Davids observations on the new stories.

[Geir.Hasnes@DELAB.SINTEF.no]

DAVID:

some comments to your comments.

>        In some stories Van Horn holds a hatred for the Ducks as human
>beings.  No, I don't mean for doing Duck stories, which he obviously
>loves, but in these tales the captions have bitter sarcasm directed
>towards the Ducks, some of it verbal, and a lot of it visual.  The
>last panel of "Just a Humble Bumbling Duck" (DDAD 13, 1991) was one of
>the bleakest panels I have ever seen in a Duck story.  Unlike Barks,
>who seemed to sympathize with Donald despite his general 1949-1951
>cynicism, Van Horn likes to make his Donald extremely sympathetic,
>then kick him when he's down.

Van Horn laughs AT the Ducks, not WITH the Ducks. There is little sympathy
and much creamcake humor in van Horn, but of course, it works now and then.
Van Horn is obsessed with the zany situations, but may also give some
sympathy to the Ducks and for instance baron von Strudel. However, when I
write one-dimensional, I dont mean that this dimension isnt well treated,
but that it is the only one. The Ducks have a very limited range of
situations in the van Horn stories.

>        (Milton) Gee!  In what stories?  One of my personal favorites, "Sauce
>for the Duck," is a Fred Milton story, and he continues to have, for
>me, a remarkably high batting average.  In fact I have done the
>American script for "The Clock Watcher," a Milton story to appear in
>the United States soon.

For instance the Milton story where Donald is to go to an interview or
whatever for a job in another town, and he steals a bike from a kid and he
talks very rudely to the man who in reality is the boss he is going to
meet. Here Donald is unrecognizable. And for that sake the Milton/Jippes
collaboration (I think it was) in one of the recent Norwegian DD, where
Donald wants to be a part of the High Society club of Duckburg - cant
remember its name, but he sells everything to be able to wear that hat. The
story is unrealistic and Donald is very reduced as a human being. I didnt
like that one because of its presentation of Donald, but the story itself
read well and had a good drive.

>        Gee again!  Barks used these concepts a LOT (Magica).  So why can't
>other artists use them a lot, too?
>
>        I actually feel that some of the best Magica stories are not
>by Barks.  For example:  "The Robot Raiders of Magica De Spell" (US
>210, 1986), "The Sunken Chest" (US 212, 1986), "A Witch in Crime"
>(some US in 1988, I'm not sure which)... I almost think, Geir, that
>you feel other writers and artists copy Barks simply by using plot
>devices -- such as the three mentioned above -- that Barks did.  When
>incidents like Magica's dime-hunger occur frequently in non-Barks
>stories, I find that not derivative -- simply an attempt to recreate
>Barks' universe by showing that things that happened there go on in
>the Duckburg of others.

What I try to express although clumsily is that there are a lot of other
situations that Scrooge may encounter as he clings on to his money bin and
his first dime, and he surely has other memories that could trigger
adventures. Magica has a lot of qualities and surely would go after other
things than the first dime if it were to gain power or whatever. There is
too much "there and back again" in all those Egmont stories. The writers
dont use their imagination as Barks and Rosa did. They reduce Magica and
consequently they reduce Scrooge also. These two persons are some of the
most powerful persons in the comics universe, and they can be extremely
reduced by dull writers. Strobl (or his script writer) for instance had
Scrooge reduced from a hard thinking intelligent and creative financial
genius to a dull small town newspaper editor. It was terrible, although
some of the gags were good.

>        I have mentioned my upcoming original story "Two in One,"
>which is to me something I'm very proud of.  Do I need to worry, Geir,
>that you will find me unoriginal simply for using the concept of
>Magica going after the dime?  Did you find Rosa's superb "On a Silver
>Platter" unoriginal in this same way?  I guarantee that you've never
>seen a Magica story quite like "Two in One"...

I look forward to seeing that. Rosa On a Silver Platter was a good example
of making a new twist on the Magica story, it was phenomenal. So what I am
trying to say is that you can keep on with your Magica stories if you just
twist it so much that I cant foresee what is going to happen. Almost all
the Egmont stories are foreseeable after the first page although they even
use too much time on presenting the situation and the plot.

