Keskustelujen arkisto

From DCML digest, vol 14, issue 4:

> Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 00:30:01 +0200
> From: "Anders Christian Siveb?k " <anders_sivebaek at nns.dk>
> Subject: 11B

and

> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 21:33:36 +0200
> From: "Klartekst" <info at klartekst.no>

AC, Niels Smeby... Your computer clocks need to be adjusted. Just so you
know.

Lars

"Glittering" Katie Sullivan wrote:

> What I love about Barks and Rosa stories is that I feel like I *am* in
> those places, at those times. Lesser creators may send characters to
> some random, fictional jungle that could be anywhere from Africa to
> Mexico to the Disney backlot in Burbank. There's just this generic,
> "fake" feel to it. Barks and Rosa don't do that, and that's what
> makes them my favorite comic book creators. They thread authentic
> visual and linguistic detail into the stories to make the places seem
> real. They don't insult my intelligence by creating silly, cheesy
> settings that have no context. They even *gasp* do research!
> I like reading about real places, even seen through the lens of a
> world with talking ducks! Things like that help me connect with the
> story and the characters.

Sorry, but you're being a little vague here. Let's ignore stories set in
Duckburg and surroundings, since those (fictional) places are by now
integral parts of the Duck stories and couldn't be replaced by
real-world settings, even if we wanted to. And we won't talk about
fantastical places, such as Tralla La, which would have to be
fictitious, no matter what.

Sometimes writers create stories set in real-world-like places. Are you
saying you would prefer these settings to actually *be* real-world, such
as Australia, rather than fictional variations thereof, such as, uh,
Kangaroonia? And that using Australia would be an indication that the
writer has put some attempt into it, rather than merely coming up with
Kangaroonia where (s)he wouldn't have to spend time doing research?

And how does everybody else feel?

Lars

Lars writes:

> Sometimes writers create stories set in real-world-like places. Are you
> saying you would prefer these settings to actually *be* real-world, such
> as Australia, rather than fictional variations thereof, such as, uh,
> Kangaroonia? And that using Australia would be an indication that the
> writer has put some attempt into it, rather than merely coming up with
> Kangaroonia where (s)he wouldn't have to spend time doing research?
>
> And how does everybody else feel?
>
Hmmm. At times I've done a great deal of background research into stories.
And I think using real locations and legends/customs associated with those
locations can be a lot of fun for both the readers and creators. However, I think
it would be a mistake to dismiss the use of fictional locations--whether
they're based on something in the real world or entirely made up.

In The Amazon Queen--which I wrote about 1,000 years ago--Bill Van Horn and I
set the story on the Amazon River (very much from the real world.) The native
tribes that were shown in the story had fictional names (because the
fictional ones were funnier than the real ones), but their appearances were based on
some real natives. (Or at least that's the way I remember it. I know Bill
consulted copies of the National Geographic before he drew it.

Likewise, the key gimmicks in the story (a frog-shaped artifact and a tribe
of women warriors) was very, very loosely based on an actual legends and
artifacts associated with the Amazon River. The duck's final destination on the
Amazon was going to be a real city, but Bill thought it'd be funnier to come up
with a silly name instead. So, instead of Belem it became Mucho Losto.

To give one more example, years later I wrote a story which needed to be set
in small country where everyone was incredibly rich. There wasn't a real world
counterpart that fit the bill so I came up with Upper Crustovia.

I'm certainly not arguing against the use of real world locations and
legends. And I'm sure that some creators just get lazy and it's easier to come up
with a fictional place than use a real one. But sometimes fictional locations
with fictional customs can be critical to making the story work. Or they can be
funnier than their real world counterparts.

Best Wishes,
John Lustig
Sign up for free weekly cartoons at www.Lastkisscomics.com

Ludwig is Donald's uncle; this is well documented. And Lars, I would say
that you're almost certainly right that Ludwig's creators had little
knowledge or interest in Scrooge. Still, I don't like the idea of Hortense
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 Hortense.

