> From: <danshane at bellsouth.net>
> Subject: Re: Making it "personal"...
> From: Shane, Daniel L [mailto:dshane at ius.edu]
> ...beyond what Don has already willingly allowed to be
> published?
Just to clarify a point:
At the request of a noted Barks scholar, I once supplied copies of sections
of several letters from Barks to myself for his personal edification on very
specific points. I was later surprised to see these letter portions
reproduced in a Gladstone album in an article.
I would *never* make private, personal correspondence between myself and
someone else, or vice-versa, public. The whole idea should be abhorrent to
everyone. Common sense (and common decency) dictate that these matters are
obviously nobody's business except the private correspondents.
Author
Topic: 200404
(317 messages)
Don Rosa
DCML Digest Issue 18
Message 136 -
2004-04-06 at 20:29:35
Luca Boschi
DCML Digest, Vol 14, Issue 18
Message 137 -
2004-04-06 at 21:38:04
Thanks, Dan Shane, for your message.
I share your feelings about this sort of discussione about the attempt to
pit Carl Barks against Don Rosa. It has no sense at all and I hope it stops
soon, to respect both Don's outstanding work and Uncle Carl's memory.
Ciao,
Luca Boschi
I share your feelings about this sort of discussione about the attempt to
pit Carl Barks against Don Rosa. It has no sense at all and I hope it stops
soon, to respect both Don's outstanding work and Uncle Carl's memory.
Ciao,
Luca Boschi
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Barks's November 31, 1990 letter to Rosa
Message 138 -
2004-04-06 at 22:00:03
As a reply to a very offensive contribution full of plain fantasies, here
are the contents of a private Barks letter to Rosa, as it was published in
Gladstone's 'Isle Of Golden Geese' album 'Uncle $crooge Adventures 42'.
I want to underscore that Barks didn't know about any internet discussions
like ours when he wrote this letter. This mailing list didn't even exist at
that very different, almost computer-less time, in 1990.
Hopefully, most (all?) people here will just read and *enjoy* this
contribution, without thinking of bickering. (Please!)
--- Dani?l
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
November 31 1990
Dear Don:
???I have read your sequel story of the "Crown of Genghis Khan" cum
"Tralla La" ["Return to Xanadu," US?261 and?262] and had to dig out the
original stories of both tales to see where you had made the hook-ups,
it being many years since I read either of those opuses. Well, you did
a *sequel*, there's no doubt about that, and in the process you invented
so many new situations that the old tales are hardly needed as a
springboard. Congratulations.
???Best of all, you kept the cast of characters limited to the ducks and
the original Trallalains without cannibalizing other stories by bringing
in Glomgold, the Beagle Boys, and other ilk.
???I do have a criticism, however. Your handling of Uncle Scrooge makes
him come across as a snarling, pushy old looter every bit as bad as the
Scrooge pictured in the Chilean commie propaganda publication *How to Read
Donald Duck*.?You stressed right out the similarity between him and Kublai
Khan. I hope that isn't the way you view him personally.
???Anyway, it's good you have a market going with Gutenberghus.?They will
no doubt have excellent translators and colorists, and their checks don't
bounce. You *earn* those checks with the rich embellishment you lavish on
your drawings.
???I doubt that they will expect you to specialize indefinitely on sequels
to my old stories. After all, my plots only took the ducks to the politically
safe areas of the world. Since the decay of communism there's all of Russia
and Siberia and China to use for locales.
???Writers can now concoct *new* adventures for the ducks on such as the old
silk road from Cathay. There can be forays into Siberia to hunt mammoth's
ivory. Imagine the ducks finding a herd of frozen mammoths whose feeding
ground had been so rich in minerals their tusks had become more *gold* than
ivory. Maybe the ducks could take a frozen mammoth home to Duckburg for
exhibition in a block of clear ice. Uncle Scrooge squabbles with the power
company over the size of the refrigeration bill, and the mammoth thaws out
*alive*.
???Southeast Asia is opening up a little, too. Indiana Jones didn't loot
the *only* temple in that treasure-infested region. My shopworn old menaces
can be replaced by such as Bengal tigers, rogue elephants, and duck-drowning
monsoons.
???If any of the above inspires you to start writing, please feel welcome to
use any of it. It's from such seeds of ideas that I used to build my stories.
