<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">In a message dated 7/30/2002 6:30:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cmhallin@algonet.se writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">The Barks references I <BR>
appreciate, but they are not the main reason why I like Don's work.</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
I am one of those folks who was reading Don back when he did Pertwillaby Papers --to me his stories ((keeping in mind that i havent read any recent ones)) are just good stories. I have read plenty of BarksClone stories (names omitted) and they are tired in both story and art. <BR>
While Don states that he has no desire to do non-Duck stories, I certainly would read anything else he did --- heck, I would welcome a story set in 2002. I certainly dont need to see any Barks refrence in his work....<BR>
But ---- I believe that that is part of Don's enjoyment of doing the stories.....his challenge to set stories in the 1950s without them looking like they are set in the 1950s, the fun to him to have Barks elements that some readers see, but some dont.<BR>
I can certainly see why some folks dont like his work. After all some folks dont like Walt Kelly or John Stanley or Sheldon Mayer or Bob Bolling or even Carl Barks.... I can see why they don't --- and they have my sympathy......<BR>
<BR>
steven rowe</FONT></HTML>