D van E WRITES:
> Indeed. All that's really important is that the comics are
> made by Disney, just like Windows is created by Microsoft,
> and E.T. by Steven Spielberg, etc.
>
> Only few people care for credits when consuming products of
> big companies.
> Have many people do carefully read the credits after a movie
> is over? How many people do carefully read the detailed
> credits of a software programme?
AND I REPLY:
That is all of importance to some, perhaps, but not to all. And by your analogy Steven Spielberg did not make E.T. Universal Pictures did. Universal did the special effects, wrote the screenplay, directed the actors, and wrote the score. While film credits have become self-defeatingly endless since the early 1970s, there was a time when a half dozen title cards displayed the department heads mainly responsible for making movies, and that was mostly good enough. I agree there are probably no individuals outside of family members who care who held the director's hat while he was mopping his brow, but can you really claim that no one ever cared who Ray harryhausen was, even though he never directed a major motion picture in his life?
Software is a completely different animal from visual entertainment except in the arena of video games. And even there many titles are sought out specifically by the name of the author.
DANIEL CONTINUES:
> That's the risk of working and creating under an existant
> company, using its product lines and marketing strategies.
> Barks is credited for creating Scrooge, but he NEVER had to
> PROMOTE Scrooge. That's what Disney did. Barks created
> Scrooge, but DISNEY made Scrooge popular.
Now I'm beginning to get your dirft. You seem to be looking at it from a marketing standpoint rather than from the creators' or readers' view. I learned a long time ago it is useless to try to get a marketeer to understand how the real world works.
> There are even ADULTS who tend to think that Donald Duck and
> Mickey Mouse are actual living creatures, copmplete with
> life-story, family tree and traumas.
Really? I've never met one who thought they were anything but realistic characters. Could you introduce me to someone who believes these critters are real people?
> Full credits placed on every *other* children's book ever
> published? This is not true.
Not literally, no. Disney Little Golden Books often followed the Disney comics model. But you have chosen to interpret hyperbole literally. The rest of us probably understood what Don meant.
Dan
Author
Topic: 200406
(144 messages)
Danshane
DCML Digest, Vol 16, Issue 15
Message 61 -
2004-06-14 at 21:06:03
Kintoun
More on prices
Message 62 -
2004-06-14 at 21:23:16
I was surprised to hear this as well. Here's some more text from Wizard Special: The Beginning of the VALIANT Era which supports Dell's very profitable status in the 40s at least.
----------------------------------------------------
Then, in 1938, Dell hired a company then known as Western Printing & Lithography to package and print all-new comics for the Dell line. Western did have some previous experience with comics. In 1935, it began publishing Mickey Mouse Magazine. Although this promotional publication was in a magazine format, it did contain some newspaper strip reprints.
After moderate success with new material published first in comics format, Dell pioneered another area that has become familiar territory in comic book circles, that of licensing outside properties. The publisher struck a deal with Walt Disney Studios, and in 1940, the first issue of Walt Disney's Comics and Stories hit the newsstands. By the mid-1940s, Comics and Stories was selling in excess of one million copies per issue, and Dell quickly followed this success with other Disney titles. Western provided the material and printed all of these comics for Dell.
Licensing was enormously profitable for Dell, and the company soon exploited the concept to its fullest potential, by starting an anthology of licensed projects in 1941. Dell's Four Color Comics, in addition to the proven Walt Disney characters, included issues featuring characters from radio, television, movies, and other animation studios, notably Walter Lantz (Woody Woodpecker), King Features (Popeye), and Warner Brothers (Bugs Bunny). Along with Walt Disney's Comics and Stories, Four Color became a flagship of the Dell line, eventually lasting for over 1,300 weekly issues.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kintoun
In a message dated 6/14/2004 1:11:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bangfish at cableone.net writes:
>Dell was in serious financial straits by the late 1950s
what's your source for this? Not saying that you're wrong, but it goes against conventional wisdom. My understanding is that Dell was still the number one selling comic publisher in the late 1950s (source: interview with Irwin Donenfeld, publisher of DC comics), and one of the leading publishers of magazines and paperbacks in the late 1950s. (source was advance look at summary of an article in an upcoming or recently out Alter-Ego quoting various newsources from the late 50s, when Dell broke away from distributor ANC to do their own inhouse distribution, thus leading to the collapse of ANC as a distributor.
steven rowe
----------------------------------------------------
Then, in 1938, Dell hired a company then known as Western Printing & Lithography to package and print all-new comics for the Dell line. Western did have some previous experience with comics. In 1935, it began publishing Mickey Mouse Magazine. Although this promotional publication was in a magazine format, it did contain some newspaper strip reprints.
