Paul Murry

[Sigvald Grøsfjeld jr.]

Joe Torcivia <JTorci3511 at aol.com> wrote:

> WHY, Sigvald? Does that knowledge SOMEHOW
> DIMINISH Paul Murry's art?!

No, but it tell me that Murry was not as inventive as I have been lead to
believe. Earlier Murry has been given the credits for inventing charcters
like Dangerous Dan McBoo and Idgit the Midgit. It now seems that he just
presented other persons ideas???


> You say "...together with the greatest
> artists". Exactly what knocked him out of
> that category?" I just shake my head at some
> of the comments I read here...

First: I didn't draw any final conclusion, I just stated that the new
knowledge might justify some rethinking when it comes to Paul Murry.

Second: IMO it's the writer who's the most important artist behind a story.
That's why I say "King Scrooge Ist" is a Barks Story, not a Strobl story.
Let me explain this: I guess any great non-Disney artists (like Uderzoo)
could draw great Disney stories after a complete manus, with only minor
knowledge or interest for the story. To write a great manus the artist both
need a lot of knowledge and much interest of the actual universe and the
actual characters s(he) is working with.


> Strictly as an artist, Paul Murry may have had
> a greater influence on the comic book Mickey
> than ANYONE!

Yes and no! He used to, but the later years Egmont have often used a
Gottfredson look Mickey instead.


> But, I guess Murry "...no longer deserves to
> be counted together with the greatest artists"
> just because he worked better with a separate
> writer!&nbsp; Oh, well...

As stated above - that was *not* a final conclusion!

Sigvald :-)