DANIEL NEYER: Various Things

[David Gerstein]

    Hi Daniel,

>I wanted to ask Mr. David Gerstein if his Mickey stories are going to be
>carried by Gemstone as they were in the past

    No need to call me Mr. ‹ I'm just David.
    Editor John Clark does plan to use my stories. He hasn't scheduled any
of my Mickeys yet, or so he tells me, but you can expect to see a Fethry
Duck short and a Big Bad Wolf story from me in the coming months.
    Admittedly, as an editor for Egmont from 1997-present I haven't had time
to write a lot of stories myself‹ I've been too busy working on other
people's.

>to my mind, David and Romano Scarpa are the only writers who ever

    Thanks for the incredibly high praise! But I urge you to consider the
high qualities of some other modern Mouse creators, too, many of whom will
have stories coming out from Gemstone soon.
    In particular, you'll be seeing stories I edited at Egmont for writers
Stefan Petrucha, Don Markstein, and Sarah Kinney; and then there's the work
of Byron Erickson, my *own* editor. He's the guy who taught me to write
Mickey, and edited such stories as "The Timber Topper" and "The Past
Imperfect". If you like my stuff, I think you'll like his.

>[Gemstone has] only run a couple of short [Mickey] tales that are far inferior

    Eh? I actually enjoyed these myself, and in particular envied Pat and
Carol McGreal for coming up with that "Spidermouse" parody idea before I
could.

>I'm an American and Blum's "wicca" references were pure gibberish to me, nor do
>I want to have them explained. Also, almost all of the computer talk was over
>my head

    Please don't take this the wrong way, but‹ why don't you want to have
them explained? I've read plenty of Disney comics stories that referenced
subjects I didn't get, and I treated the stories as my opportunities to
begin learning more about those subjects, many of which I ended up finding
fascinating. Had I decided instead that I didn't want to learn any more
about what was being referred to, I would have missed a lot of great
chances.

>Rosa and Van Horn deliver stories for other people's enjoyment, while
>Blum seems to prefer delivering stories for his own personal
>satisfaction.

    Honestly, I think you should get to know Rosa, Van Horn, and Blum before
you judge them in this way. Who's to say that Rosa and Van Horn don't also
want to entertain themselves‹ or for that matter, that Blum doesn't care
about what his readers want?

>I've always been somewhat wary of Blum and his take on
>the Ducks' world since he started writing those strange analytic articles
>about Barks' stories. To Blum, the Ducks are not characters, but puppets
>for acting out social-politico-psychological satires.

    For me, Blum's take on the Ducks has been quite enjoyable over the
years‹ both in research articles and in actual Duck stories. In the 1980s, I
looked for Blum's name in the credits as a sign that a Danish Duck story was
going to have good American dialogue. Blum's cultural and literary
references did a lot to help shape my adult fascination with literature and
history. But this is not to dis his treatment of the Ducks themselves: I
thought Blum's characterizations‹ insofar as they may have differed from the
foreign Duck stories he started with!‹ were fine; dripping with very funny
cynicism and sarcasm, in the Barks tradition yet still unique.
    My "Ten-Penny Opera" story (UNCLE SCROOGE AND DONALD DUCK #1, 1997) was
to some degree intended as a tribute to what I I liked about Blum's 1980s
creations. Literary squibs, historical tidbits, outrageous operetta
references but, most critically, an interpretation of the Ducks themselves
that make it all come together‹ because at the bottom line, it's a Duck
story, not a textbook.
    I do think Blum is aware of this, too.

    Best, David