Hard books

[Søren Krarup Olesen]

GARY + SIGVALD + NILS:

> > Apparently you, Sigvald, fell for it. I can surely see why. Sorting
> > historical events into categories is both entertaining and helpful
> > if you wish to get an overview of a complex area--and Disney comics
> > is certainly one such.

> And Don certainly has never gone out to fool anyone about history or
> anything else - that's an absurd notion on the very face of it.

And Søren is certainly not claiming that Don did such a thing.

I wrote (in case you forgot):

"It [LO$] was written and presented as historical facts, and indeed it 
works and is convincing. [blablablah]. Beware, I don't necessarily find 
Italian more funnier or more thoughtful (well...hmmm :-) than Rosa, but 
at least it's nice to feel and read those stories and silently 
conclude, that they are not all based on some extremely strict recipe."

I'm still wondering why critics (and do I dare add "fair critics") are 
taken this personal. Why so defensive all the time, when there is no 
attack going on--I don't get it...

We have read over and over again about "offending X's name and 
reputation" to an almost rediculous degree. And now that Sigvald even 
brings the Bible itself into question, this surely clashes with my 
ideas of this mailing list. I thought it was meant for sharing views 
freely without the risk of getting slapped with a "book" by 
missionaires.

Many views have been posted here, only for a few seconds later being 
rejected as "Not true!" "Incorrect" etc. I would have expected the more 
polite "I don't thinkg so..." "Perhaps you are wrong..." but you see, 
to missionaires there is nothing to debate; there is only right and 
wrong, white and black, Latin and "rubble" symbols only of interest to 
people far far away from the Western civilization.

As for Don's humour and all that, I fully agree with Nils. "A matter of 
some gravity" really made me laugh, but you know, I *was* in fact 
addressing LO$ only, which BTW does have its great moments, no doubt. 
Not enough for me to feel really interested in the book, but that's 
just me.

Have any of you ever heard or read messages here, that rejects the 
events in LO$ or Barksian canon facts, because they didn't fit the 
Italian "version"/"universe"? Probably not. Do we hear the Egmont 
writers complaining that Uncle Scrooge couldn't possibly have died in 
1960-whatever? I don't think so. No, dear readers, it's *always* the 
other way around.

I believe reading Disney comics is about enjoying, not knowing. Please 
correct me, if I am wrong.

Søren