Man! am I grateful that I no longer have to write and draw the darned things!
Goodluck.
Carl
(c) Carl Barks
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
are the contents of a private Barks letter to Rosa, as it was published in
Gladstone's 'Isle Of Golden Geese' album 'Uncle $crooge Adventures 42'.
I want to underscore that Barks didn't know about any internet discussions
like ours when he wrote this letter. This mailing list didn't even exist at
that very different, almost computer-less time, in 1990.
Hopefully, most (all?) people here will just read and *enjoy* this
contribution, without thinking of bickering. (Please!)
--- Dani?l
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
November 31 1990
Dear Don:
???I have read your sequel story of the "Crown of Genghis Khan" cum
"Tralla La" ["Return to Xanadu," US?261 and?262] and had to dig out the
original stories of both tales to see where you had made the hook-ups,
it being many years since I read either of those opuses. Well, you did
a *sequel*, there's no doubt about that, and in the process you invented
so many new situations that the old tales are hardly needed as a
springboard. Congratulations.
???Best of all, you kept the cast of characters limited to the ducks and
the original Trallalains without cannibalizing other stories by bringing
in Glomgold, the Beagle Boys, and other ilk.
???I do have a criticism, however. Your handling of Uncle Scrooge makes
him come across as a snarling, pushy old looter every bit as bad as the
Scrooge pictured in the Chilean commie propaganda publication *How to Read
Donald Duck*.?You stressed right out the similarity between him and Kublai
Khan. I hope that isn't the way you view him personally.
???Anyway, it's good you have a market going with Gutenberghus.?They will
no doubt have excellent translators and colorists, and their checks don't
bounce. You *earn* those checks with the rich embellishment you lavish on
your drawings.
???I doubt that they will expect you to specialize indefinitely on sequels
to my old stories. After all, my plots only took the ducks to the politically
safe areas of the world. Since the decay of communism there's all of Russia
and Siberia and China to use for locales.
???Writers can now concoct *new* adventures for the ducks on such as the old
silk road from Cathay. There can be forays into Siberia to hunt mammoth's
ivory. Imagine the ducks finding a herd of frozen mammoths whose feeding
ground had been so rich in minerals their tusks had become more *gold* than
ivory. Maybe the ducks could take a frozen mammoth home to Duckburg for
exhibition in a block of clear ice. Uncle Scrooge squabbles with the power
company over the size of the refrigeration bill, and the mammoth thaws out
*alive*.
???Southeast Asia is opening up a little, too. Indiana Jones didn't loot
the *only* temple in that treasure-infested region. My shopworn old menaces
can be replaced by such as Bengal tigers, rogue elephants, and duck-drowning
monsoons.
???If any of the above inspires you to start writing, please feel welcome to
use any of it. It's from such seeds of ideas that I used to build my stories.
Man! am I grateful that I no longer have to write and draw the darned things!
Goodluck.
Carl
(c) Carl Barks
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dyer, Sonia
Least favorite Barks story; Mars & Venus;
Message 139 -
2004-04-06 at 22:00:35
I've only ready one Barks story that I really disliked, and that was The
Treasure of Marco Polo. IMO it was uncharacteristically very unpleasant
in tone and totally not-amusing. It seems to be rarely re-printed, and
maybe that's why.
------
Cord Wiljes wrote:
>I have a question to our U.S./British list members: Was the expression
>
> "Men are from Mars, Women from Venus"
>
>a common saying even prior to John Grays enormously successful
international bestseller of the same title (which was published a few
years ago)?
>
>Or could Barks' Interplanetary Mailman story have influenced this?
That was not a common saying, although the astrology symbols for Mars
and Venus have been used by the medical profession for years to
represent a male and female of a species respectively. What WAS a
common saying, in the US anyway, was "<Person's name> must be from Mars
if they don't know that <fact regarded as common knowledge here on
Earth>". Gray simply picked up that thread.
I don't recall ever reading the Interplanetary Mailman story. If it
was published in the 50s, then it's certainly possible Mr Gray saw it.
There may have been similar influences from the movies of the 40s/50s
time period - in "Abbott and Costello Go to Mars", the heros actually
end up on planet Venus, which is populated by beautiful women who had
banished their men due to, well, refer to Gray's book.