After moderate success with new material published first in comics format, Dell pioneered another area that has become familiar territory in comic book circles, that of licensing outside properties. The publisher struck a deal with Walt Disney Studios, and in 1940, the first issue of Walt Disney's Comics and Stories hit the newsstands. By the mid-1940s, Comics and Stories was selling in excess of one million copies per issue, and Dell quickly followed this success with other Disney titles. Western provided the material and printed all of these comics for Dell.
Licensing was enormously profitable for Dell, and the company soon exploited the concept to its fullest potential, by starting an anthology of licensed projects in 1941. Dell's Four Color Comics, in addition to the proven Walt Disney characters, included issues featuring characters from radio, television, movies, and other animation studios, notably Walter Lantz (Woody Woodpecker), King Features (Popeye), and Warner Brothers (Bugs Bunny). Along with Walt Disney's Comics and Stories, Four Color became a flagship of the Dell line, eventually lasting for over 1,300 weekly issues.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kintoun
In a message dated 6/14/2004 1:11:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bangfish at cableone.net writes:
>Dell was in serious financial straits by the late 1950s
what's your source for this? Not saying that you're wrong, but it goes against conventional wisdom. My understanding is that Dell was still the number one selling comic publisher in the late 1950s (source: interview with Irwin Donenfeld, publisher of DC comics), and one of the leading publishers of magazines and paperbacks in the late 1950s. (source was advance look at summary of an article in an upcoming or recently out Alter-Ego quoting various newsources from the late 50s, when Dell broke away from distributor ANC to do their own inhouse distribution, thus leading to the collapse of ANC as a distributor.
steven rowe
Gary Leach
More on More about prices
Message 63 -
2004-06-14 at 22:15:52
Steven:
> >Dell was in serious financial straits by the late 1950s
>
> what's your source for this?? Not saying that you're wrong, but it
> goes against conventional wisdom.? My understanding is that Dell was
> still the number one selling comic publisher in the late 1950s
> (source: interview with Irwin Donenfeld, publisher of DC comics), and
> one of the leading publishers of magazines and paperbacks in the late
> 1950s.? (source was advance look at summary of an article in an
> upcoming or recently out Alter-Ego quoting various newsources from the
> late 50s, when Dell broke away from distributor ANC to do their own
> inhouse distribution, thus leading to the collapse of ANC as a
> distributor.
Dell was not the number one comic book publisher in the late 1950s
because Dell did not publish comics - they distributed them. KK
Publications was the publisher of the titles in question, Western, a
division of KK, was the printer, and Dell was the contracted
distributor.
This confusion has persisted because the Dell imprint is right there,
bold and beautiful, on the KK Publications comics of that era (and
earlier). This is not unusual, as distributors - the mass market
variety - usually have their logos, in some form, on the covers of the
periodicals they distribute. However, publishers usually are very keen
to have their identity represented on the covers as well. Exactly why
KK gave that a pass is not entirely clear, though the truth is to be
found in the indicia. Be that as it may, this has left the distinct
impression that Dell was the publisher - an impression that even Irwin
Donenfeld might have acquired, and if so, would have had little reason
to question.
Gary
> >Dell was in serious financial straits by the late 1950s
>
> what's your source for this?? Not saying that you're wrong, but it
> goes against conventional wisdom.? My understanding is that Dell was
> still the number one selling comic publisher in the late 1950s
> (source: interview with Irwin Donenfeld, publisher of DC comics), and
> one of the leading publishers of magazines and paperbacks in the late
> 1950s.? (source was advance look at summary of an article in an
> upcoming or recently out Alter-Ego quoting various newsources from the
> late 50s, when Dell broke away from distributor ANC to do their own
> inhouse distribution, thus leading to the collapse of ANC as a
> distributor.
