Keskustelujen arkisto

The really amazing thing about the Swimming Pool Story is that Barks is
quite vicious in his depiction of the very people who bought and read his
comics (middle-American kids and their parents). It's certainly one of his
more cynical stories, but it's great fun to read.

BTW, my LEAST favourite Braks story is "Interplanetary Postman". Does
anybody else have a nomination for "worst Barks story ever"?

Daniel van Eijmeren wrote:

> A friend of Barks has personally told me that Barks often complained
> about people who were trying to hook his stories together. Period.
>
> There's no need to try to twist that around with some long-distance
> guessing. Barks *complained* about sticking his stories together.

I am really sorry for taking a wild guess. I'm sure your interpretations
of Barks and Rosa are more correct.

> It can be read in Barks's correspondence with Rosa, that Rosa for
> some reason prefers to remain silent about. (It even contained an
> interesting, new story idea that almost got lost, this way.) And I
> look at this correspondence as the best-kept secret of the so-called
> Barks/Rosa universe.

I am also sure that you were really after something big - and not making
any long-distance guessing - when you wrote:

> Have you ever seen the many, MANY interesting articles with Barks
> letters? So, yes, there are indeed some editors who are (officially!)
> showing Barks's "private" correspondence to the whole world,
> *including* some letters to Rosa. Are they sick?

I have seen many, and many of them are very interesting. But there are
many that made me feel guilty for reading them. Especially the ones he
wrote as a sick man. He seemed to be quite a bitter man towards the end.
I thought they were too personal to be read by people who never knew
him. Some people might be willing to show their correspondence and
diaries to other people and that is something we should honor. We should
honor as well the fact that you still can keep them also to yourself
without being publicly accused of keeping secrets.

> > There won't be any dark secrets or revolutionary revelations to be
> > found about Barks in them.
>
> How would you know? Did Rosa show them to you?

Well, I am again guilty of making a long-distance guess. I never learn.

> But, no matter what, the Barks-Rosa correspondence might be VERY
> interesting to read.

Sure. Even more I'd like to read the personal correspondence of JFK and
Marilyn Monroe. Maybe its still better when left as a mystery.

Okay, that was my 0.02 cents on this issue. Back to other subjects...

MATTHEW:

>> BTW, my LEAST favourite Braks story is "Interplanetary Postman".
>> Does anybody else have a nomination for "worst Barks story ever"?
>
>
> "Interplanetary Postman" is one of my favorites! I love the absurd
> levels it reaches! Scrooge is sooooo cheap in the story too!
> "Stooge McDock"! Great comedy!

Exactly. It's just so far out in every sense--almost a parody on itself.

My worst "experience" is clearly "The black pearls of Tabu Yama" (W CID
1-02). The story progresses *so* slowly, not there is much story at all.
Also the 3-tiers layout doesn't work. I find it boring.

S?ren

Well, yes actually in the latest issue of Swedish Kalle Anka (Donald
Duck ) there is a story where the Beagle boys decides that it should be
easier to go to Africa and rob Flintheart instead of Scrooge. Pimlico
national parc in Africa is the location in this story.

But is there any other mention of Pimlico in another Disney story ?
I can't seem to remember any.

Can anyone of you ?

Ola in cloudy Stockholm +7 and a little wind

I nominate most all of the Scrooge stories from around issue 55 on. North of the Yukon is the last Scrooge story by Barks that I would consider *good*. The art in the later stories is fine in my opinion, but the stories are so undeveloped and full of terrible dialog that they're really tough to read. The first time I read 'Hall of the Mermaid Queen' was when Disney printed it in the early 90's and I remember laughing with friends about the nephews saying something like "It's a good thing we had Judo lessons!" Never understood when they picked up Judo......

rodney.

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

My head is now touching the ground ...
Ola in ever still and so on :-)

TO ALL DCML MEMBERS:

In the spirit of trying to keep things friendly, I hope everyone will realize that I am trying to defuse the bomb just lobbed into DCML by D van E, not throw myself on top of it. So I'm going to address these points simply because they have been made in a public forum in what I perceive to be an insulting manner, and should not go unchallenged. Some might feel I should recuse myself from this discussion because of my close association with Don, but please bear in mind I am not sitting in judgment; I am merely defending a friend that has been unjustifiably attacked for simply doing his job. If my relationship with Don is supposed to prevent me from having any say, then what are friends for?

Some points that Dani?l makes, including the first one below, are not directly defamatory. However, since they seem to build on one another to reinforce his notion that no one has the right to expand Barks' Duck world (or by Dani?l's previously posted contention, Walt Disney's Duck world), I've chosen to include them. I have given much careful thought to my comments, and be assured they are purely MY thoughts. They neither belong to nor have they been suggested by anyone else. All rights reserved.

I recognize that people (and I number myself among them) will sometimes in the heat of a debate post messages or send e-mails that unintentionally come across as too strong. If a suitable apology follows, then no harm, no foul. But the post quoted below continues an unhealthy thread that betrays some sort of crusade to have Don quit his job, an uncomfortable thought to say the least.

So, here goes my response to Dani?l's post. Strictly disinterested parties may scroll on down to the next missive.

> STEVEN ROWE to KAI SAARTO, 05-04-2004:
>
> > well, what was Bark's reaction when Jack Chalker wrote his
> biography
> > of Uncle Scrooge? (which is far as I know was the first structured
> > timeline)
>
> This year, a friend of Barks has personally told me that he
> can't remember the amount of occasions, where Barks
> complained about people who were trying to hook his stories together.

