Disney-comics digest #369.

Don Rosa 72260.2635 at CompuServe.COM
Wed Jun 29 05:48:32 CEST 1994


MIKKO:
	Unless I misunderstand you, you're saying that you don't see why
I should be upset by the contents of a "private" FAX and not upset by
the contents of an article in a major magazine? Why, there's an enormous
difference when you consider the contents of both, and WHO the Fax was
sent to with what intended purpose. As I tried to make clear, opinions
expressed about my work in a magazine, no matter HOW large its
circulation, are not my concern. How can I object... even if the
opinions contain misinterpretation or even Grandey-lies about the
contents of my stories? As I said, he's f*rting in the wind... he can't
hurt me. But his FAX was sent to my employers, contained the most
outrageous imagineable lies about my character and about my behavior at
a particular event which related to my job, and dared to go so far as to
accuse me of an actual CRIME... the whole intention being to damage me
in the eyes of my employers. This is the WORST thing you can do to
someone with the written-word... in particular, accusing someone of a
crime is absolutely indefensible in a libel suit.

HARRY:
	Gladstone DID contact me to say that Disney insisted they remove
the guns pointed in $crooge's face. They said they'd twist the guns to
point at the ceiling... this seemed trivial, but I figured they could
handle it themselves, even if it meant redrawing that one beak. But... I
guess I was wrong, eh?
	I, myself, just asked them to redraw two views of Hortense in
Lo$ part V; I'd started drawing her with a DD type beak, then in
subsequent episodes went to giving her a cuter, smaller beak. We'll see
how they do.......

MATTIAS:
	THE NAME OF THE ROSE being the same as GotLL in the sense of
someone keeping ancient knowledge secret? That must be why a reporter in
Germany was asking me if I got the idea from that story from that book.
I've never read the book, but I saw and greatly liked the movie -- yet
the idea I came away from the movie with was not one of the monks trying
to withhold their entire library, but only that ONE BOOK (what was it?
Aristotle's book about humor or something?) Either I misinterpreted the
movie or they altered the plot for the film. Anyway, even though NAME OF
THE ROSE passed through my mind a few times while I was doing GotLL, it
never occurred to me that I was imitating it. I HAVE done a few stories
imitating certain movies and freely admit it -- but this wasn't one of
those times.
	Thanks for your suggestions on how to change part 12 of the Lo$.
It might be tricky to change DD's attitude at the end since that would
screw up the closing irony of what $crooge's money really means to him
and what it would mean to someone who was truly simply greedy with no
self-respect or soul or decency... in other words, Grandey. I like that
idea of DD thinking one thing while we, the readers, see what's on U$'s
mind is quite different -- it would lose the irony if DD KNEW what he
was thinking. But... these are the sorts of decisions that writers are
always facing in writing such tales.
	Yes, I failed to answer your question about how could DD be
older in 1930 than HD&L are in 1947. I knew this was going against my
previous ideas on that subject when I wrote that chapter 12, but didn't
worry about it too much since those birth years in my notes have never
actually been printed anywhere. All I knew was I loved the scene of a
young DD kicking U$ in the fanny. However, it had to be a very young DD
in order for the act to seem more mischievous than mean. You'll agree
that if HD&L kicked U$'s butt it would seem very nasty since they are
about 10 or 12 or so. So I was thinking my 1930 DD was about 7 or 8. I
never tried to mentally readjust my Duck birth dates... let's see: say
DD and his sister were born in 1923. Then let's say HD&L were born in
1938? No, that would mean Della was only 15 when she had them. And
chapter 12 can take place no later than 1930 since it's after the stock
merket crash. Hey... whatcha know... I've screwed myself, eh? Any
suggestions? I think my only solution is to eliminate the comment that
DD was "even younger" than HDL when he last saw U$.
	And obviously there's no sense in trying to find logic or
accuracy in Grandey's accusations that my Lo$ is not authentic. He's
simply going to say anything he can to make me look bad and hope that
the listeners are ignorant and will believe him -- but, as I keep
saying, he's f*rting in the wind. No one will listen, especially when
they know that my Lo$ is painfully accurate to Barks' work. However, I
am slipping into my next "Making of the L and T of $.McD" text the fact
that Barks sent me his approval of my entire lay-out for the Lo$, as
well as his comments of parts 1-8 (at least) being satisfactory (at
least according to the letters he sent me and which I have right here).
I'll mention it very gently, but this will show Grandey what I think of
him and his campaign of lies (as if he won't already have an idea from
my lawyers).





More information about the DCML mailing list