vd.pol2 at memo.volvo.se
Sun Oct 29 14:41:37 CET 1995
--- Inkommet fr}n VD.POL2 031-667632 95-10-29 14:40
Now I'm back again with some nice answers (I hope) for you. I can't answer
all the messages I get at the time they reach my mailbox nowadays, now I
only have about half an hour each day to look at the daily income of mail.
This mean that some days I only can read mail, and other days only answer
mail. Too bad.
> I don't believe that Ludwig is HDL's father. But if there is no
> evidence that he simply *can't* be their father, everyone is free to
> believe that he is. (of course)
Well, it's up to you to believe wheither he's HDL's father or not. I'm
just trying to answer Erik Pettersson's question "Who is HDL's father"
through my re-searching experience of this question. I have searched for
the answer to that question for some time too, see. Do you have any
suggestion who might be the father of HDL if it isn't Ludwig?
BTW., Don, what do you think about Ludwig being the father of HDL? I
believe you have made re-searches on that topic too, haven't you?
> I don't think tha a cartoon can prove how things are.
Oh. I suppose this also goes for Donald as being Daisy's boyfriend, and
HDL as being Donald's nephews, and Black Pete as being an enemy of MM's?
> That's why I don't think that one cartoon in which Ludwig incidental
> is their father, simply proves that he is also their father in his
> "real" live.
So who is the father of HDL in *their* real lifes? As David mentioned this
is the first cartoon in which Ludwig is used. And I think that since he
first became introduced as the father of HDL, this must be the way it is.
> Also, *if* this cartoon shows how live really is, then it would mean
> that the Duckgirl introduces Donald tho his own *sister* (the
> mother). This makes the Duckgirl being Donald's *niece*. This is
> another reason for me to say that his cartoon is only a roleplay.
Of course it's a roleplay! We already considered that months ago! But
since this *is* Ludwig's debute-cartoon... (well, read the above)
> and the cartoons in which Goofy is a father and even married.
I never thought these cartoons as being roleplays! They're not stated as
that, I believe either. Has anyone else the feeling that these are role-
plays? I think that in a regular Goofy-cartoon Goofy met a nice girl in
the end. Then there where a few more Goofy-cartoons before he "got
married" with this girl. And then they had a kid called "Junior". Nowadays
Goofy is divorced and his kid is called Max (in the Goof Troop-programs).
I think this makes the cartoons you mention as not-being roleplays. Then
there still is some Goofy-cartoons in which he is a car-driver, a smoker,
and so on. But I think these are meant as the humans "Goofiest
experiences". Not as roleplays. We all know how Goofy is.
Thanks for telling me what de-flowering means.
> So Jakob, happy? ;-)
Neigh. I think I'm gonna buy myself an Oxford-dictionary up-to-date so I
can tell you what the words mean nowadays. 1974 seems kinda stone-aged
to me. ( ;-) )
> Is Ludwig HDL's father? #2 (David & Jakob)
I'm a bit startled what's wrong with David answering this himself.
> Second, Barks probably wasn't even thinking of this cartoon while
> making his "baywatch" story. Maybe he even wasn't aware of this
> cartoon at all.
He wasn't. The cartoon was made about 10 years after that comic. But maybe
this comic served as the "this has happened before, to be continued"-
> So, what's the sense of combining this cartoon with this story?
I did that because I don't think that the gal' in "Donald's Diary" is
*not* Daisy, but some other person, to prove that it doesn't have to be
his sister Donald is going to marry in that cartoon.
>> Ludwig von Drake *is* the father of HDL!
Er.. I might have over-reacted here. We're still not sure, are we?
>> Do you have any objection to this now? Does *anybody* have an
>> objection to this now?
> Well, at least *I'm* objecting. ;-)
Oh, but of course you are! You *always* object to what *I'm* saying. ;-)
> At the moment Danny isn't a member of our club anymore. :-(
He isn't??! Skee-reech! Yeaooh! Poor us! Yeeeaw! Alas, alas! :-(
I should've guessed it. He doesn't like us anymore. :-(
>> The CD consist of an interview between Carl Barks and Donald Duck
>> (Clarence Nash and Tony Anselmo).
> Clarence Nash?
Aye. Clarence 'Ducky* Nash.
> As far as I know this man is *dead*
Aye. Alas. What's yer point?
> I've heard that he died somewhere in the late '80s.
He did. Alas.
> How can his voice being included on the CD? The only possibilities
> are that the CD is recorded before he died, or that they used his
> voice from archives (which I don't think).