Dell was not the number one comic book publisher in the late 1950s
because Dell did not publish comics - they distributed them. KK
Publications was the publisher of the titles in question, Western, a
division of KK, was the printer, and Dell was the contracted
distributor.
This confusion has persisted because the Dell imprint is right there,
bold and beautiful, on the KK Publications comics of that era (and
earlier). This is not unusual, as distributors - the mass market
variety - usually have their logos, in some form, on the covers of the
periodicals they distribute. However, publishers usually are very keen
to have their identity represented on the covers as well. Exactly why
KK gave that a pass is not entirely clear, though the truth is to be
found in the indicia. Be that as it may, this has left the distinct
impression that Dell was the publisher - an impression that even Irwin
Donenfeld might have acquired, and if so, would have had little reason
to question.
Gary
SRoweCanoe
More on More about Dell
Message 64 -
2004-06-14 at 23:05:58
In a message dated 6/14/2004 3:15:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bangfish at cableone.net writes:
> Dell was not the number one comic book publisher in the >late 1950s because Dell did not publish comics - they >distributed them. KK Publications was the publisher of the >titles in question, Western, a division of KK, was the >>printer, and Dell was the contracted distributor. This >confusion has persisted because the Dell imprint is right >there, bold and beautiful, on the KK Publications comics of >that era (and earlier).
Dell up to about 1958 was distributed by ANC - at that time America's largest periodical distributors. They started self-distributing around that time. They were indeed the publisher of most of the Dell comics - (as the indica in most of the non-Disney books does indeed say Dell). I have been told that KK stood for Kay Kamen, who was the guy who owned the merchandizing rights for Disney products.
Western was the packager of the material for Dell (they also packaged material for Simon and Shuster's children's books). It was not unusual for a magazine or comic book or book publisher to get someone else to package material for them.
I have a friend, who was an editor at Western (in their comics division), who could confirm most of what I stated above. Let me send this to him too, maybe he can tell us what he may know about the mechanics of the KK name.
Steven Rowe
SRoweCanoe at aol.com
> Dell was not the number one comic book publisher in the >late 1950s because Dell did not publish comics - they >distributed them. KK Publications was the publisher of the >titles in question, Western, a division of KK, was the >>printer, and Dell was the contracted distributor. This >confusion has persisted because the Dell imprint is right >there, bold and beautiful, on the KK Publications comics of >that era (and earlier).
Dell up to about 1958 was distributed by ANC - at that time America's largest periodical distributors. They started self-distributing around that time. They were indeed the publisher of most of the Dell comics - (as the indica in most of the non-Disney books does indeed say Dell). I have been told that KK stood for Kay Kamen, who was the guy who owned the merchandizing rights for Disney products.
Western was the packager of the material for Dell (they also packaged material for Simon and Shuster's children's books). It was not unusual for a magazine or comic book or book publisher to get someone else to package material for them.
I have a friend, who was an editor at Western (in their comics division), who could confirm most of what I stated above. Let me send this to him too, maybe he can tell us what he may know about the mechanics of the KK name.
Steven Rowe
SRoweCanoe at aol.com
Don Rosa
DCML Digest Issue 15
Message 65 -
2004-06-14 at 23:10:14
> From: Chris Hilbig <chilbig1 at satx.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: Credits
> Mr. Roep seems to come off a little short-sighted.
Of course it's short-sighted as book and storybook publishers have always
known and comic publishers discovered in the 60's, and all Disney publishers
(except one) discovered over 10 years ago. When you give the readers a
direct link to the writers and artists, the stories become FAR more popular.
One of the reasons my work is so popular is, I know, because I was early on
given the first printed credits after Barks' and I'm still constantly given
more attention & promotion by the publishers and offered opportunities for
communication with the readers via texts, etc... so the readers identify
better and relate to me as a real person... making my work apparently
wildly, albeit undeservedly, popular.
