Disney-comics digest #364 & 368.

[Mattias Hallin]

DON:

    I owe you a couple of apologies: first for not answering your reply to my
last posting before -- I've been out of town for a couple of days; but mainly
for making light of what can't very well be a light subject to you: of course I
don't fear being sued by Bill Grandey for calling him what I think he must be
(a nasty, stupid and greedy sod, who rides the coattails of Carl Barks' work and
reputation in order to fatten noone but himself). But I was that flabbergasted
by what you had to reveal, that I didn't really know what to say, and instead
of saying so, I made a light quip about the whole thing. For which I am sorry, 
and do apologize.

About what you said of GotLL and the morality of the JWs and the Guidebook --
of course I realize both the need for that interior logic/motivation and also
that it's just a logical extension of how Barks used the Guidebook. So in a
sense, maybe my argument isn't with you but with the Junior Woodchucks of the
World... Are you, BTW, familiar with "The Name of the Rose" by Umberto Eco (the
book I mean, not so much the movie)? That book, as you might know, deals with
that very problem: the freedom of knowledge and access to knowledge, and if you
haven't yet come across it, you might find it worth your time.

Yes... I also see your point of Donald getting $crooge to re-retire by making
him mad enough to care once more -- but if you add pages, maybe you could make
Donald realize his mistaken attitude somewhere nearing the end of the story? I
think that the final whole-page splash is too good to be replaced in toto, but
perhaps Donald could somehow be made to have that final line instead of HD&L? I
mean, $crooge DOES demonstrate rather clearly both verbally and by action that
he is a duck of some personal resources... and if Donald's initial antagonism
stems from his misconception that $crooge is undeservedly rich, and born with
the proverbial silverspoon and all, and he then slowly realizes that he's been
wrong about this -- then you could BOTH have the mean Donald as catalyst for
goading $crooge out of retirement, AND make Donald more sympathetic when he
realizes and ADMITS he's been wrong, and add emotional depth to the character
of Donald -- which I am convinced he does indeed possess. Incindentally, this
would also tally better with the very un-antagonistic and happy mood of the
last page of "Christmas on Bear Mountain" where, as you well know, Donald and
$crooge are perfectly chummy.

And still I don't understand how Donald could be younger in 1930 than HD$L are
in 1947 -- if he's supposed to have been born in 1920 and they in 1940 -- or
isn't this in your original script?

MIKKO:

      That was a very interesting item you posted -- it proves yet again the
apparently utter and complete stupidity (and meanness!) of Bill Grandey, if he
tries to claim that Barks would have $crooge be born in 1994-60 years=1934!!!
It is one thing, alright, that Barks never tried to build, nor probably cared 
for any set chronology of $crooge's life; but it's a fact, as you yourself
point out, that according to Barks' own stories $crooge must at least be born
well before 1900 in order to be able to do a number of the things he does in
those very stories. Which makes Don's conclusions very logical: either one
accepts that $crooge was born approx. in the mid-1860s, and that no $crooge
story can take place much later than approx. the mid 1960s; OR you don't use
any time-frame at all!

We can't really "blame" Carl Barks for not caring about this matter -- he was a
professional cartoonist (and I'm NOT trying to call Don an amateur -- he, too,
makes his living as a cartoonist, albeit possibly with slightly different
points of view) who never for a minute thought anyone would remember his
stories for any time worth mentioning -- so why should Barks have put a lot 
of effort into constructing a logical time-frame for his stories, when he
didn't think it would be needed? Instead he opted for a present that was the
then current present -- a story published in 1951 takes place in 1951, unless
it's historical.

Personally I completely agree with Don's choice: I, too, think of $crooge as
born in or around (the exact year isn't VERY important) 1867.

Well... all my best, and once more Don: my apologies!

Mattias

!==============================================================================!
!* Mattias Hallin ** <Mattias.Hallin at Jurenh.lu.se> ** Phone: +46 46-14 84 43 **!
!* Trollebergsvagen 24 B ***** Work: Lund University, Box 117, S-221 00 Lund **!
!* S-222 29 Lund, SWEDEN **************************** Phone: +46 46-10 71 37 **!
!==============================================================================!
!***** "Oh, the villain onward stole... While a wicked smile he smole!"  ******!
!==============================================================================!