Keskustelujen arkisto

To list:
Personally, I love the prestige format comics and do not mind
spending 7 bucks an issue for each one. By now, everyone on this list knows I adore
Don Rosa, even more than Carl Barks; however, I also love to read Barks'
classic stories, William VanHorn, Noel VanHorn, Jippes, Scarpa, and Pat/Shelly
Block. I could buy just comics with only Rosa material in them, but then I would
miss out on all the other good artists. In addition, I enjoy the reprints from
time to time, since I haven't been around long enough to read the original
releases years ago. We in America should all support Gemstone financially as best
as possible. After all, I would see NO Rosa tales without this company and its
dedicated staff of Disney fans. In my opinion, the interim years between the
Gladstone and Gemstone runs in the United States were hell. I firmly hope we
do not go back to a period of no English Disney comics, yet it could happen
again just like before. I am 19 years old and have been a subscriber since the
mid-90s, starting with Gladstone and now Gemstone. For this informal list
survey, count me as a regular for both "Walt Disney's Comics and Stories" and "Uncle
Scrooge."
Sincerely,
Anthony

I see the subject of autuer vs collaboration has popped up.

I first ran into this early in my career when Will Eisner and I were
among many others guest instructors in Dublin for a two-week training
course put together by Bob Foster.

Mr. Eisner was of the strong opinion that only a single creator could
ever create great (comic book) art. I was too callow and cowed to take
public issue.

Most of my collaborative work since then certainly bears out the notion
that (paraphrasing): axiomatically no two people can communicate with
each other as well as one can with oneself and, therefore, collaboration
will always result in a diminished endeavor.

However, there are disturbing unstated presumptions in the above.

The problem lies in the nature of collaboration itself and how a
creative individual approaches the task.

If one has autuerial instincts, and believes that the outcome should
literally capture their imagination's construct, immense frustration
usually results, because of the Eisner axiom above.

However, if one goes into the process recognizing the limits and
_strengths_ of collaboration, the results can become timeless. True art.
Expressive and whole in a way that is exciting, rewarding and
galvanizing to the participants.

One of the most important (but usually unrecognized) goals of the
collaborative writer, in my opinion, is to provide an environment rife
with potential. To provide rich characters, imaginative situations and
inventive plots; to find things that will not only resonate with the
audience, but with those who participate in the act of creation.

In short, the task of an initiating collaborator is to assemble the
components of potential, the intellectual fecundity, with which those
who follow may emphasize, develop or polish to their own best inclination.

There are few things more delightful than to be pleasantly surprised by
the joy reflected back at one's initial efforts by the accretive effort
attached to it.

To be more concrete. Think of a playwright who depends on actors to
inhabit his characters. So, too, can a mature artist add their own life
experience (instincts, quirks, exaggerations) to a character, setting or
plot created initially by a writer.

Good collaborators resonate. The resulting chord can be much richer than
any solitary note.

Even autuers rely on paper manufacturers, colorists, printers,
distributors, store owners and a host of others to get their creation to
their audience.

At any rate, my direct experience has convincingly taught me that the
sum _can_ be more than the whole of the parts. In fact, there is
astonishing power when just a handful of committed individuals work
together for a common goal. It is literally transforrmative.

I think folks who have never personally experienced this, quite
reasonably, don't imagine or can't conceive that it exists.

In Will Eisner's case, with his historic wealth of experience on almost
all sides of the equation, as creator, as autuer, as studio boss of
work-for-hire creators, to him I bow. I will never know as much as he
has forgotten.

But I reject the notion that because he has never experienced the same
satisfaction working with another that he has in his own singular
creation, that one can generalize and say, therefore, that it is impossible.

I have worked in a much wider variety of industries and with a much more
varied set of collaborators, and while disappointment is the most common
result, the luminescence of transcendent creations shine of a collective
spirit than burns brighter than any mere spark.

Such collaborations illuminate spirit itself because, ultimately, that
is what is being communicated in the best of any human creation.

Theresa,

> But that all comes back to what you are used to as the original form,
> doesn't it? The original Asterix was made by a duo. Original Rosa stuff
> is a one-person job.

Asterix was also created by that same duo. However, the original form
of the comic book Disney ducks was given to us by Carl Barks, in
stories still regarded in many quarters as unequalled in any genre. So
we must already scribe an important demarcation between the "original
forms" of the work of Goscinny and Uderzo and Don Rosa - the former
were original from the start, while Don has been going on from where an
arguably greater creator left off.

