Barks

[Olaf Solstrand]

Sigvald and others... Yes, this IS written out to Sigvald - but is meant for
everybody who would think in this way.

Carl Barks was a great comic creator - in many's opinion the greatest. So
let's not abuse his name here. Lately, meanings and opinions have been put
in the mouth of Barks without them ever coming from him.

As I respect Carl Barks more than any other man I've known, I'm really hurt
to see all these posts "It has to be like that, because Barks said that" or
"No, Carl Barks was definitely against that" in subjects we never have heard
Barks cast his opinion of.

Sigvald, I wish I could say this in a less rude way, but I'm not good at
this. Lately, you have been giving a lot of your own opinions to Carl Barks,
and presented them as if they were his - and that really hurts. As Carl
Barks was the main character in both mine and many others' childhood, it's
hard seeing his name being abused in this way. Yes, you may not be aware of
it yourself, but in my opinion you're ABUSING the name of Carl Barks here.

Example one: The family tree. In Carl Barks' family tree, Scrooge has only
two sisters, yes. But is that because Scrooge had two sisters, or is it
because Scrooge had two KNOWN sisters? Nobody knows. My personal opinion is,
as the mentioned family tree was just a rough schetch, that Scrooge COULD
have had other siblings. You don't agree, and say that this must be an exact
family tree and that Scrooge according to Barks CAN'T have other siblings,
as they are not mentioned in this tree. And that's fine for me! I have no
problem at all accepting your opinion! But it IS your opinion! Neither of us
have ever heard Carl Barks talk about this, so neither mine or your view on
this case is right or wrong. We can both have our opinion, and discuss which
one is best. But that's hard when your keep on saying "Carl Barks said it
that way". He didn't! You have a good personal interpretion of the Family
Tree - but it IS an interpretion, your interpretion. Please accept that Carl
Barks' intentions can be interpreted in several way, so that your version
doesn't have to be any better than ours! I'm not saying MY interpretion is
correct either - I'm just saying we can't know, as Barks never told us that.

Second: Eggs or mammals. According to you, Carl Barks thinks that the ducks
are human. Your only foundation for this is that the Ducks shown in Barks'
stories act human! Yes, that seems to be your only argumentation so far.
Well, I don't recall EVER seeing Barks showing that the Ducks aren't
hatching. Could be he meant that - yes - but neither of us knows that, it's
a simple guess, so don't present it as if it was a fact! We DON'T KNOW what
Barks' view on this was, OK? And when argumentation against your opinions
shows up, and it turns out that was actually used by Barks, you call that
jokes? Yes, in "That's No Fable" - a Frank pointed out - it is a reference
to Donald's pre-childhood as "an egg". You immediately say that this was a
joke. Why? What makes you think that? I don't see the joke in that! Donald's
life is in danger, why would Barks or Scrooge make a pun of that by calling
his foster an egg? Not even funny.

You also argue that something is mentoned in "Sign of the triple
distelfink", but that was not a Barks-story anyway,so what's your point?


Third - time. You claim that Barks wasn't writing modern stories, but 50s
stories. No, he wrote modern stories. Of course there was no 2003 fashion in
his modern 1950-stories, but check out the equipment in "Horsing around in
history"!


Unca' Barks gave us our best childhood memories. Don't pay back by abusing
his name.

Rest In Peace, Carl.


Best,
Olaf the Blue
www.andebyonline.com