Sonia
Treasure of Marco Polo. IMO it was uncharacteristically very unpleasant
in tone and totally not-amusing. It seems to be rarely re-printed, and
maybe that's why.
------
Cord Wiljes wrote:
>I have a question to our U.S./British list members: Was the expression
>
> "Men are from Mars, Women from Venus"
>
>a common saying even prior to John Grays enormously successful
international bestseller of the same title (which was published a few
years ago)?
>
>Or could Barks' Interplanetary Mailman story have influenced this?
That was not a common saying, although the astrology symbols for Mars
and Venus have been used by the medical profession for years to
represent a male and female of a species respectively. What WAS a
common saying, in the US anyway, was "<Person's name> must be from Mars
if they don't know that <fact regarded as common knowledge here on
Earth>". Gray simply picked up that thread.
I don't recall ever reading the Interplanetary Mailman story. If it
was published in the 50s, then it's certainly possible Mr Gray saw it.
There may have been similar influences from the movies of the 40s/50s
time period - in "Abbott and Costello Go to Mars", the heros actually
end up on planet Venus, which is populated by beautiful women who had
banished their men due to, well, refer to Gray's book.
Sonia
Daniel J. Neyer
Various topics
Message 140 -
2004-04-06 at 22:52:05
I should have made it clear that I was criticizing Noel Van Horn's
storylines, not his artwork. I love his work on Goofy and enjoy his art
in general, but I do think he makes Mickey and Minnie look a bit too
cranky at times. I know the recent Lizard story wasn't written by him,
but I understood the Phantom Blot story, SHADOWS, and FISHING FOR TROUBLE
from the old Gladstone run were his--in all of these, he makes Mickey
seem like a frustrated loser rather than the good-natured, adventurous
mouse the majority of us know and love.
I'm sort of surprised to hear criticism of William Van Horn, since the
opinions expressed on him in the comic letter columns are almost wholly
favorable. I can understand why some might not like his art, but I love
it--simple, funny, and very cartoony. I like his unpretentious writing
approach and witty dialogue, too--he just seems to write each story for
maximum enjoyment without giving too much thought to past or future
tales, like Barks did with his ten-pagers. The recent "Ain't It the
Truth?" reminded me of an old Dick Van Dyke show episode with its clever
use of flashbacks. None of this is meant as an indictment of Don Rosa's
style, by the way--I appreciate both approaches to Duck storytelling.
Speaking of Rosa, I must agree with Dan Shane's comments to Daniel Van
Eijermen. Rosa is a fan of Barks, as most of us are, and he likes Barks
so much that he uses elements from his stories in his own tales. I would
do the same if I was writing comics, but my interpretation would probably
be different from Rosa's. To treat Don like some kind of a plagiarist for
doing this is very unfair. He should be allowed to post here without
being pestered, as the rest of us are. Just because he's an author
doesn't mean his messages should be treated to intense criticism.
I think this whole "Universe" debate has gone far enough. Daniel Van
Eijermen appears to intensely dislike Rosa's stories and Rosa' use of
Barksian motifs. OK, that's fine, Daniel's entitled to his opinion. But
we're entitled to our opinions too, and once we've all stated what we
think there isn't much more to say. I don't think any of us are going to
change the others' way of thinking, so what's the point? I formerly
visited a message board that discussed old American movie serials from
the 1930s to the 1950s, but was forced to leave by the nature of the
intercine squabbles that always took place there. Old movies, Duck
comics, and other escapist entertainment are pleasant hobbies, and when
hobbyists gather to discuss their hobby, they don't like getting all hot
and bothered by meaningless debate.
________________________________________________________________
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!
storylines, not his artwork. I love his work on Goofy and enjoy his art
in general, but I do think he makes Mickey and Minnie look a bit too
cranky at times. I know the recent Lizard story wasn't written by him,
but I understood the Phantom Blot story, SHADOWS, and FISHING FOR TROUBLE
from the old Gladstone run were his--in all of these, he makes Mickey
seem like a frustrated loser rather than the good-natured, adventurous
mouse the majority of us know and love.