More to the point of the discussion from which your question arose, is
Don's 'spark' something special, in a way that the 'spark' in Goscinny
and Uderzo, as collaborators, wasn't, solely because he is one man and
they were two? Well, one man certainly embodies a different creative
dynamic than two men, so I suppose there is something to that. But two
men embody a creative dynamic that is just as distinct, and just as
unfathomable, as that residing in one. Inspiration, in the end, comes
out through whatever agencies it requires.

Gary

Anthvvuono at aol.com wrote:

>To list:
> Personally, I love the prestige format comics and do not mind
>spending 7 bucks an issue for each one.

That's good for you. I, personally, have a far more limited budget,
and probably shouldn't even be getting the issues I get.

>By now, everyone on this list knows I adore
>Don Rosa, even more than Carl Barks; however, I also love to read
Barks'
>classic stories, William VanHorn, Noel VanHorn, Jippes, Scarpa, and
Pat/Shelly
>Block. I could buy just comics with only Rosa material in them, but
then I would
>miss out on all the other good artists.

I don't disagree with you here. By making the decision I've made to
get only issues with Rosa non-reprints in them, I *am* admittedly
missing out on some good stories by other artists.

>In addition, I enjoy the reprints from
>time to time, since I haven't been around long enough to read the
original
>releases years ago.

Suffice it to say that, when it comes to Rosa (the only author I was
talking about), I *have* been around long enough (although there are
indeed a *few* I've missed for various reasons).

> We in America should all support Gemstone financially as best
>as possible. After all, I would see NO Rosa tales without this company
and its
>dedicated staff of Disney fans. In my opinion, the interim years
between the
>Gladstone and Gemstone runs in the United States were hell. I firmly
hope we
>do not go back to a period of no English Disney comics, yet it could
happen
>again just like before.

This is where I feel the need to reply. You are, of course, correct
that it is a good thing that we have Disney comics at all, and that we
don't want to fall back into the situation be had in the "dark era"
between Gladstone and Gemstone. However, I refuse to be "guilted" into
buying more comics against my better financial sense just so I can keep
the company going. I have a limited budget, and have had to make some
choices in how I will continue to support the comics companies I like.
Buying only Rosa non-reprints happens to be the decision I've made.
It's my decision alone, and I don't mean to tell anyone else to make
that choice. Neither do I mean to tell Gemstone to print only Rosa
stories. I *do* mean to tell them that I think $7 (ok, $6.95) is too
much to expect me to buy their comics every month. If they're making
enough from other collectors that they think $7 is the best price to
charge to get the kind of profits they need to keep going, than they
will no doubt continue to do so, and all will be well. However, they
should know what I (as only one person, but one person who most likely
represents the kinds of decisions other people make as well) am
thinking about when it comes to how I spend my comics money. I cannot
spend $7 on a single comic book every month. I will go ahead and
splurge when that single issue has an artist with whom I have felt a
close connection for many, many years now. I feel a little odd about
spelling it out, so my apologies. But besides the fact that Rosa is a
simply wonderful storyteller, I had the privilege of having his wife
Ann as my social studies teacher in eighth grade many years ago, and my
brother had the privilege of meeting Mr. Rosa at their home a few years
later as part of a "cartoonists club" that was formed at our middle
school at that time. These kinds of connections have (for me)
transcended the "good stories" enough that I continue to splurge when
his stories appear, but they simply do not exist for other artists, no
matter how good their stories are. I refuse to accept personal
responsibility for making a choice not to buy every issue just to make
sure that the company can stay afloat, however.

My two cents,
Mark Baker-Wright

----------------------------------------
Assistant to the Faculty and Dean's
Office, SOT: Fuller Theological Seminary
G.B. Blackrock's Transformers Page:
http://home.earthlink.net/~gbblackrock/

Ask me about singer/songwriter David
LaMotte!

Hi all!

I've bought every single Disney comic Gemstone has issued so far, from US/WDC
to the $3 comics and the Take Alongs and Parades. That's probably not a
financially sound thing for me to do, but I must say, at least I've enjoyed myself
in the process. :) Maybe Gemstone will give me a sticker one day like I got
from Disney Comics when I filled out some survey during the early 90's. ;)

As far as multiple authors go, it depends on the situation. Most often,
writers and artists are picked by the company, sometimes with the writer/artists
having none or almost no contact with each other. I think that way of working,
keeps the resultant comic from obtaining its full potential. I think that if
writer/artists know each other, work together fairly closely, the end results
would turn out better than the usual way.

