DCML Digest, Vol 24, Issue 5

[Germund Silvegren]

Kai Saarto wrote:
>And at least Germund seemed (in private mail) to be happy with my
answer, so I >guess it wasn't a total waste.

I was happy with Kai's answer as I did not even know the Disney forum
existed, but I guess that's a result of not being to active in the
DCML discussions. However, even though the forum might be a good
addition the the DCML I don't believe it solves the problem (if there
*is* a problem at all?). I feel that most Disney collectors I know,
who have been collecting for many years and are still truly
interested in Disney comics (which includes myself), don't subscribe
to or just browse through the DCML messages or digests. The problem,
as I believe Kai pointed out, is that it's not worth the effort
browsing through 299 messages about Barks and Rosa, to get to the one
you are interested in. Therefore people interested in discussing
other artists leave the list and the basis for discussing these
stories disappears. Don't get me wrong now, I deeply enjoy Barks and
Rosa's stories, and am very happy Disney comics still has an audience
dedicated enough to support a mailing list such as DCML. Still,
sorting out the messages on other subjects, such as Strobl,
Gottfredson, Al Hubbard's Fethry stories, Italian literature parody
stories etc etc is too timeconsuming even for most dedicated
enthusiasts. In this aspect, a discussion forum might indeed be
better suited for discussions about less frequent topics on an active
mailing list.

Lars Jensen wrote:
>Recently, two "new" Paul Murry-drawn Mickey tales have been
published in
>the Finnish and the Scandinavian weeklies. What does everyone think
of
>those two stories?

I'm usually far too fond of Murry's art to be objective, but I did
not enjoy these stories much. The artwork is skilled and competent,
if yet routine work by an old and bored Murry, but the scripts are
exceptionally uninspired. I am not very fond of most of the 8-page
Mickey Mouse scripts published in WDC&S in the late 1970's/early
1980's but fully understand why these specific stories were shelved.
I usually argue that the modern Mickey Mouse (contrary to
Gottfredson's early and less mature Mickey) isn't a suitable
character for less than, say, 10-page stories, and even longer
stories demand a very skilled writer such as Carl Fallberg for the
scripts to become interesting. Short stories where the main character
could just as well have been Woody Woodpecker or Andy Panda, soon
feel repetitive and boring. Mickey winds up in odd situation - Mickey
solves situation - end of story. There's a limit to how many times
you can use that recipe. One way to get around the problem is to make
the story funny and, i.m.o.h.o., the best Mickey stories of the
1970's are the more humorous ones, such as Hits and Misses (WDC&S
439). The other way to make the story stand out is to add incredible
gimmicks, such as the mechanical monsters in the recently unearthed
Murry story. However, extreme and unbelievable elements in a story
that's not supposed to be humoristic, require that the writer spends
panels and effort to create a solid, more realistic setting for the
reader to accept the plot. That's where the 8 pages of the 1970's
Mickey stories do not do it for me. There may be more ways to make a
Mickey Mouse story interesting, but again i.m.o.h.o., the 1970's
script writer(s) never figured them out.

Btw, a third "unknown" story will be published in the soon upcoming
Hall of Fame volume about Murry, which leaves only one of the four
newly discovered Murry stories to see the light of day.
/Germund


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com