K.K. Publications/Gold Key

[Rob Klein]

Hallo Kriton, - actually, I DID mean K.K. Publications, which was a
subsidiary of Whitman Publishing Co. - Gold Key and Dell were both the
magazine labels for Walt Disney's Comics and Stories.  The Whitman
Publishing Company received primary publishing rights to Walt Disney's
characters in 1933, and they held those rights throughout the lives of
Mickey Mouse Magazine, and all US Disney comic books until the end of
Whitman's run in 1982-83.  I believe Whitman still holds much of Disney's
book publishing rights.

You were right to mention that I overlooked "Gold Key", - but that is
mainly that I feel the differences between that period's artist's styles
was much less than the earlier period (and that K.K. Publications covered
the 1948 through whole Gold Key period in any case).  I covered the pre-
K.K. period by including Disney and Whitman.  Whitman actually oversaw
publication, through its comic book subsidiary publisher : Western
Publishing, the same as Dell, only without the logo in WDC & S before 1948.
 

Personally, I feel that the new (non-reprint) Duck Story artwork of the
various Western artists during the Gold Key period was not as varied in
style as it was during the 1940s and 1950s.  I feel that the styles of Kay
Wright, Vic Lockman, the later style of Tony Strobl, and the other Duck
artists of that period (other than Barks) were much less varied from
eachother than the wider variety of earlier styles.  Part of the reason for
that may be that Tony Strobl drew many of the pencils for several inkers
during that time. 

Just a short comment about my comment above regarding the Western Duck
artists during the Gold Key period:   This is just my own personal opinion,
based on an impression.  It may not be based on a proper scientific sample.
 I have not defined "variation", or placed a value on "degree of
variation".  I haven't identified the total list of artists who worked on
Duck stories during that period, nor have I tabulated or enumerated the
total pages for each artist.  I am not telling knowledgeable (or, more
importantly) casual list readers that what I say is "fact" or "Gospel".  It
is only my own personal opinion. I give it, to initiate what I hope will be
eluminating discussion from knowledgeable members, AND to hear the opinions
of other members.  These potentialities are some of the main reasons I
enjoy the DCML.  I can learn things from a great variety of sources: fellow
fans, professional writers, artists, and editors.  I hope to enjoy this
forum in that way.  

I bring all this up because I have noticed recently, that several of my
comments have seemed to irritate several different people.   I do NOT
expect anyone to think that I am trying to change their minds about the
quality of any artist's or writer's work based on MY opinions.  I cannot
speak as an art expert.  I only give my opinion (which is based on my
personal taste).  It is not RIGHT, or WRONG.  It is only what is more
pleasing, or less pleasing to me.  I have never intended to be a JUDGE of
other artists' or writers' art.  Therefore, I must assume that I have a
problem area in my command of the English language.  it must be in the area
of "tone".  I will try to be very careful to couch my comments in terms of
taste and opinion rather than to be implying (through poor use of language
or carelessness) that one's art is "better" or more "creative" than
another's, or that one type of story is less work than another.

I know very well, from my own storywriting experience, that weaving a story
around historical data provided by Barks is more work than starting from
scratch.  I had no intention of implying the opposite.  I had no intension
to imply that Frank McSavage's artwork is not "good quality" - or that it
is ANY particular level of quality.  I intended to point out that it is one
of the styles of Ducks that was furthest off model of the Western artists -
AND that his extremely short beaks and distorted expressions (again
opinion) are less pleasing to me than most.   I just want to say that I was
brought up to never hurt ANYONE or ANYTHING by anything I do or say. 
Therefore, I NEVER intend to put down anyone for any reason.  If it appears
that I have done so,  it is through carelessness in making myself clear.  I
apologise for being careless in the past, and will put much effort into
avoiding same in future.

I DO however welcome All the comments and opinions of others (as that is
what makes our list so interesting).  I do hope we omit the comments that
seem to be aimed at personal vindictiveness.  Are our readers really
interested in other members' comments as to whether or not someone intended
to slander another member or put someone down.  I think most of our
membership is intellegent enough to identify such commentary for what it is
(even taking into consideration the large proportion of us for whom English
is not their first language).  I hope we don't use a lot of valuable
reading time, reading name-calling back and forth.

Rob Klein