I believe it *is* taken from archives. The interview itself is between
Carl and Tony. But sometimes you can hear a different Duck-voice answer
the questions. A Duck-voice that is more like the one from the old
cartoons. The voice of Clarence Nash. Maybe they wanted to have an
interview between Carl and Donald with Nash as Donald? And later on they
added that '60th birthday...' and the voice of Anselmo? But it's Nash's
voice alright. It's even mentioned somewhere in the booklet that follows
> How much "cents" does this book cost?
I think I payed about 45 bucks for it. Here in Sweden.
> Was it a limited edition?
Well, I guess so. There was two editions of it, one deluxe edition that
included the CD, and one regular.
> Is Carl Barks telling some new facts on it, or is it just a funny
> "radio play"?
Carl Barks is "just" telling us that "as we know I and Donald worked
together at the Disney-studios for many years" and so on. And he told
Donald to meet him by the fire in his livingroom. And Donald comes with
all his friends and is to put the fire out. With water and everything. And
Donald says that Donald had learned how to control his temper. And Carl
tries to make him frustrated with a lotta stuff, but nothing happens. But
of course Donald gets upset in the end. It's, as you say, a funny radio-
> Can you also tell me more about the book?
Er.. wel.. yes, I suppose so. But I believe somone already did. It's a
book written on the 40s about Donald, his birth, growing up and how he
became as he is now. I guess that both Strobl and Rota took ideas from
this book to their "Life of Donald"-stories. I haven't compared them yet,
but some scenes are very much alike.
>> Set X??!
> Maybe set "X" sounds very mysterious, but in fact I meant "set 10".
> Hei, hei!
> Thanks for the info on the box-set...
Yeah, any time...
> and sometimes Don's stories printed in one issue. Those will normally
> have a cover by Don himself.
Like the first two Lo$-chapters you had published together? I still miss
that one in my collection... since it haven't been published in Sweden
yet, I mean.
> and I think also the one with that cabbage-prof. and the BBs.
Do you mean "Cash Flow"? Are you saying that Norway published CASH FLOW??!
That's bad. Why doesn't Sweden publish such great stories?! I'm jealous...
> I reread "TtX" and "SotS" yesterday. IS there any D.U.C.K in the
> "SotS" or hadn't he started with that yet?
Oh yes, he started with that at once. In the Swedish version if "SotS"
there is a very clear, white D.U.C.K in the last pannel, instead of
"The End". But I think that Sweden are unique at that point (and also the
only time when we're unique) that we published Don's absolutely original
version of "SotS", not even Gladstone did!
>> Why's that? I don't think that was a spoiler!
> Well, I mean, you discussed a story most of the people on the list
> haven't had a chance to see yet.
So? When the same guys discuss Rosa-stories *they* just read *I* won't
read it until about 2 months after that! Sweet revenge... ;-)
>> What is "Citizen Kane"?
> A movie considered to be one of the best ever made (depending whom
> you ask, of course, but I mean among people who study movies like we
> study comics :-).
Suddenly I feel like I've got the brain of a shrimp! I asked my father
about it and he said the same thing! I'm so ashamed! I'll go to my local
video.store this week and hire it. Then I can tell you *my* opinions about
it. Er.. maybe not. This is a *Disney-comics* mailing-list, right?
> As we've said here, that WALT DISNEY GIANT #1 cover wasn't printed
> just as we'd hoped, but may yet still be shown as intended on some
> album next year.
Yeah, let's hope so.
> Yesm it was based on the cover for my "Last Sled to Dawson" story on
> UNCLE $CROOGE ADVENTURES #5 from 1988, and the reason I was anxious
> to try the cover again was the fact that even back then it hadn't
> come close to the way I'd intended (notice, for one thing, that there
> was no Northern Lights in the first version, though it had been on my
Yes, but wasn't that just because they should fill in the "Uncle $crooge
Adventures"-logo? The Northern Lights wouldn't make much sense then...
On the other hand yer original drawing was published in the letter-column
of the same issue.
> The Northern Lights and stary sky was done BEAUTIFULLY by Susan
> Daigle-Leach on the new version, but there were some unplanned
> obstructions like the indicia box, and the midnight sun was still
> behind the figures as I'd planned.
Yes, it looks very beautiful. But the "glossy" version I have doesn't look
the same as that published version we're discussing. I saw that recently.
Among other things you can see the hair-clasp of Glittering Goldie's isn't
the same. Now, since you've made *two* almost looking the same covers for
that issue you wouldn't mind selling me one of them for 200 bucks, would
> Anyway, it wasn't a matter of enlarging the figure on the old cover,
> if you imply doing it by some mechanical means.
No, I didn't mean that. But I thought that you looked at the U$A-cover and
then drew the same $crooge, just bigger. That's what I meant. You didn't
work from memory, did ya?