It's also common sense to see that the reason the credits are being still
withheld by one publisher has nothing whatsoever to do with this ridiculous
notion that it maintains some bubble of the Ducks being actual beings for
the toddlers. As I say, this is proven by the fact that the 3-year-old
toddlers who are having the stories read to them, obviously can't read the
credits, and wouldn't be fazed by them if they could. And if an editor says
that those creator credits are simply being passively left out because so
few people care, you KNOW this is blatant baloney. That's not a logical
reason for leaving out the names of the people who do the work, while those
same Dutch issues list dozens and dozens of names of the editors and
assistant editors and translators and copy editors and etc., etc., all the
way down to even the marketing people who have nothing whatsoever to do with
the comic's contents at all. If there are "only 200 readers" who care about
who wrote the actual stories that are the entire purpose of the comic, its
very reason-for-being, how many readers care about the names of the
editors?! So... why bother to list those names? A better answer to that
question for the editor would have been "Sorry, I gotta catch a bus, gotta
go, bye!"
Listing credits of the people creating the stories is a common courtesy to
the main contributors and that alone should be enough reason for it. But in
all other forms of publishing, for centuries, in all of those children's
storybooks, even about Santa and the Easter Bunny, the full
writer/illustrator credits are always given due to that courtesy *and* due
to rules that publishers have agreed to in league with publisher guilds,
writers' unions, and more other reasons than I can list. Note that Western
Publishings' decades of "Little Golden Books" were published by the same
company employing the same freelancer writers and artists doing all the work
as published the comics... but every single one of those Disney "Little
Golden Book" storybooks (which were directed at a much *younger* audience
than that reading the comics), those storybooks always gave FULL credits...
the only time Barks' original publisher listed his name was when he did work
for those storybooks. Even the dang *coloring books* from Western gave full
art credits!!!!!! Disney comics were the only creative endeavor where the
writers and artists were not given credit for the work, but that archaic and
unjust era began to die when Gladstone Comics started giving credits and the
other Disney publishers around the world joined modern times around a decade
ago.
As I stated before, the *fact* remains that all Disney publishers *save one*
list all the writer/artist credits, as clearly should be done. If they are
still not giving credits in another Disney comic published in Nepal or
somewhere, I must apologize that I don't know about it.
> Subject: Re: Credits
> Mr. Roep seems to come off a little short-sighted.
Of course it's short-sighted as book and storybook publishers have always
known and comic publishers discovered in the 60's, and all Disney publishers
(except one) discovered over 10 years ago. When you give the readers a
direct link to the writers and artists, the stories become FAR more popular.
One of the reasons my work is so popular is, I know, because I was early on
given the first printed credits after Barks' and I'm still constantly given
more attention & promotion by the publishers and offered opportunities for
communication with the readers via texts, etc... so the readers identify
better and relate to me as a real person... making my work apparently
wildly, albeit undeservedly, popular.
It's also common sense to see that the reason the credits are being still
withheld by one publisher has nothing whatsoever to do with this ridiculous
notion that it maintains some bubble of the Ducks being actual beings for
the toddlers. As I say, this is proven by the fact that the 3-year-old
toddlers who are having the stories read to them, obviously can't read the
credits, and wouldn't be fazed by them if they could. And if an editor says
that those creator credits are simply being passively left out because so
few people care, you KNOW this is blatant baloney. That's not a logical
reason for leaving out the names of the people who do the work, while those
same Dutch issues list dozens and dozens of names of the editors and
assistant editors and translators and copy editors and etc., etc., all the
way down to even the marketing people who have nothing whatsoever to do with
the comic's contents at all. If there are "only 200 readers" who care about
who wrote the actual stories that are the entire purpose of the comic, its
very reason-for-being, how many readers care about the names of the
editors?! So... why bother to list those names? A better answer to that
question for the editor would have been "Sorry, I gotta catch a bus, gotta
go, bye!"
Listing credits of the people creating the stories is a common courtesy to
the main contributors and that alone should be enough reason for it. But in
all other forms of publishing, for centuries, in all of those children's
storybooks, even about Santa and the Easter Bunny, the full
writer/illustrator credits are always given due to that courtesy *and* due
to rules that publishers have agreed to in league with publisher guilds,
writers' unions, and more other reasons than I can list. Note that Western
Publishings' decades of "Little Golden Books" were published by the same
company employing the same freelancer writers and artists doing all the work
as published the comics... but every single one of those Disney "Little
Golden Book" storybooks (which were directed at a much *younger* audience
than that reading the comics), those storybooks always gave FULL credits...
the only time Barks' original publisher listed his name was when he did work
for those storybooks. Even the dang *coloring books* from Western gave full
art credits!!!!!! Disney comics were the only creative endeavor where the
writers and artists were not given credit for the work, but that archaic and
unjust era began to die when Gladstone Comics started giving credits and the
other Disney publishers around the world joined modern times around a decade
ago.
