liked him a lot,
too.
Bye,
Michiel Prior.
Author
Topic: 200310
(424 messages)
Michiel Prior
Reply to Don Rosa
Message 346 -
2003-10-23 at 14:47:31
Olaf Solstrand
OK Quack
Message 347 -
2003-10-23 at 14:57:45
Quoting Marco and Lars:
> > Did he ever find his spaceship and return to his home planet
>
> Never
>
> >or is he (in theory) still searching for it?
>
> Oh, yes, he is! ;-)
And so is his cousin, isn't he?
> > Did he ever find his spaceship and return to his home planet
>
> Never
>
> >or is he (in theory) still searching for it?
>
> Oh, yes, he is! ;-)
And so is his cousin, isn't he?
Don Rosa
DCML Digest Issue 48
Message 348 -
2003-10-23 at 15:41:49
> From: S?ren Krarup Olesen<raptus at stofanet.dk>
> Subject: Facts and fiction
> Lars wrote that Donald doesn't really have a birtday, and I tend to
> agree.
> So, when Don writes that Donald *has* a hat and an uncle, then yes, but
> that would be a "fictional hat" and a "fictional uncle". A real hat is
> something a human being can put on his head, and Donald has no such thing.
> It's like wondering how Harrison Ford today (2003) can be in his 50s,
> when he surely looks much younger in Starwars, which we all know happens
> in far future.
?????
If I wanted to get mired in this weird discussion, I'd point out that, by
the above logic that Donald can't have a hat or an uncle or a head because
he's fictional, it follows that he can't really even have the name "Donald"
since he doesn't exist. In fact, he can't even "have", period, since there's
nothing there to be "having" if he isn't there, eh?
Obviously a fictional character has a fictional hat and a fictional
birthday. So where does that get us?
Anyway, the real reason I respond is, despite the fact I don't think a great
deal of movies made in the past 35 years, I want to make sure there are not
people who misinterpret one of the greatest charms of one pretty fun movie
that was made in that time: STAR WARS is not about the "far future"... it's
about the distant past. "A *long time ago* in a galaxy far, far away". A
fictitious galaxy. I mean, if it's all fictitious it couldn't really happen
at all. And they didn't wear hats or have birthdays. And I have no idea
where this is going.
> Subject: Facts and fiction
> Lars wrote that Donald doesn't really have a birtday, and I tend to
> agree.
> So, when Don writes that Donald *has* a hat and an uncle, then yes, but
> that would be a "fictional hat" and a "fictional uncle". A real hat is
> something a human being can put on his head, and Donald has no such thing.
> It's like wondering how Harrison Ford today (2003) can be in his 50s,
> when he surely looks much younger in Starwars, which we all know happens
> in far future.
?????
If I wanted to get mired in this weird discussion, I'd point out that, by
the above logic that Donald can't have a hat or an uncle or a head because
he's fictional, it follows that he can't really even have the name "Donald"
since he doesn't exist. In fact, he can't even "have", period, since there's
nothing there to be "having" if he isn't there, eh?
Obviously a fictional character has a fictional hat and a fictional
birthday. So where does that get us?
Anyway, the real reason I respond is, despite the fact I don't think a great
deal of movies made in the past 35 years, I want to make sure there are not
people who misinterpret one of the greatest charms of one pretty fun movie
that was made in that time: STAR WARS is not about the "far future"... it's
about the distant past. "A *long time ago* in a galaxy far, far away". A
fictitious galaxy. I mean, if it's all fictitious it couldn't really happen
at all. And they didn't wear hats or have birthdays. And I have no idea
where this is going.
Lars Jensen
New Kids' Comics From Disney
Message 349 -
2003-10-23 at 15:47:07
Publishers Weekly on Disney comics.
http://publishersweekly.reviewsnews.com/index.asp?layout=article&article
id=CA330761
Lars
http://publishersweekly.reviewsnews.com/index.asp?layout=article&article
id=CA330761
Lars
Søren Krarup Olesen
DCML Digest Issue 48
Message 350 -
2003-10-23 at 16:18:50
DON:
> Obviously a fictional character has a fictional hat and a fictional
> birthday. So where does that get us?
It gets us to the fact that there is no reason to be confused about
fictional dates and birthdays not matching first appearance(s).
Fictional dates may vary from story to story--that's basically up to the
writer.
