Time for a reply

[Søren Krarup Olesen]

Yup. DCML seems to be up and running again, so here is my reply:

RODNEY(?):

> If Don had wanted everyone on the list to read this remark, I'm sure
> he would've cc'd us on the original message.  That seems to be a
> rather sneaky way to get a jab in at someone that it seems that you
> often disagree with.

You might be right, although I don't think "sneaky" is the right word
for a comment, which is put forward on a public mailing list. I like to
focus on *what* is being said, not so much under which circumstances.

> However, Barks *did* create the characters [...]

He did!? Not many compared to the huge selection of characters found
in Inducks...and found in the Scandinavian weekly.

> [...] and while the rules
> shouldn't be hardfast, there are boundries that he set that, I feel,
> should be kept.

I actually agree very much on this. We shouldn't break the basic rules
(whatever they are--hard to define) and create entirely new universes
where Uncle Scrooge suddenly turns out as a poor duck, and e.g. Donald
beeing lucky and all that. My only complaint was about those eternal
comparisons between Barks/Rosa and the "mob". Judging a magazine from
whether it contains Barks/Rosa stories or not is IMHO cheating oneself
from getting (other) views from different story writers and artists.

> [...] and yet in the article in
> US320, Blum primes himself as a Barksian story teller.

Yes, well. On the other hand, we should perhaps not be too reluctant to
the development in our world. This reminds me of another private (uff
dah, that word again!) conversation with a younger friend of mine. We
were trying to figure out what Tony Strobl story was printed in his
album. He tried to explain some of the details; "Uncle Scrooge talking
into an intercom" (something like that). When I viewed the scan
afterwards, it was clear that Scrooge was in fact recording his voice
with a microphone connected to a tape-recorder, you know, one of the
old ones with large spools (e.g. Revox).

This illustrates that some sort of progression must indeed be included
in newer stories...whether we "older" guys like it or not.

HARRY:

> First you state that Daniël's mail is too much about (heiring from) Barks.

I did not specify his "mail", only talking about his personal refs.

> Then Daniël says his mail is not.

Which is correct. It wasn't.

> Then you say that you weren't talking about Daniël's *mail*, but about his
> personal preferences.

Yes, that little parenthesis of mine was addressed to Daniël and
possibly others, it was not the topic of my mail--only to catch his
attention. Nor was it the topic of Daniël's mail.

> And *then* you say you are *not* talking about Daniël's personal preferences,
> but about "other things".

(see above). Amazed to see how small remarks are being treated as main
subjects here. Perhaps in ze future, I should put all into a P.S. or
something to catch people's full attention. Hm.

SIGVALD:

No, it wasn't you, Sigvald or AC for that matter. It was somebody else.
BTW, glad that you've started to read some Murry. Disney comics is so wide
and provides pleasures on many levels, some for investigation, some for fun,
some for relaxation, some for indexing. It's all there.

Cheers,
Søren