I'm sort of surprised to hear criticism of William Van Horn, since the
opinions expressed on him in the comic letter columns are almost wholly
favorable. I can understand why some might not like his art, but I love
it--simple, funny, and very cartoony. I like his unpretentious writing
approach and witty dialogue, too--he just seems to write each story for
maximum enjoyment without giving too much thought to past or future
tales, like Barks did with his ten-pagers. The recent "Ain't It the
Truth?" reminded me of an old Dick Van Dyke show episode with its clever
use of flashbacks. None of this is meant as an indictment of Don Rosa's
style, by the way--I appreciate both approaches to Duck storytelling.
Speaking of Rosa, I must agree with Dan Shane's comments to Daniel Van
Eijermen. Rosa is a fan of Barks, as most of us are, and he likes Barks
so much that he uses elements from his stories in his own tales. I would
do the same if I was writing comics, but my interpretation would probably
be different from Rosa's. To treat Don like some kind of a plagiarist for
doing this is very unfair. He should be allowed to post here without
being pestered, as the rest of us are. Just because he's an author
doesn't mean his messages should be treated to intense criticism.
I think this whole "Universe" debate has gone far enough. Daniel Van
Eijermen appears to intensely dislike Rosa's stories and Rosa' use of
Barksian motifs. OK, that's fine, Daniel's entitled to his opinion. But
we're entitled to our opinions too, and once we've all stated what we
think there isn't much more to say. I don't think any of us are going to
change the others' way of thinking, so what's the point? I formerly
visited a message board that discussed old American movie serials from
the 1930s to the 1950s, but was forced to leave by the nature of the
intercine squabbles that always took place there. Old movies, Duck
comics, and other escapist entertainment are pleasant hobbies, and when
hobbyists gather to discuss their hobby, they don't like getting all hot
and bothered by meaningless debate.
________________________________________________________________
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!
Daniel Van Eijmeren
No offense! (OT)
Message 141 -
2004-04-06 at 23:49:50
Just a question, as a short general reply, about the people and friends
who are now personally patting each other on the back:
Is there EVER *someone* here who ever sees how much *I* get offended?
I'm just trying to discuss Disney comics and artists!
What is so wrong about that???
--- Dani?l (has feelings, too!)
who are now personally patting each other on the back:
Is there EVER *someone* here who ever sees how much *I* get offended?
I'm just trying to discuss Disney comics and artists!
What is so wrong about that???
--- Dani?l (has feelings, too!)
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Barks universes / secret Barks letters to Rosa
Message 142 -
2004-04-07 at 00:30:43
KAI SAARTO, 06-04-2004:
> Well, they are PRIVATE letters. Not something either Barks nor Rosa
> meant to viewed by general public. Who would want to show their
> private correspodence to the whole world.
Almost all of the "private" Barks letters, currently published in the
USA, have been printed before 1999. Barks was still alive, then.
A lot of what we know about Barks comes from these private letters.
Already since - at least - the mid-1970s, they have *published* and
studied by many Barks scholars, who didn't have the luxury of contacting
him on internet every day. So, that's why the letters which Barks *did*
write, as long as they survived, have so much meaning for Barks scholars.
But now it seems that this particular Barks scholar gets blamed for even
*mentioning* a few already *known* letters and public publications? And
bashed for just being curious for more of such letters? Don't be so unfair!
I'm just curious what the letters to Rosa (and other artists and fans)
contain, as an addition to these many published letters. That's all.
I NEVER demanded anything.
And, by GOD, I really don't understand what the fuzz is about.
--- Dani?l
"WHEN, oh, WHEN is Unca' Donald going to give up?"
(Which Barks story?) :-)
> Well, they are PRIVATE letters. Not something either Barks nor Rosa
> meant to viewed by general public. Who would want to show their
> private correspodence to the whole world.
Almost all of the "private" Barks letters, currently published in the
USA, have been printed before 1999. Barks was still alive, then.
A lot of what we know about Barks comes from these private letters.
Already since - at least - the mid-1970s, they have *published* and
studied by many Barks scholars, who didn't have the luxury of contacting
him on internet every day. So, that's why the letters which Barks *did*
write, as long as they survived, have so much meaning for Barks scholars.
But now it seems that this particular Barks scholar gets blamed for even
*mentioning* a few already *known* letters and public publications? And
bashed for just being curious for more of such letters? Don't be so unfair!
I'm just curious what the letters to Rosa (and other artists and fans)
contain, as an addition to these many published letters. That's all.