> [snip] STAR WARS is not about the "far future"... it's [snip]
Yesyesyes. Sorry about that. I mixed up far future with far, far away,
so please forget about my last paragraph.
S?ren
(who still thinks that "birthday" is the wrong term for first appearance)
> Obviously a fictional character has a fictional hat and a fictional
> birthday. So where does that get us?
It gets us to the fact that there is no reason to be confused about
fictional dates and birthdays not matching first appearance(s).
Fictional dates may vary from story to story--that's basically up to the
writer.
> [snip] STAR WARS is not about the "far future"... it's [snip]
Yesyesyes. Sorry about that. I mixed up far future with far, far away,
so please forget about my last paragraph.
S?ren
(who still thinks that "birthday" is the wrong term for first appearance)
Marco Barlotti
KO Uack
Message 351 -
2003-10-23 at 16:58:01
At 13.57 23/10/2003 +0200, Olaf Solstrand wrote:
> >
> > > is [OK Quack] (in theory) still searching for it?
> >
> > Oh, yes, he is! ;-)
>
>And so is his cousin, isn't he?
Well, KO Uack (his thief cousin) appeared only in I TL 2082-1, so we can't
really tell... ;-)
Marco
> >
> > > is [OK Quack] (in theory) still searching for it?
> >
> > Oh, yes, he is! ;-)
>
>And so is his cousin, isn't he?
Well, KO Uack (his thief cousin) appeared only in I TL 2082-1, so we can't
really tell... ;-)
Marco
Lars Jensen
OK, Carl and Al
Message 352 -
2003-10-23 at 17:14:13
Niels Houlberg Hansen wrote:
> As far as I have been able to find out:
> 1. Buettner was born in 1903 (in Minneapolis).
> 2+3. Hubbard lived 1915-1984.
Thanks, Niels. What was your source for that info?
Lars
> As far as I have been able to find out:
> 1. Buettner was born in 1903 (in Minneapolis).
> 2+3. Hubbard lived 1915-1984.
Thanks, Niels. What was your source for that info?
Lars
Cord Wiljes
AW: DCML Digest Issue 48
Message 353 -
2003-10-23 at 18:06:34
Don Rosa wrote:
> If I wanted to get mired in this weird discussion, I'd point
> out that, by the above logic that Donald can't have a hat or
> an uncle or a head because he's fictional, it follows that he
> can't really even have the name "Donald" since he doesn't exist.
> In fact, he can't even "have", period, since there's nothing there
> to be "having" if he isn't there, eh?
I bwlieve there is quite a different between "having a hat" and "having
a name".
To have a hat is a physical, existing, intersubjective and measurable
property. A name on the other hand is just attributed to an object and
is not a
measurable property. For example I could introduce you to my
brother and you could measure his height, see the color of his hair and
whether he wears a hat or not. But you have no way to "measure" his
name.
So fictional characters cannot have real hats, but they have 'real'
names
just like real objects have - because names are not real at all. Names
are
symbols representing objects, so they are always fictional.
> And I have no idea where this is going.
I would answer: Deep into 2.600 years of western philosophy :-)
Cord
> If I wanted to get mired in this weird discussion, I'd point
> out that, by the above logic that Donald can't have a hat or
> an uncle or a head because he's fictional, it follows that he
> can't really even have the name "Donald" since he doesn't exist.
> In fact, he can't even "have", period, since there's nothing there
> to be "having" if he isn't there, eh?
I bwlieve there is quite a different between "having a hat" and "having
a name".
To have a hat is a physical, existing, intersubjective and measurable
property. A name on the other hand is just attributed to an object and
is not a
measurable property. For example I could introduce you to my
brother and you could measure his height, see the color of his hair and
whether he wears a hat or not. But you have no way to "measure" his
name.
So fictional characters cannot have real hats, but they have 'real'
names
just like real objects have - because names are not real at all. Names
are
symbols representing objects, so they are always fictional.
> And I have no idea where this is going.
I would answer: Deep into 2.600 years of western philosophy :-)
Cord
Olaf Solstrand
AW: DCML Digest Issue 48
Message 354 -
2003-10-23 at 18:08:33
Sir Pink wrote:
> > And I have no idea where this is going.