As I stated before, the *fact* remains that all Disney publishers *save one*
list all the writer/artist credits, as clearly should be done. If they are
still not giving credits in another Disney comic published in Nepal or
somewhere, I must apologize that I don't know about it.
UNDBKB
Rosa Popularity
Message 66 -
2004-06-15 at 00:14:31
(Rosa writes:)
> When you give the readers a
> direct link to the writers and artists, the stories become FAR more popular.
> One of the reasons my work is so popular is, I know, because I was early on
> given the first printed credits after Barks' and I'm still constantly given
> more attention & promotion by the publishers and offered opportunities for
> communication with the readers via texts, etc... so the readers identify
> better and relate to me as a real person... making my work apparently
> wildly, albeit undeservedly, popular.
>
Sorry Mr. Rosa, Your popularity is NOT because we know who you are or that we
know you to be a "Real" person,
But because you do Great stories.
Publishers can promote other stories, but without content, it just doesn't
matter!
SMcDuck
(Back to lurking)
> When you give the readers a
> direct link to the writers and artists, the stories become FAR more popular.
> One of the reasons my work is so popular is, I know, because I was early on
> given the first printed credits after Barks' and I'm still constantly given
> more attention & promotion by the publishers and offered opportunities for
> communication with the readers via texts, etc... so the readers identify
> better and relate to me as a real person... making my work apparently
> wildly, albeit undeservedly, popular.
>
Sorry Mr. Rosa, Your popularity is NOT because we know who you are or that we
know you to be a "Real" person,
But because you do Great stories.
Publishers can promote other stories, but without content, it just doesn't
matter!
SMcDuck
(Back to lurking)
Dan Shane
Little Golden Credits
Message 67 -
2004-06-15 at 02:04:33
DON ROSA WROTE:
> Note that Western
> Publishings' decades of "Little Golden Books" were published by the same
> company employing the same freelancer writers and artists doing all the
> work
> as published the comics... but every single one of those Disney "Little
> Golden Book" storybooks (which were directed at a much *younger* audience
> than that reading the comics), those storybooks always gave FULL
> credits...
> the only time Barks' original publisher listed his name was when he did
> work
> for those storybooks.
AND I REPLY:
That is, I believe, too sweeping a statement. I possess a number of LGBs
and other Whitman Publishing juvenile books that simply credit "The Walt
Disney Studio" for story, or art, or both. But I also own several that do
credit individuals (including Barks and Strobl), unlike ANY of the comics of
that period.
Dan
> Note that Western
> Publishings' decades of "Little Golden Books" were published by the same
> company employing the same freelancer writers and artists doing all the
> work
> as published the comics... but every single one of those Disney "Little
> Golden Book" storybooks (which were directed at a much *younger* audience
> than that reading the comics), those storybooks always gave FULL
> credits...
> the only time Barks' original publisher listed his name was when he did
> work
> for those storybooks.
AND I REPLY:
That is, I believe, too sweeping a statement. I possess a number of LGBs
and other Whitman Publishing juvenile books that simply credit "The Walt
Disney Studio" for story, or art, or both. But I also own several that do
credit individuals (including Barks and Strobl), unlike ANY of the comics of
that period.
Dan
Larry Giver
Daniel van E's Barks quiz
Message 68 -
2004-06-15 at 04:44:36
It seems that Daniel's latest Barks quiz has been unsolved for a long time now.
These quotes are from the Gyro 4-page story "The Inventor's Contest", US 28.
Gyro invents an tasty cheese bait to beat Black Pete in a contest to see who
can catch a mouse in the least time.
------Larry Giver.
These quotes are from the Gyro 4-page story "The Inventor's Contest", US 28.
Gyro invents an tasty cheese bait to beat Black Pete in a contest to see who
can catch a mouse in the least time.
------Larry Giver.
Gary Leach
More on More, etc.
