name changes, definitions and more

[Katie Sullivan]

Regarding Li'l Bad Wolf's name, Sigvald wrote:
 
> I think that it sounds ironic and is obviously very confusing
> to the
> children who read such stuff. My friendly advice to Gary Leach
> and our other
> friends in Gemstone is that they should correct his name so
> that it fits
> that particularly wolf's current personaliy and also his
> Scandinavian names.

But that's just it--his name *IS* ironic.  It's supposed to be,
as Rich B. pointed out.  The artist(s?) who created him all
those decades ago intentionally gave him a name contradictory to
his nature.  Obviously Zeke, his father, The Big Bad Wolf, would
call his son "Little Bad Wolf."  Not only is this like a man
named William naming his son William Junior, it also shows how
desperate Zeke is for his son to have a fierce reputation like
his own.  It would make no sense for Zeke to advertise his son's
"goodness" when it's a source of shame to him.


> And IMO that's possible to do as long as Mr. G. Blum is alowed
> to change the
> name of Ms. Emily Quackfaster into whatever suits his own
> taste.

Didn't someone mention that the only place "Emily" had been used
for Ms. Quackfaster was in the Life of $crooge?  Those of us who
are obsessed with the little details and geneology of these
characters know that, but would the average reader?  It's a far
different situation from Li'l Bad Wolf's, who has been around
with that name for decades.  Didn't he even briefly have his own
comic book?  Oh well, that doesn't matter--his stories appeared
in WDC&S continuously for years.  He *is* "Li'l Bad Wolf," and
always has been.  He's never been referred to as anything else,
to the best of my knowledge.  
Ms. Quackfaster's first name is a rather obscure piece of trivia
that most readers wouldn't pay much attention to.  Re-naming a
headline character like Li'l Bad would be a much more
troublesome undertaking.  (Not that consistency isn't something
to strive for.  I'd have preferred Ms. Emily Quackfaster/Miss
Typefast/Miss Florence Quackfaster's name to be consistent, but
it's not something I'm going to lose any sleep over!)  ;)


Now on to more inflammatory matters...

Sigvald wrote: 
> Ahaaa?!? Is that it? Is the word "cult" a very, very negative
> word in
> English? What do you Americans put into that word? Is it
> perhaps ancient,
> barbaric customs like when the Aztecs cut the hearts out of
> people? Well,
> welcome to the modern world then. I am open-minded and able to
> include much
> more than that in the word cult.

Um, well, you can be as open-minded as you like (and indeed it's
something I would encourage) but it doesn't give you free
license to make up your own definitions for words.  I realize
English isn't your first language--and isn't for most of the
people in this mailing list.  So allow me to clarify...
Quoth dictionary.com...

cult:
1a.  A religion or religious sect generally considered to be
extremist or false, with its followers often living in an
unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian,
charismatic leader. 
1b.The followers of such a religion or sect. 
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual. 
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious
ceremony and ritual.  


While most Americans I know personally would recognize the
second and third meanings as being valid ones, "1a" is the one
that springs immediately to mind.  "Cult" conjures up images of
the wackos who poisoned themselves so they could join the aliens
on the comet that was passing by a few years ago.  So yes, it
does have a pejorative (bad) meaning to native English speakers
like myself.


Quoting Sigvald again:
> That must be a w[e]ird sect [of Christianity], AFAIK that
>practice is not supported by the Bible.

I could name a number of things "Christians" do and don't do
that are not supported by the Bible, but that would only add
fuel to an already off-topic flame war.


Also, I don't know exactly what Søren's problem is with Don Rosa
or vice versa, but it strikes me as the sort of thing best
handled via private e-mails.

Søren wrote:
> you might like to find the private e-mail you wrote
> to me on December
> 27th last year. And be sure to quote all the four slating
> lines that you wrote
> to me.

I don't know about Don, but I certainly don't keep copies
e-mails that I have sent for that long!

Søren also wrote:
> However, your ideas are *not* general "Disney comics" ideas.
> Far from it. They
> circle around historical facts and dates, which leaves me
> cold!

Um, isn't that one of the things we all admire about Barks?  His
attention to historical detail?  His collection of National
Geographics?  The fact that he didn't make up silly places and
fake history to insult his readers' intelligence?  Don simply
carries on that tradition (and very well, I might add!)  ;)  So
many people in America dismiss Disney comics as mindless drivel
for children's entertainment.  It's stories like those by Barks
and Rosa (and others!) that weave in history, mythology,
literature, geography and other disciplines that prove those
critics wrong.  It's the ties to "reality" that make for the
best epic adventures, in my opinion.  Just because they're
stories about talking ducks and mice doesn't mean they can't be
realistic!  ;)

Having put in my two cents' worth, I still think any
disagreements between two individuals should be kept off the
mailing list and confined to private e-mails, especially when
they aren't directly related to discussion of the comics.  I,
for one, am certainly not thrilled with Søren for insulting one
of my favorite authors so rudely, and more messages like that
last one will only serve to enflame people even more--people who
aren't even involved in the dispute.  We really, really, really
don't need any more animosity around here.  

I've tried to keep my messages as polite as I can, and I
apologise if I offended anyone in any way, as that was not my
intent.  For the sake of everyone's feelings, we should really
wrap up this discussion of religion and belief systems.  We seem
to be straying farther and farther off-topic with it, and it's
only making people upset.  
These are topics people tend to have very strong feelings
about--feelings which are highly unlikely to change because of
something said in an Internet mailing list!


Peace,


Katie Sullivan
http://www.sullivanet.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com