And of course, there's always something to be admired about the one man
working on his comic book/comic strip. Very few people do that. Among comic strips,
Charles Schulz and Lynn Johnston are the only two that I know of, that have
done it for any significant amount of time in the past 50 years. Before them, I
can't really think of any that didn't have an army of assistants at some
point (there was a woman from the 1910's-1960's on Toonopedia.com that I read
about that did all her own work, but I can't remember her name at the moment). I
know that many of the ones that Don Rosa mentioned, had teams behind them
(though they may have done the strips by themselves for a time early on in their
strip's history). That's usually the way with a strip. Get it popular after a
few years and then hand the job to someone else and get the credit all the same
(though I realize with Hal Foster, that wasn't necesaarily the case).

Would a comic strip like Garfield be better if Jim Davis was the one doing
the work, instead of a dozen people? Maybe, maybe not, but it does seem to me
that the more people that work on a comic book/strip (especially past the 2-3
person point) the more 'streamlined' it seems to get. Or maybe diluted is a
better word for it. It seems like the characters get too stuck into a pattern of
what their character is, rather than trying new things. Maybe a single or two
creator team would be more willing to take chances and try different things
with a character.

Then again, perhaps there's something in knowing one's limitations. There are
some writer/artists out there that clearly are way better at one than the
other. There's a famous Batman artist/writer who would probably do well to stick
with art rather than writing. So being a writer/artist is only good, if you're
actually good at both of them (naturally allowing that one maybe be a bit
better at one than the other). Whatever Don may think of his abilities, he's good
at both. As for which he's better at, that's opinion, but I'd say he might be
a tad bit better at art than at writing. Though considering the research he
puts into the stories and some of the dialogue exchanges between Donald and
Scrooge, it's hard to really say that he's better at one than the other.

Derek Smith

I agree with Don R. that often when the same person writes and draws a story, it can be
something special. But that doesn't mean that an artist writing his own stories is always

better than team productions. There are a lot of teams that do very good work. Fallberg

and Murry, De Maris and Gottfredson, Jan Kruse and Verhagen, Kruse and (several
artists), Van Horn and Lustig, Transgaard and Milton, Milton and Jippes, Jonker and Bas
or Mau Heijmans, Jonker and Gulien, Gregory and Strobl, The McGreals and (the
Spanish(Argentinian artist with the Italian name who worked on the dinosaur stories),
Klein and Gulbransson, and many more. Some of these teams do or did their best work
as a team. For those, when they did everything on their own (or didn't work closely with
the other person who worked on their stories), I liked their work less.

Firstly, it should be noted that lots of the Disney writers are artists, too. Jan Kruse,
Evert
Geradts, Frank Jonker, Pat Block, Gorm Transgaard, Rune Miekle and I, and a lot of the
other writers can draw well. Many of us (including all writers for Dutch Disney) draw
storyboards as our submitted "scripts". Some of us provide input into the drawing in the
final artwork. We also write stories, always keeping the visual aspects in mind, coming
from an artist's point of view. Although I didn't work closely with Scalabroni on my
Gyro
Gearloose stories, my editor always made my wishes clear to him, and I believe my notes
elaborating on my storyboard art weregiven to him, as his final artwork was generally
very close to what I wanted. Of course, I would have rather worked directly with him, but

that wasn't physically possible. With Jan G., I'm involved every step of the way. That's

the ideal situation. In future with camera telephones or on-line live-action digital
moviecamera technology, it will be possible to work closely on projects with people
accross the World.

Often, two minds are an improvement on one. The best of two people can replace some
of the weaknesses of one. I think few people reach the excellence in both the writing and

drawing that Carl Barks did. So very many teams have produced great things. I do think
that when a single artist writer does reach excellence it can be very good. I hope to be
able to draw final pencils and inks some day on my own written stories, but for now, I'm
very happy with my collaboration work, (and that of many others)

I work together with Jan Gulbransson on stories. We both
provide

---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using the LA Free-Net - LA's best kept secret.
http://www.lafn.org/

I've been trying to get hold of the Norwegian Donald Duck Dag f?r dag
paper backs for quite a while now. Now I'm only missing number 13 and 18.
Can anyone of our Norwegian friends (or others of course ) help me to get
hold of these, please ?

I'm willing to pay a good price for these if that helps.

