Non-Disney indexing / Exceptional Barks

[Daniel van Eijmeren]

LARS JENSEN to TIMO RONKAINEN and HARRY FLUKS, 05-06-2003:

> No offense, but I think it's a lousy idea to index non-Disney stories in
> INDUCKS, just because those particular stories were made by Carl Barks.
> As another poster pointed out: Why not Don Rosa? And why not creators
> such as Gil Turner and the others mentioned above? I *would* like to
> know more about the non-Disney works of a lot of people -- including
> Barks -- but integrating this kind of info into INDUCKS means it's no
> longer a semi-scientific database about the Disney works of various
> creators. Instead, it's on its way to become a collection of facts about
> people the inducksers happen to like. (In my opinion, of course. And
> again: No offense.)

No non-Disney stories are indexed as part of INDUCKS itself. They are 
indexed in the same *format* as INDUCKS. And that makes it possible to 
show them in an INDUCKS-search. If people think that this is pollution, 
then (for example) a checkbox-option could be added to keep all information
apart. The default could be "INDUCKS-only", so that no efforts are needed 
for getting only the solid INDUCKS-contents. As always.

The non-Disney INDUCKS-formatted files are maintained independently and 
voluntarily. They are just like the toys that come with a comic book. You 
can ignore them, if you want. And for the interested people it's handy to 
have a possibility to supply/get information on the "extra" material of an 
artist (which sometimes even includes crossovers with Disney comics).

> And no, Barks shouldn't be treated as an exception. 

I agree. Besides Barks, there's also interesting non-Disney information 
about other artists. If people also want to make an INDUCKS-compatible
index about them, then I think that should be possible.

> Trying to make Barks the center of the Duck universe from whom everything
> good and true -- even to this day -- comes, means that we're essentially
> encapsulating the Ducks into a 1942-1961 time pocket. 

This is a different discussion. Also an interesting one, though. :-)

As long as long as artists can develop their own stories with their own 
format-flavour, then there's no need to think of limitations. Most of the 
people just want to read a comic from time to time, without any deep 
thinking about comic book facts. Only the fanatics quarrel about contents, 
quality, and about the position of their favourite artists. :-) 

> Already, I've seen people claim a certain story *can't* be true, because 
> it contains a PC, and we all know Barks never used those in his stories. 

You'll never hear that from me.

Barks mentions *faxing* in "Horsing Around With History" (D 94003).
On his 1989 painting "Holiday in Duckburg", Gladstone is shown with a 
*video camera*. A video camera on a painting, of all things. And IMO it 
fits perfectly. Video cameras have become part of the holiday feeling, 
so the painting is very recognizable, realistic and up to date. Opinions 
may differ, but Barks dared to try it.

Barks's work went on with the time, and also his characters went on with 
the time. No matter his own age, or the age of his characters. His work
had no time limits. I'm curious for any "claims" that state otherwise.

> No room for changes, no room for improvements, no room for innovation. 
> Sorry, but if that "Barks=Truth" thinking becomes the rule, 

Then that "rule" is based on misinformation. 
Carl Barks had room for changes;
Carl Barks had room for improvements; 
Carl Barks had room for innovation.

I think that was part of his *strength*. And if he wouldn't have had this 
strength, then Donald would still only have had three nephews, a dog, a 
girlfriend, a (grand)mother, a car, and a dull suburban life. Barks dared 
to innovate *new* ways to tell his stories. He tried crazy ideas, he sent 
the Ducks all over the world and into space, he added an old stingy duck 
with a giant money bin. It's all pure fantasy, but he dared to do it, and 
he managed to make it believable.

> children will be totally unable to relate to Duck comics in less than 
> fifty years -- and that'll mean the death of the Ducks! (Again: In my 
> opinion.)

If that misinformation becomes the truth, then I completely agree with you.
The Ducks are immortal, as long as people want them to be alive.

--- Daniël

"Bottled mail will never replace FAX!"