>        BY THE WAY... something NO other writer has taken up is the
>idea that Magica not only wants the dime, but other mythical magical
>objects, and that she can compete with Scrooge for *them!*  How about
>"Isle of Golden Geese," where she wants the golden eggs, or "Rug
>Riders in the Sky"?  I think that doing more stories like *that* with
>Magica is a good idea, and I may do some of them.

That is exactly what I mean, yes.

>        I find that Vicar does a lot of copying, and Branca is more
>original.  I generally prefer Vicar to Branca up to about the stories
>made in 1989, when Vicar shows a marked improvement.  Maybe he sacked
>some of his inkers (he works with some assistants in a sort of studio,
>pencilling everything himself but having others ink it).

I think there is a problem with Vicar now that he draws too much. It is not
necessary to show all those detailed cityscapes etc. It draws the attention
away from the presentation of the story. BTW, Don Rosas way of doing
details is much more meaningful and should not be avoided at any cost.

>        Whoa there!  Vicar and Branca almost NEVER write their own
>scripts.  It's always drawing someone else's thing.  They've gotten a
>lot of new writers in the late 1980s, undoubtedly the cause of the
>improvements you have mentioned in their work.

Thats right. I just mention Vicar and Branca for the stories as well
because I dont know the scripters. And I do think that some Vicar stories
from the 70s are just as charming as the ones in the 90s. I also detest
them being too streamlined as it is now. 

>        I assume you're talking about foreign stories now.  The
>American stories of Whitman in the 1980s were the worst crap you can
>ever imagine...

Yes, they were so bad they werent even printed in the Norwegian DD. I owned
some of those comics and luckily managed to sell everything away. However,
the Italian stories of the early 70s were disgusting, the homemade stories
of Europe in the 60s very badly drawn, and the American studio stories for
the European market were far below those produced by Strobl and Bradbury in
the 50s.

>        Not in my opinion.  What bothers me the most is that the
>Strobl and Bradbury stories, notably usually written by someone other
>than Strobl and Bradbury, who often only did the art, don't try for
>any type of realism.  The earlier ones -- for example, the ones in
>WDC&S during 1950 -- strike me just as bad as the later ones.  Some
>have good ideas now and then -- I think back to "Donald Duck in
>Panama," by Bradbury, with a very stingy Scrooge -- but for every good
>idea, there's a bad one.  And these two are usually just as bad with 
>Mickey, IMHO, although they do a good Goofy.  In fact, I'd go as far 
>as to say that all of Western Publishing's creators made the big 
>mistake of relying on Goofy, not Mickey, to carry their "Mickey" 
>stories.  Only Gottfredson and Scarpa make Mickey the central 
>figure.

I agree with you on DD in Panama for instance, and also other early
Bradbury, but I loed for instance Bradburys Donald taking the boys out into
the woods to show how equal he was to his forefathers, and the kids had to
take care of him the whole week. Strobl ranges from very good, like in that
story where Scrooge is visited by a young sportsman relative from Scotland
who competes with Donald, my Strobl favourite I think, to relatively
boring, but never really bad. As for Mickey, the stories have their charm
and the composition is OK although they are generally flat. Bradbury Goofy
tends to be very good, really.

>        There I go again, getting started on Mickey.  Jeez... I
>maintain that I am Gottfredson's biggest fan.  I simply do not have
>the facilities to try to do what Horst has done (presumably with the
>Sunday pages) in whatever country it would be legal to do it in.
>Maybe some day I can convince Disney to let the strips appear in a
>library set, and the only way to do that is to talk to Jeff Katzenberg
>himself via one of the animation historians I know...

Have you ever met Malcolm Willitz, who commisioned those paintings from
Gottfredson?

Keep up the good work, David! Good to know you want to quarrel with me. I
am going to take your list of stories with me home in order to look up your
favourites, but I didnt renew my sub when Disney took over and consequently
dont know of all your favourites if I dont find them in my Norwegian
comics.

Geir Hasnes