I NEVER demanded anything.
And, by GOD, I really don't understand what the fuzz is about.
--- Dani?l
"WHEN, oh, WHEN is Unca' Donald going to give up?"
(Which Barks story?) :-)
Klartekst
Universes
Message 143 -
2004-04-07 at 01:00:56
The current discussion made me think about how I myself view
the relationship between the Duck Universe and its different
creators. Here is what I came up with:
Duckburg is a real place. A real place inside my head that I
like to visit. The ducks live there. They live there today,
and have been living there for a long time. They don't age,
but that doesn't bother me.
The different editors, writers and artists have a pipeline
to Duckburg, so that they can see what's going on there.
Then they report it to me. Not all of them are equally good
observervers, so not everything they tell me is necessarily
accurate. This is to be expected. People witnessing a bank
robbery may give conflicting statements to the police. But
nearly all of the Duck storytellers add some small piece of
information that enrich my inner picture of this world.
For example, thanks to Don Rosa I now know how Donald tells
his nephews apart. I am grateful for this silly little piece
of information, it's fun to know! And I don't care that Don
in my opinion draws Killmotor Hill all wrong (much too high
and steep), because if I want information about Duckburg
landscape or architecture I can turn to Vicar's drawings.
One last thought about different universes and
inconsistancies: Pick up a current US duck comic book that
contains a new story and a Barks reprint. Are they so
different? I don't think so. Do you think that a reader who
had never read a duck story before would realize that one
was fifty yerars older than the other? No! He or she
probably wouldn't even believe it. Now, is there any other
line of comic books that can boast of such consistancy?
Nils Smeby
the relationship between the Duck Universe and its different
creators. Here is what I came up with:
Duckburg is a real place. A real place inside my head that I
like to visit. The ducks live there. They live there today,
and have been living there for a long time. They don't age,
but that doesn't bother me.
The different editors, writers and artists have a pipeline
to Duckburg, so that they can see what's going on there.
Then they report it to me. Not all of them are equally good
observervers, so not everything they tell me is necessarily
accurate. This is to be expected. People witnessing a bank
robbery may give conflicting statements to the police. But
nearly all of the Duck storytellers add some small piece of
information that enrich my inner picture of this world.
For example, thanks to Don Rosa I now know how Donald tells
his nephews apart. I am grateful for this silly little piece
of information, it's fun to know! And I don't care that Don
in my opinion draws Killmotor Hill all wrong (much too high
and steep), because if I want information about Duckburg
landscape or architecture I can turn to Vicar's drawings.
One last thought about different universes and
inconsistancies: Pick up a current US duck comic book that
contains a new story and a Barks reprint. Are they so
different? I don't think so. Do you think that a reader who
had never read a duck story before would realize that one
was fifty yerars older than the other? No! He or she
probably wouldn't even believe it. Now, is there any other
line of comic books that can boast of such consistancy?
Nils Smeby
Lars Jensen
Donald's uncle Ludwig
Message 144 -
2004-04-07 at 01:09:57
I wrote:
> In the context of Don Rosa's Duck Universe, however, you're right: It
> is a very logical (and very good) idea to have Ludwig be married to
> Scrooge's sister.
Matthew Williams responded:
> I don't like the idea of [Matilda] and Ludwig marrying, even though it
> follows some degree of logic. Although this marriage works on a
> family tree, acknowledging the marriage forces me to take two huge
> leaps:
>
> 1. Ludwig is a married duck.
> 2. Ludwig is romantically involved with [Matilda].
>
> I love Ludwig, and I love [Matilda], but don't you think their life
> together would be miserable?
And then Daniel J. Neyer wrote:
> [Ludwig Von Drake] stated in one of his cartoon appearances ("Kids is
> Kids") that he was a bachelor.
Note that I wrote: "In the context of Don Rosa's Duck Universe". In more
than one case, if you put Don's ideas next to "accepted" Duck lore,
there will be puzzling situations. Scrooge has been used in comics since
1947 -- and suddenly, in 2004, his sister Hortense (never before seen in
current continuity) is shown to be alive and well. Why haven't we seen
her in earlier stories? In American and Danish material Donald Duck
mostly hasn't been used with José Carioca and Panchito Pistoles since
the mid-1940s -- and suddenly the three are supposed to be best friends?
