Blum is not bad

[mas]

At 10:31 AM 8/12/2003 +0200, "Sigvald Grøsfjeld jr."wrote:
>Daniel van Eijmeren <dve at kabelfoon.nl> wrote:
>
> > Barks made modern stories himself, and Blum
> > followed that tradition. That's not an opinion.
> > That's a fact.
>
>Barks did *not* set his stories in 2003. That's a fact too.

That's because he wasn't alive in 2003.  Barks' stories took place during 
the same time that he was writing them.  Blum is alive now, and his story 
takes place now.  How is this contradicting Barks?  I don't think that duck 
writers and artists should neccesarily be limited to doing exactly what 
Barks did, but in either case, your argument doesn't hold water.

>The same way it would IMO be wrong to set a Poirot or a Ms Marple story to
>2003.

Has anyone here read Archie Comics?  In the 1940s, Archie took place in the 
forties.  In the 1990s, Archie took place in the ninties.  Now, Archie and 
his gang are all in high school circa 2003.

Sure, Rosa might place his stories in a generic 1950s (for the most part) 
and Blum might do a 2003 story.  But they are different creators with 
different takes on the ducks.  That doesn't make one of their takes "right" 
and the other "wrong."  Both succeed at what they are trying to accomplish, 
both of them like the ducks, and both have readers who like their stories.

For the record, I didn't really like "World Wide Witch."  But I could 
appreciate that some people might like it, I could appreciate that it's a 
good story to bring in today's kids (which is something sorely need in the 
U.S., where almost no kids read comics anymore), and I could tell from his 
text piece that he, like all of us, loves duck stories.

- Mark S.