Dani?l "quotes" an anonymous "friend of Barks" as if he is offering empirical evidence. Factual or no, in its context the message makes an attempt to pit Mr. Barks against Don and/or others who strive to find continuity in Mr. Barks' tales. Since Mr. Barks is no longer with us (indeed, he never posted to DCML when alive), we now are given an invisible source to put words in Mr. Barks' mouth.

> > of course Barks did do a Duck family tree, right?
>
> Only for private use. And Rosa even had to REMIND Barks of
> the tree's existance! Even *after* the thing was published in
> The Carl Barks Library. This happened somewhere at the dawn
> of the 1990s.
>
> It can be read in Barks's correspondence with Rosa, that Rosa
> for some reason prefers to remain silent about. (It even
> contained an interesting, new story idea that almost got
> lost, this way.) And I look at this correspondence as the
> best-kept secret of the so-called Barks/Rosa universe.

Now Dani?l infers that Don is purposely keeping tippy-top secret private mail from public eyes to protect himself. Does Dani?l think it wise to insinuate himself into private letters between two individuals he has never met. Neither Mr. Barks nor Don are elected officials who are concealing financial statements from the taxpaying public. They are not keeping state secrets under covers for personal gain. These are not communiqu?s that would reveal proof of insider trading. They are letters between private citizens. If I opened one without permission you would be guilty of a US felony. I may politely ask if Don would reveal the full contents of these letters, but Don may just as politely refuse to do so. I may not discourteously demand or even cajole the release of any private correspondence in the hopes of discovering juicy tidbits for my own satisfaction. That is called being a nosey-parker.

> In some known (published) parts of these letters, Barks
> recommends Rosa to explore new situations and places. (I can
> dig up some quotes, if you wish.)

If Dani?l really feels it necessary to continue his assault, then direct and documented quotes would be welcome. Preferably not from Deep Throat this time, who continues to be cited as an unimpeachable source below.

> And, as far as this friend knows, Barks only ever produced
> family trees and such, under pressure to do so. This would
> include the additional family trees for Rosa.
>
> So, apparently, Barks was just trying to be helpful to people
> who asked him all kinds of weird questions.
>
> I hope Don Rosa will reveal more of Barks's letters, one day.
> There was nothing really private in these letters, as far as
> I know. So, I hope they won't rot away in a cupboard. Or end
> up demolished as some kind of last will, or something. We
> Barks fans are at Rosa's mercy here...

Now Don is being accused of holding us all hostage, denying us access to private information that the public obviously has a constitutional right to know. And Dani?l has again used his crystal ball to discern that, though there is "nothing really private in these letters," Don must be hoarding revealing truths.

In the next Digest we find this exchange:

> KAI SAARTO to me, 06-04-2004:
>
> >> This year, a friend of Barks has personally told me that he can't
> >> remember the amount of occasions, where Barks complained
> about people
> >> who were trying to hook his stories together.
>
> > Maybe Barks just meant that since he didn't meant them that
> way in the
> > first place, he didn't see much point in it.
>
> A friend of Barks has personally told me that Barks often
> complained about people who were trying to hook his stories
> together. Period.
>
> There's no need to try to twist that around with some
> long-distance guessing. Barks *complained* about sticking his
> stories together.

Now Dani?l denies Kai the right to make any inferences based on a completely undocumented attestation by the still unknown advisor. Dani?l reserves that right for himself. He has set himself up as judge and jury on Don's professional and private activities, but anyone who wishes to suggest that Dani?l's interpretation of events revealed by some ethereal being is only one possibility is accused of "long-distance guessing," followed by another dogmatic claim with no proffered material to back it up beyond something a friend of a friend said.

> > There won't be any dark secrets or revolutionary revelations to be
> > found about Barks in them.
>
> How would you know? Did Rosa show them to you?

Exactly what scandalous material is Dani?l hoping to see unearthed beyond what Don has already willingly allowed to be published? How are we to take these last two questions? Is Dani?l's curiosity about other people's mail a wholesome thing? This topic of Don's chosen field and how he works in it has all been hashed out before. I'm curious what Dani?l does for a living. Perhaps we could all entertain ideas of how he might do his job better. Maybe he could send us all copies of his employer's performance reviews so we will better understand how we might help him in this regard.

Oh, wait! That's none of my business, is it? How foolish of me not have seen that right off. Fortunately, I did not need someone to write and tell me so. But if that had been necessary, rest assured I would have apologized for overstepping my bounds. Apologized to Dani?l, and apologized to all members of DCML who had their minds filled with unwholesome and unwarranted accusations.

I have achieved maximum verbosity. I am perfectly content with the soon-to-be-proved event that mine will not be the last word on this subject. I don't need to chew my cabbage twice, so if this matter is not soon put to rest, and if anyone is for some god-forsaken reason interested in my view on future tirades, just refer back to this message. It won't be repeated.

Dan the Irritable

Dan Writes:
> TO ALL DCML MEMBERS:
>
> In the spirit of trying to keep things friendly, I hope everyone will
> realize that I am trying to defuse the bomb just lobbed into DCML by D van E, not
> throw myself on top of it. Some might feel I should recuse myself from this
> discussion because of my close association with Don, but please bear in mind I
> am not sitting in judgment; I am merely defending a friend that has been
> unjustifiably attacked for simply doing his job. If my relationship with Don is
> supposed to prevent me from having any say, then what are friends for?

Dan the Irritable This should read "Dan the Friend"

These "secret" letters sound like Carl hated writing letters to fans.
My experience with Carl and the Letter I received from him was anything but.
He always seemed to be genuinely happy to respond to fans and marveled at the
fact there were so many of us.

Thanks Dan, for saying what more of us wanted to say.

Barry the Friend