Huey, Dewey and Louie have been appearing with other Junior Woodchucks
since the early 1950s -- and suddenly we're told they are directly
related to the founder of the 'Chucks? Why hasn't anybody ever commented
on this in previous Duck stories?
The answer is, of course, that these "facts" didn't exist before Don
Rosa made them up. Several of Don's ideas are not so much "explanations"
of past riddles, as retcons. Hortense *didn't* exist in current-day
continuity before 2004; she does now. Donald, José and Panchito
*weren't* best of friends before Don's "Three Caballeros" story; they
are now. And HDL didn't *use* to be related to the JW founder; they are
now.
I'm not going to try to speak on Don's behalf, but it seems to me like
he's not as much trying to make every "fact" ever presented everywhere
fit into a consistent "reality", as much as create a "reality" that will
hopefully let a lot of established "facts" fit in. Most Barks stories
fit in; Ludwig's remark from "Kids is Kids" about being a bachelor does
not.
The question is, of course, what you the reader prefer: A
hopefully-consistant Rosa "reality" where "Kids is Kids" (and presumably
lots of other material) are ignored? Or a not-very-defined "reality"
where all "facts" are equally valid? Or perhaps some intermediate phase?
(For instance: All facts are valid, except that the creator of the
concept is always right. Which, amongst other things, means that Ludwig
is a bachelor.)
Anyway, if you dislike the idea of retcons, or Don's ideas in general,
then simply disregard his stories. Egmont produces thousands of pages
each year that never once mention Hortense, Ludwig, José, Panchito or
the nephews' possible relationship to the founder of the Woodchucks.
Regard Don's ideas as exclusive to his stories alone.
Oh, and I think anybody who lived with Ludwig would have to put up with
a lot.
Lars
> In the context of Don Rosa's Duck Universe, however, you're right: It
> is a very logical (and very good) idea to have Ludwig be married to
> Scrooge's sister.
Matthew Williams responded:
> I don't like the idea of [Matilda] and Ludwig marrying, even though it
> follows some degree of logic. Although this marriage works on a
> family tree, acknowledging the marriage forces me to take two huge
> leaps:
>
> 1. Ludwig is a married duck.
> 2. Ludwig is romantically involved with [Matilda].
>
> I love Ludwig, and I love [Matilda], but don't you think their life
> together would be miserable?
And then Daniel J. Neyer wrote:
> [Ludwig Von Drake] stated in one of his cartoon appearances ("Kids is
> Kids") that he was a bachelor.
Note that I wrote: "In the context of Don Rosa's Duck Universe". In more
than one case, if you put Don's ideas next to "accepted" Duck lore,
there will be puzzling situations. Scrooge has been used in comics since
1947 -- and suddenly, in 2004, his sister Hortense (never before seen in
current continuity) is shown to be alive and well. Why haven't we seen
her in earlier stories? In American and Danish material Donald Duck
mostly hasn't been used with José Carioca and Panchito Pistoles since
the mid-1940s -- and suddenly the three are supposed to be best friends?
Huey, Dewey and Louie have been appearing with other Junior Woodchucks
since the early 1950s -- and suddenly we're told they are directly
related to the founder of the 'Chucks? Why hasn't anybody ever commented
on this in previous Duck stories?
The answer is, of course, that these "facts" didn't exist before Don
Rosa made them up. Several of Don's ideas are not so much "explanations"
of past riddles, as retcons. Hortense *didn't* exist in current-day
continuity before 2004; she does now. Donald, José and Panchito
*weren't* best of friends before Don's "Three Caballeros" story; they
are now. And HDL didn't *use* to be related to the JW founder; they are
now.
I'm not going to try to speak on Don's behalf, but it seems to me like
he's not as much trying to make every "fact" ever presented everywhere
fit into a consistent "reality", as much as create a "reality" that will
hopefully let a lot of established "facts" fit in. Most Barks stories
fit in; Ludwig's remark from "Kids is Kids" about being a bachelor does
not.
The question is, of course, what you the reader prefer: A
hopefully-consistant Rosa "reality" where "Kids is Kids" (and presumably
lots of other material) are ignored? Or a not-very-defined "reality"
where all "facts" are equally valid? Or perhaps some intermediate phase?
