Keskustelujen arkisto

Walt's nephew Roy Disney has launched a website devoted to discussion
about the fututure of The Walt Disney Company:

http://www.savedisney.com

Cord

Daniel van Eijmeren wrote:
>>Version without sidebar: Norwegian "Verdens Gang" of 1993-07-03
>
> Is this an official publication? By Disney?

No, that's a Norwegian newspaper. There was a similar newspaper
publication containing the version *with* sidebar in Sweden (in
Aftonbladet), making it hard to determine which publication of the tree
with sidebar that should be considered the first one. The KA 1/94
publication was actually in four parts, ending in KA 4/94, while the
Aftonbladet publication was only in one part. The first part in KA was
published before the AB publication, while the last part in KA was
published after the AB publication. So, which is to be regarded the
"first" publication of that story? ;-)

On a side note, the AB information is not properly indexed in Inducks.
The date was somehow messed up with a similar print in Upsala Nya
Tidning (a different newspaper). Inducks contains this (hidden)
information in ancient input format:

AF h1 Aftonbladet / Upsala Nya Tidning
AF940331 RD 9400b 2 f DD

94-03-31 is too late for Aftonbladet, so I'd guess that this is when it
was published in UNT. Does anyone know the exact dates for both (or
any) of the publications, so that this information may be added to Inducks?

>>In WDC 600, the version without sidebar was used (as you can see on COA).
>
> No, I can't. I can only see that it has "changes". By just looking at COA,
> I cannot know if those changes are the very same as in other publications.
> In other words: I got you here! (Didn't I?) :-)

No, you did not: click on "Walt Disney's Comics (and Stories) 600" and
go down to the info about the tree:

> Changes: sidebar with DA,AMJ,GY,HLP is missing

Stefan

Apparently people want to know how to categorize my Family Tree for indexes
(indices)? Though I've probably told this before, would it help to know how
it was created?
Originally I created the Duck Family Tree only using the three integral
Family Trees (McDuck, Duck and Coot) combined and showing how they were
connected. I finished this project and sent it in and carried on with the
next story.
Later (weeks? months? dunno.) the editor contacted me and said that some
Egmont branch publishers had seen the Tree and wanted Gyro and Daisy and
AM&J included. I wondered how this would be possible since these characters
were no relation to the others. (Yes, I'd like to think, for fun, that Daisy
is the brother of HD&L's long lost father... but that has yet to be
"revealed", if it ever will be, and that would have been *rather* confusing
to try to fit onto that main Tree, so forget that whole idea for now.) I
said that I could do that but only if they would be added off to one side
under a distinct listing of "Duck Friends" since they were definitely *not*
part of the Family Tree. So I drew 5 more portraits and sent them off.
Somebody at Egmont created that nice "hovering leaf cluster" out of pieces
of the tree edges I had drawn on the real Tree.
So. Is that one project or two?
The extra portraits existed long before the first time the Tree was
published anywhere, whether that publication included the sidebar or not.
Including the extras is up to the local editor.
During the 1970's I was (American) comic fandom's first and busiest index
creator for various major fanzines, composing indexes for many, many entire
comic series (including WDC&S) as well as TV series and movies and actors
before I'd ever seen anyone else do such extensive projects. But my indexing
days are over and I'm glad to leave this decision to others! It seems to me
that these Duck Friends sidebars are just like the extra pages I create for
a story that are supposed to be used when the story is printed in two parts.
Those pages are done as part of the main story and I often do them after I
complete the main story and send them in later, and those pages are used at
the discretion of editors. So, the two versions of my Family Tree should be
treated the same way as you treat the two versions that exist of all of my
long stories.
Does... uh... that help?

OLAF SOLSTRAND to me, 16-12-2003:

>>> Version without sidebar: Norwegian "Verdens Gang" of 1993-07-03

>> Is this an official publication? By Disney?

> This is a Norwegian newspaper. They published the entire tree over
> two pages. I hated this, as I knew I would be collecting the entire
> tree that same fall. Not fun to see it already in the summer then.

Huh??? You hated that you got the family tree *earlier* than you planned?
Is that really what you meant?

(Strange people, those Norwegians!) :-)

STEFAN PERSSON to HARRY FLUKS and me, 16-12-2003:

>>> In WDC 600, the version without sidebar was used (as you can see on COA).

>> No, I can't. I can only see that it has "changes". By just looking at COA,
>> I cannot know if those changes are the very same as in other publications.
>> In other words: I got you here! (Didn't I?) :-)

> No, you did not: click on "Walt Disney's Comics (and Stories) 600" and
> go down to the info about the tree:
> Changes: sidebar with DA,AMJ,GY,HLP is missing

Apparently, you didn't get what I meant. Every editor can make changes. But
even if the changes are basically the same as the changes made by another
editor, they haven't independently made one new version. What they have
made then, are *two* changed versions, which look more or less similar.

--- Dani?l

"Yikes! How can anything that stuffs itself with HAY be so HARD?"
Which Barks story? :-)

DON ROSA, 16-12-2003:

> Apparently people want to know how to categorize my Family Tree
> for indexes (indices)? Though I've probably told this before,
> would it help to know how it was created?