Cord wrote:
> I would answer: Deep into 2.600 years of western philosophy :-)
I write:
I had expected you to answer "www.dcml-talk.org" :-)
> > And I have no idea where this is going.
Cord wrote:
> I would answer: Deep into 2.600 years of western philosophy :-)
I write:
I had expected you to answer "www.dcml-talk.org" :-)
Deanmary
Disney promoting Disney comic books?
Message 355 -
2003-10-23 at 20:44:32
The latest issue of Publishers Weekly has an special section
devoted to graphic novels, comics, etc. In this section there is an
interview with Deborah Dugan, president of Disney Publishing
Worldwide. She touches on how Gemstone is publishing comics with the
classic Disney characters again, some of Tokyo Pop's titles such as
Lizzie McGuire and Kim Possible, and that W.I.T.C.H books will be
published here in the US.
What grabbed most of my attention though was the following
statement: "Graphic novels with the classic Disney characters will be
advertised in Disney's video releases this holiday season - 'We're
going to use the Disney machine to get them into the hands of kids,'
Dugan laughs.
Boy, wouldn't that be great news if it turns out to be true! An
ad for Disney comics would be in *millions* of videos/DVDs out in the
next few months! I am not exactly holding my breath though as Disney
has done next to nothing to promote Disney comics in the past. If
this is true though, I wonder what has changed their minds?
Dean Rekich
devoted to graphic novels, comics, etc. In this section there is an
interview with Deborah Dugan, president of Disney Publishing
Worldwide. She touches on how Gemstone is publishing comics with the
classic Disney characters again, some of Tokyo Pop's titles such as
Lizzie McGuire and Kim Possible, and that W.I.T.C.H books will be
published here in the US.
What grabbed most of my attention though was the following
statement: "Graphic novels with the classic Disney characters will be
advertised in Disney's video releases this holiday season - 'We're
going to use the Disney machine to get them into the hands of kids,'
Dugan laughs.
Boy, wouldn't that be great news if it turns out to be true! An
ad for Disney comics would be in *millions* of videos/DVDs out in the
next few months! I am not exactly holding my breath though as Disney
has done next to nothing to promote Disney comics in the past. If
this is true though, I wonder what has changed their minds?
Dean Rekich
Deanmary
Donald's age
Message 356 -
2003-10-23 at 20:47:43
For whatever reason, I have always thought of Donald as being
about 30 years old. That got me thinking. I was about the age of the
nephews when I started reading Disney comics, and now I am six years
older that Donald! Oh well, I guess I have a while to go until I am
old as Scrooge! :)
Dean Rekich
about 30 years old. That got me thinking. I was about the age of the
nephews when I started reading Disney comics, and now I am six years
older that Donald! Oh well, I guess I have a while to go until I am
old as Scrooge! :)
Dean Rekich
Don Rosa
Careless translators
Message 357 -
2003-10-23 at 20:59:51
On the subject of how irritating it is for me to carefully construct a story
making sure everything is just right, and then have the meaning botched by a
careless translator... here is a good example: now, if you have not yet read
my story in the new Egmont weeklies called (in English) "Trash or Treasure",
stop reading now and skip to the next letter.
******SPOILER WARNING******
I hear this from a reader in Poland:
"However I believe the Polish translators screwed something up: On page 12
panel 11 Scrooge is thinking something which in English would be "This is
end! Now Donald will tell him how much this stamp is worth!" This does not
make sense because it looks like Scrooge also was thinking that it's the
stamp, not the pens, that were valuable. What was the text supposed to be in
the original version?"
Very good. Assuming you are accurately reporting this balloon, you're quite
right. Apparently this translator didn't even understand what was going on
in the story he was working on. And it's not rocket science. My original
balloon for $crooge in the official script from which the translator was
working (I have a copy of it) is "That does it! Now the auctioneer will tell
him the value! I?m doomed!" For one thing, the translator is saying that
Donald is going to tell the auctioneer how valuable the stamp is -- if that
were true and the stamp was valuable and Donald knew that for a fact, that
alone would have rendered the whole story senseless. But in addition to that
flub, the story in Poland now reads as if $crooge was also out to get the
stamp the whole time and... what?... changed his mind on the last page? How?
Why?
So... dare I ask what happens in this balloon in other translated versions
of this story?
making sure everything is just right, and then have the meaning botched by a
careless translator... here is a good example: now, if you have not yet read
my story in the new Egmont weeklies called (in English) "Trash or Treasure",
stop reading now and skip to the next letter.