(For instance: All facts are valid, except that the creator of the
concept is always right. Which, amongst other things, means that Ludwig
is a bachelor.)
Anyway, if you dislike the idea of retcons, or Don's ideas in general,
then simply disregard his stories. Egmont produces thousands of pages
each year that never once mention Hortense, Ludwig, José, Panchito or
the nephews' possible relationship to the founder of the Woodchucks.
Regard Don's ideas as exclusive to his stories alone.
Oh, and I think anybody who lived with Ludwig would have to put up with
a lot.
Lars
Lars Jensen
Duck Tales (was Rosa's Universe)
Message 145 -
2004-04-07 at 01:11:20
Daniel J. Neyer wrote:
> DUCKTALES was unpopular because they changed the Duck Family
> dynamic, replaced Donald with Launchpad, made the Nephews Scrooge's
> adopted kids, introduced Webby and Mrs. Beakley, and completely
> changed the personality and appearance of the Beagle Boys.
"Duck Tales" was unpopular? It ran for 100 episodes and a theatrical
feature. Or did you mean it was unpopular with comic book fans?
Anyway, Donald wasn't "replaced" with Launchpad -- in my opinion, they
have two very different roles in the duckiverse. And the other changes I
can live with, too. Don't like the Nephews living with Scrooge? Pretend
it was only temporary. Don't like Webby and Mrs Beakley? After the
theatrical feature, Mrs Beakley was caught stealing housekeeping money
and had to vacate her position. Webby was moved to foster parents in
Kuala Lumpur. Don't like the "Duck Tales" Beagle Boys? There are a lot
of "alternative" Beagles in the regular comic books, such as Cousin Zero
and Supersensitive-666 (later renamed Supersensitive-176). Pretend the
"Duck Tales" characters are merely relatives of the "standard Beagles"
seen in Barks' stories.
See? You don't have to feel Barks was violated, as long as you're
willing to accept explanations such as these...
Lars
> DUCKTALES was unpopular because they changed the Duck Family
> dynamic, replaced Donald with Launchpad, made the Nephews Scrooge's
> adopted kids, introduced Webby and Mrs. Beakley, and completely
> changed the personality and appearance of the Beagle Boys.
"Duck Tales" was unpopular? It ran for 100 episodes and a theatrical
feature. Or did you mean it was unpopular with comic book fans?
Anyway, Donald wasn't "replaced" with Launchpad -- in my opinion, they
have two very different roles in the duckiverse. And the other changes I
can live with, too. Don't like the Nephews living with Scrooge? Pretend
it was only temporary. Don't like Webby and Mrs Beakley? After the
theatrical feature, Mrs Beakley was caught stealing housekeeping money
and had to vacate her position. Webby was moved to foster parents in
Kuala Lumpur. Don't like the "Duck Tales" Beagle Boys? There are a lot
of "alternative" Beagles in the regular comic books, such as Cousin Zero
and Supersensitive-666 (later renamed Supersensitive-176). Pretend the
"Duck Tales" characters are merely relatives of the "standard Beagles"
seen in Barks' stories.
See? You don't have to feel Barks was violated, as long as you're
willing to accept explanations such as these...
Lars
Lars Jensen
Mickey Mouse
Message 146 -
2004-04-07 at 01:12:19
Katie Sullivan wrote:
> I rarely read Mickey stories at all. I simply have never found him as
> interesting as my ducks.
You should give the Mouse another try. There are actually some pretty
good stories being produced these days. However, don't expect to get the
kind of continuity you get in a Rosa story, if that's what you're
seeking.
Daniel J. Neyer wrote:
> Worst of all are the new Mickey Mouse stories. Except for the
> above-mentioned Erickson tales, Gemstone has not printed a worthwhile
> Mouse adventure yet. I would almost rather see them stop printing
> Mickey stories than carry on with their current stuff. Since the
> two-fisted, adventurous Mouse seems to have no place in the current
> non-violent comics world [...]
A quick look at Inducks tells me there are *lots* of very good
"two-fisted, adventurous Mickey" stories from Egmont, similar to Byron's
material, that have yet to be published in the US.
Lars
> I rarely read Mickey stories at all. I simply have never found him as
> interesting as my ducks.
You should give the Mouse another try. There are actually some pretty
good stories being produced these days. However, don't expect to get the
kind of continuity you get in a Rosa story, if that's what you're
seeking.
