Editors' research,

[Kai Saarto]

Rob Klein wrote:
 > Are they EARTHLIKE BIRDS? NO!!!! They are members of highly-evolved
> sentient beings-on their "Earthlike" planet, in their parallel existence (to 
> Earth).  Based on their physical portrayal, they share the top echelon on that 
> planet with other equivalent higher (dog-like, mice-like, pig-like, etc.) 
> beings, who have experienced different paths of evoloution.  They are NOT 
> HUMANS!!! THEY ARE NOT ON EARTH!!!!  THEY ARE NOT IN OUR UNIVERSE!!!  ACCEPT 
> WHAT THE STORY CREATORS PORTRAY WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF ITS OWN RULES!!!  THE 
> LOGIC OF THAT UNIVERSE FALLS APART WHEN YOU TRY TO APPLY IT TO THAT OF OUR 
> UNIVERSE!!!
...
> I am a devout Barksist. I do NOT see any attempt by him to imply that the 
> characters in his stories were HUMANS. He said "I THOUGHT of them as humans. He 
> was referring to their characters and ways of behaving.  He DID NOT intend for 
> the reader to ignore what they see, to imagine them as humans.
...
> It is a two-dimensional 
> art-form that provides entertainment and allows the creators to express 
> themselves. Trying to make it REAL LIFE is futile!

Thank you for writing this, Rob. I couldn't have expressed my own view 
of the issue any better. That Barks-quote is usable, but not in the 
context some the people are trying to use it.

As you know, I am a big Rosa-fan, but I do still support the egg-theory. 
Just because its *funnier*. I can accept this so called Rosa's view as 
well: these comic characters that are supposed to be something between 
ducks and humans, so as far as I am concerned they can get pregnant, 
broke some water and still lay an egg. I don't care if that is 
impossible in real life. Comics are full of things that are impossible.

We could probably start bantering about do the duck have navels and what 
it proves, but everyone can have their opinion. There doesn't seem to be 
a right answer - so why force one?

-- 
- Kai Saarto
http://www.perunamaa.net/donrosa