Ola in partly sunny Stockholm +16 and a little windy

-----Original Message-----
From: dcml-bounces at stp.ling.uu.se [mailto:dcml-bounces at stp.ling.uu.se]On
Behalf Of dcml-request at stp.ling.uu.se
Sent: den 12 juni 2004 12:02
To: dcml at stp.ling.uu.se
Subject: DCML Digest, Vol 16, Issue 12

Send DCML mailing list submissions to
dcml at stp.ling.uu.se

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://stp.ling.uu.se/mailman/listinfo/dcml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
dcml-request at stp.ling.uu.se

You can reach the person managing the list at
dcml-owner at stp.ling.uu.se

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of DCML digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Website Manfred Ahl (H.W.Fluks at telecom.tno.nl)
2. About the Caballeros (Mickey)
3. Credits (H.W.Fluks at telecom.tno.nl)
4. Re: Credits (Daniel van Eijmeren)
5. RE: Atavic doubt (Mickey) (Travis Seitler)
6. Re: Atavic doubt (Mickey)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:02:31 +0200
From: <H.W.Fluks at telecom.tno.nl>
Subject: Website Manfred Ahl
To: <dcml at stp.ling.uu.se>
Message-ID:
<AEEC81A4DAC9554A88BCEA431A34CC040271335A at ds04.tnoase.telecom.tno.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

An interesting website:

www.homeforducks.com

Manfred Ahl exposes his collection here. With lots of scans of original Disney comics artwork (currently Bottaro), and some interesting photographs.

--Harry.

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:07:00 +0200
From: "Mickey" <mickey at iol.it>
Subject: About the Caballeros
To: "DCML" <dcml at stp.ling.uu.se>
Message-ID: <002b01c44fbd$5d850b30$c9093352 at computer>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

I'd like to know from Don Rosa what the past, untold adventures of the Three
Caballeros should be, since the movie is quite unsuitable with his
conception of the Duck universe (what an euphemism!)
thanx

Mickey the unanswered asker

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:28:42 +0200
From: <H.W.Fluks at telecom.tno.nl>
Subject: Credits
To: <dcml at stp.ling.uu.se>
Message-ID:
<AEEC81A4DAC9554A88BCEA431A34CC040216B4CD at ds04.tnoase.telecom.tno.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Michael Lavigne:

> thanks to the
> inducks database, one can find most if not nearly all
> credits for the Dutch stories as well. This is
> astonishing but true.

Let me also mention that the Dutch editors have never been secretive about the creators of their comics. Unlike Egmont (Gutenberghus) in the 1970s, who refused to reveal names.

Anyone who asks the Dutch editors about credits, gets an accurate answer.
In the 1980s, credits were printed in Dutch and German fanzines (Stechweij in Striprofiel, Spillmann in Der Donaldist).
In the 1990s, we Inducksers got access to all available information.

But to the question why they don't print credits in the comics themselves, I have no satisfying answer.

--Harry.

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 20:49:14 +0200
From: "Daniel van Eijmeren" <dve at kabelfoon.nl>
Subject: Re: Credits
To: <dcml at stp.ling.uu.se>
Message-ID: <20040611184445.6E413BF8C0 at cardassian.kabelfoon.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

HARRY FLUKS to MICHAEL LAVIGNE, 11-06-2004:

> Anyone who asks the Dutch editors about credits, gets an accurate answer. [...]
> But to the question why they don't print credits in the comics themselves,
> I have no satisfying answer.

I think it's because credits devide the entirey and the believability of the
characters' "real" existance. In the Dutch comic, Donald Duck and the others
are as real as Sinterklaas (Dutch December tradition) and Santa Claus. That's
part of the atmosphere.

The main target (Dutch children) writes letters to Uncle Donald as an existant
character. Or to other Disney characters, but also as existant characters.

Only grown-ups would write letters to "the editor". Collectors and completists,
for example. But they're not the main target of the (Dutch) Disney comics.
So, that's why I'm thinking of the (retorical) question: Why ruin the warm
all-age escapist entertainment of a real existant Uncle Donald, in exchange
for some credits under each adventure, telling on which drawing-board the
particular character's adventure in fact was created, and when?

In my opinion, credits are suitable in Dutch book comic albums, which are
intended for the more interested kids and grown-ups. (Fans, for example.)
In the Dutch Duck albums, credits ARE given. It began with Carl Barks in
the "Beste Verhalen" series, which started in the mid-1970s. And now, more
recently, it happens with Daan Jippes, Bas en Mau Heymans, Sander Gulien,
Jan Kruse, Frank Fronker, etc.

I think it's nice already, that editors have become open about credits.
People who want to know more about them, can now go to internet archives,
where the information can be explored and listed.

Maybe it would be nice to mention an (Inducks?) internet URL in the Dutch
comics, which the average readers just can ignore, like all the other
editorial stuff at the bottom of the letters page.