Daniel J. Neyer wrote:
> Worst of all are the new Mickey Mouse stories. Except for the
> above-mentioned Erickson tales, Gemstone has not printed a worthwhile
> Mouse adventure yet. I would almost rather see them stop printing
> Mickey stories than carry on with their current stuff. Since the
> two-fisted, adventurous Mouse seems to have no place in the current
> non-violent comics world [...]
A quick look at Inducks tells me there are *lots* of very good
"two-fisted, adventurous Mickey" stories from Egmont, similar to Byron's
material, that have yet to be published in the US.
Lars
Lars Jensen
More Disney Cine-Manga from Tokyopop
Message 147 -
2004-04-07 at 01:12:44
http://www.comicon.com/cgi-bin/pulse.cgi?http%3A//www.comicon.com/cgi-bi
n/ultimatebb.cgi%3Fubb%3Dget_topic%26f%3D37%26t%3D002335
Lars
n/ultimatebb.cgi%3Fubb%3Dget_topic%26f%3D37%26t%3D002335
Lars
Lars Jensen
Tintin (OT)
Message 148 -
2004-04-07 at 01:13:56
Shad Z. wrote:
> You do know that eventually the copyrights on the Tin Tin and Asterix
> stories will expire, and the characters will be in the public domain,
> and anyone will be able to do Tin Tin and Asterix stories, no matter
> what Hergé and Uderzo (and their heirs) said?
>
> Of course, these new storries will be unofficial and unauthorised, so
> Hergé and Uderzo probably don't care (from their graves). They just
> didn't want any new "authorized" stories, I bet...
I don't know Uderzo's attitude on this in detail, but Hergé certainly
*will* care (from the aforementioned grave). Go see the documentary
"Tintin et moi". That movie makes it very clear why nobody but Hergé
should make Tintin stories.
Lars
> You do know that eventually the copyrights on the Tin Tin and Asterix
> stories will expire, and the characters will be in the public domain,
> and anyone will be able to do Tin Tin and Asterix stories, no matter
> what Hergé and Uderzo (and their heirs) said?
>
> Of course, these new storries will be unofficial and unauthorised, so
> Hergé and Uderzo probably don't care (from their graves). They just
> didn't want any new "authorized" stories, I bet...
I don't know Uderzo's attitude on this in detail, but Hergé certainly
*will* care (from the aforementioned grave). Go see the documentary
"Tintin et moi". That movie makes it very clear why nobody but Hergé
should make Tintin stories.
Lars
Dyer, Sonia
No Offense!
Message 149 -
2004-04-07 at 02:40:02
Daniel van E wrote:
>Is there EVER *someone* here who ever sees how much *I* get offended?
>
>I'm just trying to discuss Disney comics and artists!
>What is so wrong about that???
>
>--- Dani?l (has feelings, too!)
Hello Daniel-
I don't think any one on this ML has been trying to intentionally hurt your feelings, although it may not feel that way to you. But every community has boundaries, and people have been trying to explain when they believe a boundary has been crossed.
Everyone makes mistakes, including me. Try to look on it as an educational opportunity - if they didn't think you were smart enough to learn from your mistakes, they wouldn't waste their time trying to explain it to you. Cheer up, learn, and grow better every day!
Sonia
>Is there EVER *someone* here who ever sees how much *I* get offended?
>
>I'm just trying to discuss Disney comics and artists!
>What is so wrong about that???
>
>--- Dani?l (has feelings, too!)
Hello Daniel-
I don't think any one on this ML has been trying to intentionally hurt your feelings, although it may not feel that way to you. But every community has boundaries, and people have been trying to explain when they believe a boundary has been crossed.
Everyone makes mistakes, including me. Try to look on it as an educational opportunity - if they didn't think you were smart enough to learn from your mistakes, they wouldn't waste their time trying to explain it to you. Cheer up, learn, and grow better every day!
Sonia
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Barks's November 31, 1990 letter to Rosa
Message 150 -
2004-04-07 at 03:21:29
The date of of Barks's letter is November 3, 1990.
Instead of "November 31 1990". (Typical OCR-error.)
--- Dani?l
Instead of "November 31 1990". (Typical OCR-error.)
--- Dani?l