Family Tree and Olaf's bar

[Daniel van Eijmeren]

DON ROSA to me, 16-12-2003:

>> The first project (without sidebar) is the original version, created
>> by you alone.
>> The second (with sidebar) is a version created by you and the editor.

> No. The entire Tree was created by me and an editor because I drew the 
> Tree small and the portraits large. The editors (or somebody) inserted 
> the portraits into the tree and did all the other work. The sidebar 
> was created the same way the main Tree was. And it was created at the 
> same time by the editor, even though I did the additional portraits a 
> bit later.

In your previous email, you wrote: "Later (weeks? months? dunno.) the 
editor contacted me and said that some Egmont branch publishers had 
seen the Tree and wanted Gyro and Daisy and AM&J included."

This made me think that there already was a finished Tree, before the Tree 
with the additional portraits was made. But now you say that the Tree and 
the sidebar were constructed at the same time. This is what confuses me.

>> BTW. Is the first version (without sidebar) the one published by
>> Gladstone, in WDC 600? Or is it a changed version, or even a third
>> project?

> You're not listening to my explanation.

I am closely listening to your explanation, but that doesn't necessarily 
mean that I can understand it all at once.

> [WDC 600] The full Tree with the sidebar was all created at the same 
> time by Egmont (editor or functionary or whoever). Gladstone decided 
> to leave off the sidebar simply because it would not fit their double 
> page spread. Simple.

Indeed. This is "just" an editorial change, then.

>> I think that the sidebar/portraits should be considered like the 
>> extra comic book pages.

> Yes. And therefore they are part of the same single project as the 
> main Tree. Just an extra which can be used or not used. You seem to 
> be contradicting yourself?

My apparent contradiction is caused by thinking of a way how to index 
material that has been made in different "takes", and has been released 
in different "mixes". "Mixes" which sometimes contain newly recorded 
"overdubs".

Inducks doesn't define any "mixes". It just mentions a list of "takes" 
and "overdubs", which somehow are related to each other. 

If you make new art for a story, you still call it the same "project".
But would that also count for Barks's 1980s penciled half page for 
his 1950s 'Back to the Klondike'? I'd say that the 1980s pencils are 
made for a *new* project. A project to make a 'Back to the Klondike' 
reconstruction. 

In other words:
Project 1 - 1950s - 'Back to the Klondike' [original]
Project 2 - 1980s - 'Back to the Klondike' [reconstruction]

I think this is also the case when you make a short version and a long 
version of a story, even if it would be at the same time. I mean, the 
results are two different "mixes" of the same "song".

In other words:
Project 1 - 1990s - 'The Richest Duck in the World' [short version]
Project 2 - 1990s - 'The Richest Duck in the World' [long version]

I think it's not only comparable with sound recording, but also with 
movies. If I see a certain movie title on DVD in a shop, I want to 
know if it's the original release or the "director's cut", or both, 
before I decide to buy it. It's the same movie, but some people will 
prefer the original version, and others the director's cut. But how 
can I tell which is which, if only a list of scenes is mentioned on 
the box? How do I know which scenes I've seen in the original version, 
or in the director's cut? And how do I know if they all have been put 
in the same place as in the version I've seen? Inducks doesn't give 
me a clue. At least not with Barks, but I believe your creations have 
all been indexed according to the same rules. (COA isn't working, so 
I can't double-check.)

I'm trying to figure out a way to index such material as clearly as 
possible. Suggestions, ideas, and solutions are welcome.

OLAF SOLSTRAND to me, 16-12-2003:

>> Well, you could have ignored that newspaper publication. You were not 
>> obliged to look at it, but apparently you were too weak to resist it. :-)

> I know you're right, and that this is no excuse, but I was reading that 
> paper anyway, and suddenly I opened the newspaper and there it was. 

This is beginning to sound like a confession, my son. :-) 

If you're not able to ignore interesting new Duck material, then you must 
be addicted to Ducks. Right? (Confess! Confess!) I think the best remedy 
would be cold turkey. Clear your house from all your Duck comics. (That's 
right - just throw them away! Be strong!) Try to get through all the 
nightmares that you will have afterwards. That's just a passing phase, 
which will only last a few days. (Give or take a hundred years.)

And just remember that you're not alone, there are many people who will 
love to help you getting rid of your Duck comics. And I'm one of them. 
Just give me a call. :-)

> When someone shove a chocolate bar into my mouth using force, I swallow 
> it - I don't take it out and rewrap it. That's the way I am.

You mean that someone *forced* you to look at that Family Tree preview, 
in that Donaldisten article? :-)

--- Daniël

"Yikes! How can anything that stuffs itself with HAY be so HARD?"
Which Barks story?
Hint #1: cowboys