I love Ludwig, and I love Hortense, but don't you think their life together
would be miserable? I certainly wouldn't wish it on Hortense. Hortense
would certainly get the short end of the stick in that relationship. Ludwig
is a raging egomaniac and is so absent-minded. Poor Hortense would never
receive a decent anniversary gift. And what about when Ludwig moved in his
little Bootle Beetle friend Herman?

Matt

In a message dated 4/3/2004 8:59:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,
kingofduckburg at apptechnc.net writes:
<<I don't think ol' Sherlock's going to crack too many new cases.
Compare how many duck stories have been created in the last five years to
the number of new Arthur, Sherlock, Robin Hood, etc. stories that have been
created during the last ten years. Do you see my point?>>

If you're talking usa comic books, sure.
but if you;re talking books, i would guess about about 12-20 books a year
on King Arthur
(a librarian i asked, guesses only about 6 new books a year).
Not too much a Holmes fan, but i would guess about 2 a year> (latest is
holmes and lovecraft), even OZ books at least one a year (alot more during the
recent anniversary - and i recall one year with about three different oz comic
book series)

> From: "Matthew Williams" <kingofduckburg at apptechnc.net>
> Subject: Rosa's own li'l Universe
> Mr. Rosa, you like to think of DuckTales as an unauthorized version of the
> duck world. How does your discontent here fit with your assertion that you
> can have your own universe?

If you'll check back, you'll see that I did not first start to claim that I
"had my own little universe" until trying to deal with the displeasure
expressed by a few who are greatly disturbed by what I called "my view" of
the universe. I try to alleviate their displeasure to give them a clear
reason to just ignore my stories, that they should just consider I'm over in
a wrong "universe" altogether, one completely "my own". Normally to tell
someone they are "in their own lil' universe" is an insult, so I was willing
offering myself to be branded as such. But every tact I take always
displeases at least one person, there's no avoiding that. If that
terminology displeases you, then I'll switch it back to saying "my personal
view of this Universe". Is that better?

> I hate the idea that every event
> in Scrooge's life happened during a specific, real year. I'm willing to
> accept that the ducks never aged beyond the age they were when they made
> their first appearance; it's a ridiculous, absurd notion, but it follows
> very precedented cartoon logic. This business about all of the stories
> taking place in the fifties drives me bonkers, though.
> The idea that Scrooge died in 1967 gives me shivers!

Okay, this is fun... I love hashing this stuff over. I think I can alleviate
your displeasure here as well. (Bored parties can skip ahead past my massive
blocks of text! No apologies needed!)