Message 69 -
2004-06-15 at 04:53:53
Steven, Kintoun,
You present an intriguing take on the Western-Dell situation. I'll be
interested to see how it pans out.
Gary
You present an intriguing take on the Western-Dell situation. I'll be
interested to see how it pans out.
Gary
Pascal Oost
Dutch Credits
Message 70 -
2004-06-15 at 09:58:45
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Chris Hilbig wrote:
> one of the biggest selling points of Disney syndicated
> products was the name "Walt Disney" and the illusion of fans that Walt
> did all that work himself.
I remember the time when this philosophy was used for the entire Dutch
weekly magazine. None of the people producing it, were mentioned, 'because
children wanted to believe the magazine was made by Walt Disney'.
Now every issue of Donald Duck weekly carries a long list of names of its
staff: editorial staff, editorial artists, designers, technical assistants,
editorial assistants, marketing people, who's selling the advertisement
space, etcetera.
But not the creators of the comics. I can't explain that.
Apart from being great and fun, creating Disney comics is also a job. And a
job needs to be rewarding. Considering it does not pay well, there is no
job-security whatever, and selling all publishing rights to Disney takes
away all possible future income from re-publishing, it's becoming hard to
feel motivated to work for Disney comics.
Crediting his work could be one (cheap) way to help a artist feel
appreciated.
P
Chris Hilbig wrote:
> one of the biggest selling points of Disney syndicated
> products was the name "Walt Disney" and the illusion of fans that Walt
> did all that work himself.
I remember the time when this philosophy was used for the entire Dutch
weekly magazine. None of the people producing it, were mentioned, 'because
children wanted to believe the magazine was made by Walt Disney'.
Now every issue of Donald Duck weekly carries a long list of names of its
staff: editorial staff, editorial artists, designers, technical assistants,
editorial assistants, marketing people, who's selling the advertisement
space, etcetera.
But not the creators of the comics. I can't explain that.
Apart from being great and fun, creating Disney comics is also a job. And a
job needs to be rewarding. Considering it does not pay well, there is no
job-security whatever, and selling all publishing rights to Disney takes
away all possible future income from re-publishing, it's becoming hard to
feel motivated to work for Disney comics.
Crediting his work could be one (cheap) way to help a artist feel
appreciated.
P
Niels Houlberg Hansen
Good comic-book shops in Berlin?
Message 71 -
2004-06-15 at 10:50:01
Hello.
I'm going on a vacation to Berlin next Thursday. Could you German DCMLers
(or others) recommend any well-assorted second-hand comic shops where I can
find German and American Disney books?
Thank you very much.
Niels
I'm going on a vacation to Berlin next Thursday. Could you German DCMLers
(or others) recommend any well-assorted second-hand comic shops where I can
find German and American Disney books?
Thank you very much.
Niels
Kai Saarto
Dutch Credits
Message 72 -
2004-06-15 at 11:15:45
Pascal Oost wrote:
>Crediting his work could be one (cheap) way to help a artist feel
>appreciated.
>
>
Not to mention the fact that comics that show the names of the authors
tend to sell more. Several publishers make a LOT of money just by
reprinting old stories by famous artists. Its the name that sells (and
not just Walt?s).
>Crediting his work could be one (cheap) way to help a artist feel
>appreciated.
>
>
Not to mention the fact that comics that show the names of the authors
tend to sell more. Several publishers make a LOT of money just by
reprinting old stories by famous artists. Its the name that sells (and
not just Walt?s).
Hans Kiesl
Dell and Western
Message 73 -
2004-06-15 at 15:05:34
Regarding the relationship between Dell and Western, there is an interesting piece on Mark Evanier's site:
http://www.povonline.com/IAQ7.htm
-Hans-
http://www.povonline.com/IAQ7.htm
-Hans-
Steve Crooks
Rosa Popularity
Message 74 -
2004-06-15 at 18:16:12
I have to second that. I got back into comics after a short run of
pretending to be an adult right about the time Mr. Rosa started getting his
work published. If it weren't for those incredibly fun to read stories I
might not have stuck with picking up the duck comics -- or any other comics
for that matter. And at the time I didn't have any idea who "Don Rosa" was
and I didn't really care. I just liked reading those stories. Now I'm
quite excited to get something new in my comic stack by that Rosa fellow.