Isn't there any website which collects the information that you give
about your work? I knew you have explained the creation of the family
tree before, but I didn't know where to find it.

Principally speaking, I think that asking an artist the very same
questions over and over again, is a waste of time for both parties.
(Although there could be some new facts coming up now and then, but
that would only be a matter of coincidence.)

I think you hold the record for being the most recorded Duck artist,
both in text and speech, and that's very nice, but it's a shame if
all that information gets lost (or even destroyed).

> Originally I created the Duck Family Tree only using the three integral
> Family Trees (McDuck, Duck and Coot) combined and showing how they were
> connected. I finished this project and sent it in [...]. Later (weeks?
> months? dunno.) the editor contacted me and said that some Egmont branch
> publishers had seen the Tree and wanted Gyro and Daisy and AM&J included.
> [...] So I drew 5 more portraits and sent them off. Somebody at Egmont
> created that nice "hovering leaf cluster" out of pieces of the tree edges
> I had drawn on the real Tree. So. Is that one project or two?

Two projects, I'd say.

The first project (without sidebar) is the original version, created
by you alone.

The second (with sidebar) is a version created by you and the editor.
The addition of characters was their idea. The way how that should be
done is your idea. The resulting portraits are by made you, but the
layout and construction of the sidebar itself are both *fully* designed
by the editor. (Right?) Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

BTW. Is the first version (without sidebar) the one published by
Gladstone, in WDC 600? Or is it a changed version, or even a third
project?

> It seems to me that these Duck Friends sidebars are just like the
> extra pages I create for a story that are supposed to be used when
> the story is printed in two parts.

I second that. I think that the sidebar/portraits should be considered
like the extra comic book pages.

Maybe every new portrait should get it's *own* code, in case different
editors have made sidebars of their own.

So, I think that it's important to determine if the sidebar is always
the very same one. Used as one whole piece of art. Is that the case?

--- Dani?l

"Yikes! How can anything that stuffs itself with HAY be so HARD?"
Which Barks story? :-)

OLAF SOLSTRAND to me, 16-12-2003:

> Yes, I hated that. That could have been a true highlight of that
> fall - collecting a [family tree] poster, little by little, in the
> Donald Duck magazine. Now, it wasn't that exciting anymore
> because I'd already seen it.
>
> Hey, you can compare it to chocolate. If you're going to eat one
> chocolate bar for the entire year, what will you prefer? Eating
> it one piece every week throughout the fall, or rather eat the
> entire bar in July?

Well, you could have ignored that newspaper publication. You were
not obliged to look at it, but apparently you were too weak to
resist it. :-)

And that's what I would have done with the chocolate bar. I would
not be able to ignore it. I would eat it all at once.

That's why I rarely have any candy, snacks or soda at home. I've
found out that keeping such stuff out of the house, does miracles
in loosing weight, and in feeling better in general. But please,
don't put it in front of me! On some weak moments, the cooky monster
in me might awake! :-)

--- Daniël

> From: Botto Armando <Armando.Botto at elsag.it>
> From: Don Rosa [mailto:donrosa at iglou.com]
> > Yes, I'd like to think, for fun, that Daisy is the brother of
> > HD&L's long lost father...
>
> ... so, Donald has been dating a transvestite for all these
> years, huh? Wait
> till they hear about *that* at Disney...
>
> (Sorry, couldn't resist ;-))

That message was just sow sweat!

> From: "Daniel van Eijmeren" <dve at kabelfoon.nl>
> Isn't there any website which collects the information that you give
> about your work?

I don't know. I have no website and only supply info to others on request.
Fans are naturally free to do whatever they wish.

> >So. Is that one project or two?
>
> Two projects, I'd say.

You would? I went on, or so I thought, to prove it was only one single
project. Oh, well...

> The first project (without sidebar) is the original version, created
> by you alone.
>
> The second (with sidebar) is a version created by you and the editor.

No. The entire Tree was created by me and an editor because I drew the Tree
small and the portraits large. The editors (or somebody) inserted the
portraits into the tree and did all the other work. The sidebar was created
the same way the main Tree was. And it was created at the same time by the
editor, even though I did the additional portraits a bit later.

> BTW. Is the first version (without sidebar) the one published by
> Gladstone, in WDC 600? Or is it a changed version, or even a third
> project?

You're not listening to my explanation. The full Tree with the sidebar was
all created at the same time by Egmont (editor or functionary or whoever).
Gladstone decided to leave off the sidebar simply because it would not fit
their double page spread. Simple.

> I second that. I think that the sidebar/portraits should be considered
> like the extra comic book pages.

Yes. And therefore they are part of the same single project as the main
Tree. Just an extra which can be used or not used. You seem to be
contradicting yourself?

> So, I think that it's important to determine if the sidebar is always
> the very same one. Used as one whole piece of art. Is that the case?

As far as I know.

> I'm feeling very fuzzy at the moment. It seems like I have been
> contradicting myself, but I don't know how.

Aha. I was right! (I'm answering these comments as I read through the
Digest!)