Chalker's IBO$M

[Tryg Helseth]

On 29 Mar 94 09:24:04 EST, 
Don Rosa  <72260.2635 at CompuServe.COM> wrote:

>No, I can't agree. It says in the book that they treat all
>stories "by Barks" in those first 71 issues as canonical. And yet they
>actually treat ALL stories in those issues as if they were by Barks. 

Reading the chapter, "A Note on Research Sources" on page xi, it is not all 
that clear to me what Chalker is saying.  While he seems to be dismissing 
the non-canonical works as fiction, he doesn't actually say that he isn't 
using them in his biography.  I'm not defending his rational here, merely 
trying to clarify it.  BTW, just how many $crooge stories in U$ 1-71 are 
not by Barks?  (I don't know the answer, but I'll bet there aren't many.)

>You are wrong when you say they only treated those two Barks-drawn-only
>stories as, again, canonical.

If you are going to rake me over the coals for what I say, then please 
don't misquote me.  I said those two stories were mentioned by Kim Weston
in the bibliogrphy, NOT that only two were used in the Biography.

>My biography may not be as good or clever as Chalkers', but it's definitely
>based more on Barks "facts" if that's what $crooge fans want.

I hope you don't think I was trying to discount your biography, because I 
wasn't.  I was just trying to clarify what Chalker said.  I enjoyed his 
book in spite of the aforementioned inconsistencies and don't think it 
should be judged so harshly.

Tryg