:-)
_____
From: dcml-bounces at stp.ling.uu.se [mailto:dcml-bounces at stp.ling.uu.se] On
Behalf Of UNDBKB at aol.com
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 4:15 PM
To: dcml at stp.ling.uu.se
Subject: Rosa Popularity
(Rosa writes:)
When you give the readers a
direct link to the writers and artists, the stories become FAR more popular.
One of the reasons my work is so popular is, I know, because I was early on
given the first printed credits after Barks' and I'm still constantly given
more attention & promotion by the publishers and offered opportunities for
communication with the readers via texts, etc... so the readers identify
better and relate to me as a real person... making my work apparently
wildly, albeit undeservedly, popular.
Sorry Mr. Rosa, Your popularity is NOT because we know who you are or that
we know you to be a "Real" person,
But because you do Great stories.
Publishers can promote other stories, but without content, it just doesn't
matter!
SMcDuck
(Back to lurking)
pretending to be an adult right about the time Mr. Rosa started getting his
work published. If it weren't for those incredibly fun to read stories I
might not have stuck with picking up the duck comics -- or any other comics
for that matter. And at the time I didn't have any idea who "Don Rosa" was
and I didn't really care. I just liked reading those stories. Now I'm
quite excited to get something new in my comic stack by that Rosa fellow.
:-)
_____
From: dcml-bounces at stp.ling.uu.se [mailto:dcml-bounces at stp.ling.uu.se] On
Behalf Of UNDBKB at aol.com
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 4:15 PM
To: dcml at stp.ling.uu.se
Subject: Rosa Popularity
(Rosa writes:)
When you give the readers a
direct link to the writers and artists, the stories become FAR more popular.
One of the reasons my work is so popular is, I know, because I was early on
given the first printed credits after Barks' and I'm still constantly given
more attention & promotion by the publishers and offered opportunities for
communication with the readers via texts, etc... so the readers identify
better and relate to me as a real person... making my work apparently
wildly, albeit undeservedly, popular.
Sorry Mr. Rosa, Your popularity is NOT because we know who you are or that
we know you to be a "Real" person,
But because you do Great stories.
Publishers can promote other stories, but without content, it just doesn't
matter!
SMcDuck
(Back to lurking)
Michael Lavigne
Euro 2004 (OT)
Message 75 -
2004-06-15 at 19:05:50
I'm not sure if there is any English on this list...
they must be very silent!
Our best ennemy, England, has to stand the worst thing
for any English people : loosing against the French.
The mighty French (those damn froggies) gave a lesson
of soccer to the Beckham et al. Zizou the last day was
un-beatable.
I can still hear them singing "God Save the Queen" at
the 90'.
<<
God save the Q... ?! .. '? ! %$&** (stupeur) (more
stupeur) (shocked) (fuck)
>>
The beautiful Marseillaise quickly replaced this poor
song.
An English friend told me ' I hate loosing, especially
to the French '.
Sorry, England, you'll take your revenge next time!!!!
(or not :-)
Mike.
Yahoo! Mail : votre e-mail personnel et gratuit qui vous suit partout !
Cr?ez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.benefits.yahoo.com/
Dialoguez en direct avec vos amis gr?ce ? Yahoo! Messenger !T?l?chargez Yahoo! Messenger sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
they must be very silent!
Our best ennemy, England, has to stand the worst thing
for any English people : loosing against the French.
The mighty French (those damn froggies) gave a lesson
of soccer to the Beckham et al. Zizou the last day was
un-beatable.
I can still hear them singing "God Save the Queen" at
the 90'.
<<
God save the Q... ?! .. '? ! %$&** (stupeur) (more
stupeur) (shocked) (fuck)
>>
The beautiful Marseillaise quickly replaced this poor
song.
An English friend told me ' I hate loosing, especially
to the French '.
Sorry, England, you'll take your revenge next time!!!!
(or not :-)
Mike.
Yahoo! Mail : votre e-mail personnel et gratuit qui vous suit partout !
Cr?ez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.benefits.yahoo.com/
Dialoguez en direct avec vos amis gr?ce ? Yahoo! Messenger !T?l?chargez Yahoo! Messenger sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com