The nailing down of specific years that I think you refer to... things like
saying that $crooge died in 1967, Donald was born in 1920, $crooge moved to
Duckburg in 1902, etc., etc., I could go on and on... and that my stories
take place in some hodgepodge of the 1950's... think back to exactly where
you've seen these dates mentioned.
Never in one of my stories.
You see them mentioned or shown by fans on small fansites (I have no website
so I have never posted them publicly). You see them mentioned by me
sometimes in texts that publishers ask me to write for special editions to
explain how I construct a storyline. You see them placed on covers and in
articles by the publishers themselves, never at my direction (as if I had
any control or even ever knew what they planned).
In my actual stories, the view of my work that 99.999999% of the readers
see, all those outside of the tiny fan groups on the Internet, I have never
stated that the "current year" is in the 1950's. I sometimes give tiny,
hidden clues, but I never say it outright. Why would I want to totally
confuse 99.999999% of the readers of a story with such an inconsequential
detail? And surely the editors would never allow such a comment to be in a
story even if I lost my mind and said I wanted it to be. I reserve that for
my private notes and for fun discussions among the small community of comics
"scholars" and fans. What they do with that information, accept it, reject
it, hide it, spread it, that's up to them. But you do not see such dating IN
my stories. The same applies to all these birthdates, deathdates, etc. (That
deathdate is particularly annoying... I assume you know that came from a
illustration I did about 15 years ago for a German fanzine where a number of
cartoonists were asked to illustrate the line "Hey, Daisy! Whatever happened
to Scrooge?" My turn at the line was to have it refer to the future tense of
my stories [as some of these fans were aware take place in the past] and
have Donald asking about $crooge's death. But I never suspected that this
one cartoon would be lifted out of this magazine humor feature from all the
other cartoons, without anyone's permission, and posted all over the
Internet out-of-context of the original feature.)
So what years and dates does that leave? The years that my "Life of $crooge"
chapters take place? Again, if you'll check my stories *themselves*, years
are never mentioned. Historic events are mentioned and older readers might
be aware of when these events took place, and know what years I imply. But
my story script never names exact years. I leave that to be interpreted by
the readers, just as so many people right here say they wish it to be done.
But there *was* a comics writer/artists who *would* name precise years that
events in $crooge's life took place. He stated that $crooge was in the Yukon
Gold Rush in 1898... that he was in the cattle wars on the old frontier in
1882... on a riverboat on the Mississippi in 1880... bought a coat in
Scotland in 1902... bought a top hat in 1910. I guess you know whom I refer
to, eh? And yet, even though Carl Barks would name these exact years in
$crooge's life, I still never used them in my scripts so that, regardless of
the texts read in deluxe editions, or discussions in obscure Internet
newsgroups, the general readership of the comics *never sees* any of these
years named in the actual stories as published in the newsstand comics.
As for nailing down "facts"... I'm not sure how to avoid this. It seems like
Barks nailed down the facts of $crooge's history 50 years before I expounded
on them at the publisher's request. Perhaps you mean the "untold tales" and
"origin tales"? Well, again, you'll need to *first* talk to the editors who
ask me to do those, and then I'll answer for my being happy to take their
orders.
Now, no, I won't change Barks' original version. I wouldn't write a story
that changes $crooge's history to say that he was never in the Yukon Gold
Rush. Neither will I do a story that starts claiming that the Yukon Gold
Rush took place in 1958 rather than 1898. And I also won't say that $crooge
is an immortal being. No... I simply don't spell out the years. In my
stories I leave that to the reader to do in his own mind. And how else could
I do all this in such a way to satisfy as many people as possible? I let the
reader decide for himself if the stories are taking place in the past or
that the characters are immortal or caught in a time warp. Even in my newer
"Life of $crooge" stories -- sure, I have $crooge meet Teddy Roosevelt in
Panama to dig the Canal... but you never see the dialogue "Hey, Teddy, how
are you this nice day in 1906?" I leave it to the older reader to decide
when the story is taking place, and the younger reader not to be bothered by
an unimportant detail.
(Now, it's been suggested by one person that I should never write these
articles about my stories, I should never answer fans' questions, I should
never publicly say things that would influence the other comics fans in ways
that disagrees with his personal view of how he likes these comics to be
regarded. Well, sorry, I am a fan, too, and entitled to my opinion,
*especially* as it regards my own work.)
So.... I am not tampering with Barks' original dates and stories of
$crooge's past life. And I am also not inserting dates into the stories
myself. Here's an example I want you to check. In Barks' "North of the
Yukon" he showed a wall calendar with the year "1897" (I think... anyway, it
was a specific year). In a chapter of my "Life of $crooge" it became
necessary to show a flashback of that scene, and I knew it would please fans
if I copied that exact Barks panel. But take a look -- page one of my
chapter 9 -- I had a balloon conveniently cover that calendar date. I was
going *out of my way* to hide specific dates rather than nail them down as
you seem to think.
Now, I'll bet someone can find some instance where I have put a date into
the art in a story. If it was halfway obvious, it was back in my earliest
stories, in 1987-88, when I did lots (!) of things differently. And I still
sometimes hide very itty-bitty dates on newspapers in current stories for
the devout fans with sharp eyes to spot. But I *never* insert dates into my
scripts. If I have slipped up and done so, somebody tell me where, and I'll
try to see that the dates are removed from any reprinting of the story that
I hear about.
But you tell me: how would you have me do it differently? Assuming you know
that I won't alter Barksian facts or years, and I won't stop writing "Life
of $crooge" episodes ... what more can I do to please as many fans as
possible? Of course, I've learned years ago, that no matter WHAT I do, no
matter what *anybody* does, you'll never please everyone! But I'm open to
your suggestions...