> I simply redrew that $crooge pose -- but you can plainly see hundreds
> of tiny differences that would show that it's not the same drawing,
Right. Just as I thought then.
> The WD COMICS IN COLOR albums #1-7 that I did covers for cost $20
So they do.
> They were simply rebound issues of those earlier Gladstone albums. At
> $20 they would be a bargain buy of the 3 or 4 albums inside... but if
> you already had the original albums, DON'T waste $20 each just to get
> my covers!
Sorry, but I haven't got those albums. They seem to be very rare nowadays.
But if you think I *won't* buy those WDCiC-albums although I would have
had those earlier Gladstone-issues, you don't know *me*! My, there are
*Rosa*-covers on them, didn't you know??! ;-)
> One or two of those covers weren't so bad, but most of them were
> pretty awful, if not downright CREEPY looking!
Another reason for me to buy them when I see them. *Rosa*-covers looking
*bad*!! There's very few of those, I must agree... I *must* have them!
> And even the good'ns sure aren't worth $20! But I don't think you'll
> find them anywhere, they didn't sell to well, so I hope your money is
No they're not! If they didn't sell too well they will become even more
rare in the future! Just look at those old Barks Giveaways...
If I don't get those albums *now* I'll have to pay at least $5000 for them
in about 40 years! Aaaargh!
> That quote you (Knut) used... what brought that up?
It wasn't Knut, it was *me* using that quote. I like it, and so I used it
here as my signature. *You* could have much use of a good signature too,
Don! Chose an old Barks-quote and make it to yer signature...
> But I think I used that line in the 1987 "Return to Plain Awful".
Is "RtPA" from 1987?! Eek! I thought it was from the beginning of the 90s!
Can you (or somebody else) tell me the chronological order of your (Don's)
stories untill 1990, BTW.?
OK, maybe that *is* Daisy, I just tried to point out that there *is* a lot
of such stuff where you cannot be sure who is the other. As with our
friend Ludwig von Drake here.
> Barks' statement that his use of her in 1940 (first in an unproduced
> desert prospector cartoon with Gus Goose, then in "Mr. Duck Steps
> Out") was the first is simply wrong.
Er.. does Barks have anything to do with the makings of "Mr. Duck Steps
Out"? I didn't know that. Has he?
A long time ago in a
digest far far away you wrote:
> I haven't heard from you since I got to Massachussetts, and since my
> other E-mails from you are back in California, I don't have your
> E-mail address available. Haven't you got mine from the digests?
Yes, I have. And I have also sent you a whole bunch of letters to yer
William's-account asking a lot of important stuff. Why haven't you
answered those? My address was in them! Maybe you don't have time to read
more than the digests?
> I'm wondering what's happened with our project...
What has happened so far is that I've almost finished the pencils (I only
have 2 pannels left to draw!). I've asked you for ideas and explanations
for those, but you haven't asnwered... But please do that now when you've
got my E-mail address again. Send me a private message so we can talk
> All the the norvegian Rosa covers have been published in the U.S.
> exept: the "from Duckburc to Lillehammer" and the "treasure of
> Croesus" cover. I think that DD&co #42 (the "extra-issue") whith
> "the lost charts of Colombus" story will have a Rosa cover. I THINK
> this cover is drawn for the norvegian issue.
Do you think you can get me those "LCoC" and "ToC"-issues?
> Perhaps Don or Erik Hoerte can give an answer.
Well, Don and/ or Erik, what's *yer* respond to this?
> Jakob So/=derbaum is talking in riddles:
Oh, sorry. Do you want to have a translation of the phrase or just my
> My point was, that Ludwig Von Drake can't possibly be HDL's father,
> because they call him "uncle".
I can see yer point. But I don't think that's a heavy evidence. Who do
*you* think is the father of HDL then? Do you have any better idea than
> But there is no usual name for "granmother's brother". At least not
> in English or Dutch. Maybe in Swedish? "farmorbror" or so?
Nope. But $crooge usually call HDL his "brorsoner", nephews, too. What's
yer explanation of *that*?
> Thanks for the translation. But this article didn't contain anything
> we did not already know.
Well, at least Daniel didn't know about it. And I translated the article
for his sake. He wanted to know. Maybe I shouldn't have done that?
>> And I can also tell you, Daniel, that Jippes IS to re-ink every
>> single one of those Junior Woodchucks-stories!
> Now where did you get that information?
I read it some while ago in some Swedish fanzine. Maybe it was "Bild &
Good bye for this time! See ya again in some while!
"I have only one soda left, senor... But I think it has
been FLAT since the Great War!
Ever since World War TWO?!
CARAMBA! There was ANOTHER one?"
More information about the DCML