Additionally, a shortlist of creators could be given, as part of all the
editorial information. This way, creators do get credited, but without
taking away attention with who did exactly what. That's where internet,
fanzines, and magazines are for.

These thoughts are only based on Dutch comics. I don't know the situation
in much other countries. I believe countries like Denmark and Sweden do give
credits, just a small line under the first page of each story, but still I
think it creates a distance between the main target (children) and the story
characters. But in the USA, with editors like Gladstone and Gemstone, the
Disney comics have become adult-oriented, and the letter page contains
complain about Don Rosa story this-or-that not being (re-)printed, or a
forgotten classic by Floyd Gottfredson. It works, but it's a whole different
approach than in The Netherlands.

In a Dutch comic it has never happened. On the letter page, readers ask
for stories with a certain character doing this-or-that, or at most a
story identified as "the one you once had with the square eggs". Artists
have never been mentioned, or only indirectly. (As far as I know.)

I like that approach. As a Disney comics reader, I want to believe in a
"real" Duckburg, existing in a unknown place somewhere on this planet.
No matter how much Duckburg changes in every other story.

Children don't really want to know why Santa Claus suddenly looks different
than last time. As long as Santa Claus acts like a good Santa Claus, he
really IS Santa Claus. That's the whole point of his existance.

When people look through it, it's just Uncle Ernie with a hired suit, giving
away a present payed with the group's yearly budget, the magic is gone. And
I think it would be the same with the Dutch Disney comics.

As a guess, I doubt the Dutch policy will change, because the Dutch editors
are insistent in being a traditionial family comic. This formula makes it
attactive for parents to give their kids the same experience as in their
own youth, anxious waiting at the door every week, for new adventures of
"their" great flawsy Uncle Donald Duck.

That's the feeling I still get when receiving the comic. But as a freak, I
already recognize a lot of creators at first sight, even without any credits.
That's a price I've paid for looking behind the curtains of the comic book
show. I've learned a lot by reading about backstage activities. But as a
result, Uncle Donald will never be the same for me. At such times I wish
I could just "switch off" the credits knowlegde I have of the different
creators of the stories.

But I have to carry it around with me, as some kind of comic book curse,
having eaten forbidden comic book fruit. :-)

--- Dani?l

"For goodness, sake! Who's that guy - the PIED PIPER?"
(Which Barks story?) :-)

hint #1: It's NOT the unfinished Gyro story 'The Pied Piper of Duckburg'.
hint #2: "Hold on, boys! I had no idea it was THAT tasty!"
hint #3: "Look at the mice go for that cheese!"
hint #4: "Into the toolbox with you, young fellow! You cause too much
MISCHIEF!"

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:06:29 -0400
From: Travis Seitler <stravis at gemstonepub.com>
Subject: RE: Atavic doubt (Mickey)
To: "'dcml at stp.ling.uu.se'" <dcml at stp.ling.uu.se>
Message-ID:
<3D1ED5F134E5764BAB6AAA851602164C0325A72F at dntapps.diamondcomics.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

> Excluding the genealogical trees.... who stated, in any story,
> that HDL are the children of a sister of Donald?

One answer to your question would be to check out Mr. Rosa's "The Sharpie of
the Culebra Cut," which happens to be slated for publication in Uncle
Scrooge #332 (Gemstone), on sale August 4, 2004!

Travis Seitler
Art Director, Disney Comic Books
Gemstone Publishing
410.560.5806 x431
stravis at gemstonepub.com

Free Comic Book Day is coming July 3rd, 2004! Visit
http://www.freecomicbookday.com for more details!

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 00:21:16 +0200
From: "Mickey" <mickey at iol.it>
Subject: Re: Atavic doubt
To: "DCML" <dcml at stp.ling.uu.se>
Message-ID: <005101c45002$69aa4660$dc083552 at computer>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Travis:

> One answer to your question would be to check out Mr. Rosa's "The Sharpie
of the Culebra Cut,"

Sorry, I should have specified... excluding Don Rosa! :D
In the first appeareance, HDL are children of a cousin of Donald. You know
better than me.
Then, everybody seems to have forgotten this fact! I wonder why...

Mickey

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
dcml at stp.ling.uu.se - Disney Comics Mailing List
http://stp.ling.uu.se/mailman/listinfo/dcml

End of DCML Digest, Vol 16, Issue 12
************************************

Is it REALLY drew by Jos? Maria Millet Lopez, as we see in Inducks
(http://coa.inducks.org/coa/c1/story.php/0/D+2003-121)?

To me it looks as a Vicar story!

Fernando!