Keskustelujen arkisto

That was a nice time with the beginning of the new year and the new decade when suddenly a whole bunch of Don Rosa comics were published all after another. At that time I was only eleven years old, and I didn't know the name of that new Duck artist, but they presented themselves as something special beyond average, and with all those allusions and connections to the classic stories of Carl Barks that one hardly ever saw in the stories of other artists I recognised immediately that the man who created that must be a true believer, an unconvincible fanaticist of Barksism. Every of that story gave the impression of being a personal hommage to the Duck Man.

It's also been 20 years since Rosa was first published in Holland, 13 april 2010.

Quote from user: Lars JensenQuote from user: CoolwaterThat was a nice time with the beginning of the new year and the new decade
The decade you're referring to didn't begin until January 1st, 1991.
I think you are mixing up two things here: The decade "1990s" (which I meant) did begin with the year 1990 and ended with 1999, unlike the "20th century" that, in strict mathematics (though not in popular perception where one bows, maybe with own right, to the magic of the ciphers), did not end with the year 1999, but with the year 2000 (which really everybody should know at the latest since the turn of the year from 1999 to 2000, since practically every article or broadcast in the media dealing with "millennium change" stuff felt obliged to point out that, at least here they did).

What one calls, especially with respect to the 20th century, the "20s" and so on up to the "90s" are by their name groups each of ten years depending of the tens digits of the year count; and they needn't coincide or be identical with successive groups each of ten years that started with the first year of the year count 1 AD. The tenth and last decade of the 20th century in the Christian calculation of times stretches indeed from 1991 to 2000--in strict terms the "last decade of the 20th century" is not (fully) identical with the "1990s" (which strech, as said, from 1990 to 1999).

If one liked to put the last 2000 years and more in a complete decadic order depending on the tens digits like "80s" and "90s", including all the "tens" and the "zero years", one would, going back beyond the "nothing-but-tens" in the days of Augustus, suddenly face the problem that one had only nine years left, since there was no year zero. The ordering will find its end at that point thus. That is, however, neither a mathematical nor a terminological problem, but just one of "harmony" or "aesthetics" ...

Terminologically, actually every period of ten years can be called a "decade" rightfully: the period from 1990 to 1999 as well as that from 1991 to 2000, but also, say, that from 1987 to 1996. As I didn't label or specify the "new decade" closer in the other post, that designation would not say anything wrong then even if the "1990s" would have started with the year 1991.

Quote from user: Coolwater[...]the "20th century" that, in strict mathematics (though not in popular perception where one bows, maybe with own right, to the magic of the ciphers), did not end with the year 1999, but with the year 2000 (which really everybody should know at the latest since the turn of the year from 1999 to 2000, since practically every article or broadcast in the media dealing with "millennium change" stuff felt obliged to point out that, at least here they did).
Huh? From a mathematical sense, the 20th century would be the set of years for which (year - (year mod 100)) / (20 - 1) = 1, wouldn't it? But it depends on definitions: which was the first year of the first century?

Quote from user: Robb_KDoes it make sense to measure everything before 2,000 years ago in one group, and the last 2010 years in the other?
Well, that is just the same system as people have been using for specifying temperature for centuries (Celsius/Fahrenheit systems). The temperature scales work fine in some cases, but some physical laws become slightly more difficult if you use one of those systems. But I don't know of any similar issues related to the year system.

Quote from user: CoolwaterEr ... after all the years from 1901 until 2000, or what are you meaning? The first year of Christian time calculation was 1 AD.
Right, but that doesn't automatically make it the first year of a century.

Pity that Don Rosa won't be doing more Duck stories in the foreseeable future.
Slight thread detour: Now, obviously Rosa's cited his vision as the primary reason he's retired, but he's also mentioned a low page rate. I think I recall him quoting $35,000 as one of his recent annual salaries. Now, in more recent years, Rosa has produced one, maybe two stories a year. So was his page rate low, or was his income low due to the fact that he didn't produce as much work annually as other Disney artists? I was always under the impression that Egmont's page rates were very good, especially in comparison to many American publishers as comic book sales over here are pretty terrible (even Marvel and DC sell a fraction of the books they used to.)
(I'm just curious. I don't like sticking my nose into other people's finances, but when salaries have already been made public, doesn't that open it up for public discussion?)
Also, is there any chance Mr. Rosa would consider just writing stories and letting someone else draw them...?