> I initially enjoyed
> "Hearts of the Yukon" and Rosa's more recent references to Goldie in "The
> Coin and "The Beagle Boys Vs. the Money Bin," but I think these
> revisionist
> approaches to Barks' work have an ultimate, cumulative
> demystifying effect.
> The Goldie plot becomes a lot more ordinary and familiar.

I agree with you here! But I *love* the character of Goldie and her
relationship to $crooge and vice-versa, and it's too precious to leave alone
totally. I can't resist it (and you should see the fanmail that I get that
*adore* my Goldie stories!)
But you'll note that I have *always* refused to tell a story that has
$crooge and Goldie *directly interacting* in the Yukon days. I feel that no
further story should ever be told that shows an instant of contact that they
had other than what is told of in Barks original "Back to the Klondike".
Someday I'll tell the story of how much I loved that story growing up, and
then the PROFOUND effect finding the "lost flashback sequence" had on me.
Why... I've often considered that that one experience shaped my entire
philosophy of what I love most about Barks' $crooge! But I don't expect you
to be satisfied by that explanation as it's still rather lame -- and I warn
you that I am constantly accosted by requests from fans (!) and publishers
to do another $crooge/Goldie Yukon story. Here's a warning: the only way I
will allow myself to tell a story of $crooge and Goldie *during* the Yukon
is to expound on a meeting that Barks already described, but not to add any
additional Yukon adventures. This means that I might do a story involving
the month when $crooge kidnapped Goldie to White Agony Creek. That will be a
very tricky but very fun story to tell... and yet I'm postponing it because
I know that will have to be the ONLY time I can ever do a $crooge/Goldie
Yukon adventure. I don't wanna use it up so soon. I planned to do it for
Goldie's 50th anniversary (since "Back to the Klondike" appeared), but I
allowed that to come and go in 2003 and I decided I wasn't ready yet. But
it's coming someday and I'm sorry if you won't enjoy it, so... I hope you'll
skip it and go to the next story in the issue rather than be displeased.

> Additionally, while Rosa is often self-deprecating about his work, he can
be
> quite biting and caustic in his postings. For goodness sake, Mr. Rosa!
Chris
> Hilbig was arguing that you are a great writer! Did you have to correct
his spelling
> and definition of prima donna

What the...? You interpreted that as nasty?! Why would I insult someone who
was complimenting me?! But he was misusing an English word that I guess he
was not totally familiar with, and how can I help him verify the definition
of the word in a dictionary unless I show him how it's correctly spelled?

> I will stop running my mouth here. Thank you for trudging with
> me this far!
> I hope I haven't alienated anyone, and I look forward to hearing more of
> this fascinating debate.

I'll second all of that! I love talking about this stuff! Thanks!

I also can't really see Ludwig as a married man (or duck), especially
since he stated in one of his cartoon appearances ("Kids is Kids") that
he was a bachelor. Here's my solution to the problem: Rosa has given
Donald's grandfather the name Humperdink--obviously Germanic in origin.
What if Humperdink's parents moved over from Austria with their son and
Americanized their name from the German "Von Drake" to the American
"Duck?" And what if their other son, Ludwig, elected to stay in Austria
(maybe to study at the University of Vienna or something) and kept the
Old World family name? Making Ludwig Humperdink's brother would make
Ludwig Donald's great-uncle, not uncle, but that actually makes him Don's
blood relation, which he wouldn't be if he married Matilda. This would
also make Ludwig a generation older than Scrooge, but it's hard to tell
just how old these professor types are. And besides, Grandma is still
around, so why not her "brother-in-law", Ludwig?

________________________________________________________________
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!