******SPOILER WARNING******
I hear this from a reader in Poland:
"However I believe the Polish translators screwed something up: On page 12
panel 11 Scrooge is thinking something which in English would be "This is
end! Now Donald will tell him how much this stamp is worth!" This does not
make sense because it looks like Scrooge also was thinking that it's the
stamp, not the pens, that were valuable. What was the text supposed to be in
the original version?"
Very good. Assuming you are accurately reporting this balloon, you're quite
right. Apparently this translator didn't even understand what was going on
in the story he was working on. And it's not rocket science. My original
balloon for $crooge in the official script from which the translator was
working (I have a copy of it) is "That does it! Now the auctioneer will tell
him the value! I?m doomed!" For one thing, the translator is saying that
Donald is going to tell the auctioneer how valuable the stamp is -- if that
were true and the stamp was valuable and Donald knew that for a fact, that
alone would have rendered the whole story senseless. But in addition to that
flub, the story in Poland now reads as if $crooge was also out to get the
stamp the whole time and... what?... changed his mind on the last page? How?
Why?
So... dare I ask what happens in this balloon in other translated versions
of this story?
Stefan Persson
Careless translators
Message 358 -
2003-10-23 at 21:11:06
Don Rosa wrote:
> ******SPOILER WARNING******
> My original balloon for $crooge in the official script from which the translator was
> working (I have a copy of it) is "That does it! Now the auctioneer will tell
> him the value! I?m doomed!"
> [...]
> So... dare I ask what happens in this balloon in other translated versions
> of this story?
Swedish: "?h nej! Snyft! Nu f?r han reda p? det sanna v?rdet! Jag ?r
kokt!" (= "Oh no! Sob! Now he'll learn the true value! I'm doomed!"),
i.e. a proper translation.
Stefan
> ******SPOILER WARNING******
> My original balloon for $crooge in the official script from which the translator was
> working (I have a copy of it) is "That does it! Now the auctioneer will tell
> him the value! I?m doomed!"
> [...]
> So... dare I ask what happens in this balloon in other translated versions
> of this story?
Swedish: "?h nej! Snyft! Nu f?r han reda p? det sanna v?rdet! Jag ?r
kokt!" (= "Oh no! Sob! Now he'll learn the true value! I'm doomed!"),
i.e. a proper translation.
Stefan
Daniel Vasset Haugsbø
DCML Digest, Vol 8, Issue 49
Message 359 -
2003-10-23 at 21:44:57
> So... dare I ask what happens in this balloon in
> other translated versions
> of this story?
I think that in the norwegian version the translation
is correct.
When $crooge has that doomed look while leaning
against his desk he thinks: "Thank you mercy,now
Donald get to know the value.I am doomed"
Daniel,Norway
______________________________________________________
F? den nye Yahoo! Messenger p? http://no.messenger.yahoo.com/
Nye ikoner og bakgrunner, webkamera med superkvalitet og dobbelt s? morsom
> other translated versions
> of this story?
I think that in the norwegian version the translation
is correct.
When $crooge has that doomed look while leaning
against his desk he thinks: "Thank you mercy,now
Donald get to know the value.I am doomed"
Daniel,Norway
______________________________________________________
F? den nye Yahoo! Messenger p? http://no.messenger.yahoo.com/
Nye ikoner og bakgrunner, webkamera med superkvalitet og dobbelt s? morsom
Don Rosa
DCML Digest Issue 50
Message 360 -
2003-10-23 at 22:19:59
From: Stefan Persson [spe at inducks.org]
>>> Swedish: "Ah nej! Snyft! Nu far han reda pa det sanna vardet! Jag ar
kokt!" (= "Oh no! Sob! Now he'll learn the true value! I'm doomed!"),
i.e. a proper translation.
Ah, but that's Stefan Dios doing that translation. I *know* he can
understand comic stories! Sweden is never a worry.
>>> Swedish: "Ah nej! Snyft! Nu far han reda pa det sanna vardet! Jag ar
kokt!" (= "Oh no! Sob! Now he'll learn the true value! I'm doomed!"),
i.e. a proper translation.
Ah, but that's Stefan Dios doing that translation. I *know* he can
understand comic stories! Sweden is never a worry.