DCML digest #701

[Don Rosa]

From: CarmenG at aol.com
>>>despite Mr. Rosa's protestations that his artwork is not what he wishes
it to
be, I think Magica is beautifully drawn and--dare I say this about a comic
duck?--sexy. but I just feel the joy of the artist in every strand
of her hair as it flies about.
    (Okay--just wait. Don will write that he found drawing the hair tedious
and that he sees the character as frumpy.

You betcher sweet life I find drawing Magica's hair tedious! And her
all-black outfit! Filling in black takes LOTS of time! It takes longer to
draw her than any other character in these comics! But no, I don't try to
draw her frumpy. I think you can see that when you note the extra vertical
ink line I always employ on both her and Goldie in the area just south of
the front of their neck.

From: Goofy313g at aol.com (Gilles)
>>>Now, questions to Don Rosa :
Is it Barks'  oilpainting "Return to plain awful" that inspired you for
your
story with the same title, or is it the story that inspired the paint, as I
noticed (I think) that both have been made in the same year?

My inspiration was Bruce Hamilton showing me a picture of the newly
finished painting which he was preparing to produce as a LE lithograph, and
him saying "do a story based on this painting".
I actually had wanted to do sequels before that, but they didn't like the
idea since so few American readers would be familiar with the originals.
But he explained that they had had problems with some investors who were
buying the lithographs without being familiar with the stories... I think
the one he specifically named was "Disaster at Money Lake"... saying that
the buyers were disturbed that they did not understand what was going on.
Like "I'm worried that the investment potential of this piece will be
lessened by the fact that I'm too stupid to understand it". I think we saw
one of these people at the Barks 100 year commemoration panel at the SD Con
when Bruce happily announced a new edition of the book of Barks'
paintings -- one jerk actually (I couldn't believe he did this,
*especially* at a panel which was to simply honor Barks' name and work)
stood up and asked "How will that new book effect the value of the original
that we bought from you?"
Anyway, the idea was for me to do a story explaining why there was a square
chicken and (maybe for the real fans) to justify the painting of a scene
from an adventure which never took place (but $crooge *had* to be in each
lithograph, again for the investors who would be upset if he were not). And
a copy of the comic was included with each purchase, or so I was told.
But looking back later, I wonder why I did not use the idea that $crooge is
excited about there being a GOLDEN, not simply square, egg under the square
chicken. Maybe they sent me a b&w copy of the painting or maybe I saw the
scene only briefly at some point. Anyway, I'm kinda glad I didn't notice
that detail -- it wasn't needed for my purposes. All that was needed was
the original idea that any sort of square eggs would be very valuable to
the egg industry. And that's one of my own favorites of my own old stories,
just the way it is.

Reply-To: "Fabio Blanco" <longtom at oeste.com.ar>
From: "Fabio Blanco" <longtom at oeste.com.ar>
>>>My questions for Don Rosa or whoever... if Calisota is a state near =
California and Oregon...

Sorry... this seems to be a requoted question. Did I miss it the first
time?
My idea is that Calisota is the northern section of California, just above
the angle it makes on the east with Nevada.

From: Kriton Kyrimis <kyrimis at cti.gr>
> I envy those who have not discovered the Calvin and Hobbes comics
>>>If they're fantastic, why do you envy those people who have not
discovered
them?!?!?

I think we assume she meant to say "pity", not "envy". Nobody's vocabulary
or logic would be that envious.

From: "Santiago Garcia Banhos" <sgarcia at external.uf-isf.es>
>>>This remains me a fact I've realised in Bark's tales (I don't know if
this
has been discused here before): He *never* uses any real magic or
supernatural facts in his stories; even when it seems to be some paranormal
phenomenia, at the end it turns out to have some certain scientifical
explanation

That's right. I go along with him on the witch thing... using witches
brings it too close to kiddies' fairy tales. But I don't mind using an
occasional ghost, though only in Castle McDuck -- I'm too much a fan of so
many films like THE UNINVITED or THE GHOST AND MRS. MUIR (or even the new
THE OTHERS) not to do it. And a few hardcore Barksfans have been irate that
I would use a ghost. But as I always tell them, I'm not doing Carl Barks
stories. I'm doing my own stories, good or bad, based on his characters and
situations as I interpret them.

From: "timo ronkainen" <timoro at hotmail.com>
>>>Barks said in some interview that he always tried to find some kind
rational
explanations and solutions to his stories. No inexplicable fable or
supernatural things.

Yeah, but I'm not sure how Harpies/Larkies or Terries or Firmies or
Gneezles or Valhalla or many other such characters figure into that
explanation. After all, he did use magic, but just not witches... not
things that cranks might interpret as satanic. His editors didn't seem to
fear that, but Barks may simply have been ahead of his time, expecting the
current era in America when people will object to just about anything just
to hear themselves make noise.