The Trojan Horse++

[Jørgen Andreas Bangor]

First of all. Thanks to everyone who have answered my questions.


Don:
>	Why was your message titled "Trojan Horse"? You didn't mention
>any Trojan Horse.

I meant to put a 'Re:' on the subject line, but it disappeared somewhere.
Per, when are the digests put together/sent out?
 

Mattias:
>       I'm sure someone told you already (I'm on the digests, you know); but
>the U$ story you outlined is of course "Only A Poor Old Man".

Ah! I knew there were something special about that title.


Me:
> It's years since I read that story, but yes, you're right. I think they
> claim to be Minnies relatives though. She gets quite insulted when
> Mickey is trying to tell her that there is something strange going on.
> In Norway this story is published in one of the big 'Jeg' books.
> 'Vi Mikke & Minni', I think.

David:
>      Jorgen:  This story is Gottfredson's "The Gleam" (1941).  One 
>of my all-time favorites.

Harry:
>BTW: the Mickey story about hypnotism that has been discussed here
>is Gottfredson's "The Jewel Robbery", coded in the Database as YM 048,
>running in the newspapers from Jan 19 to May 2, 19

?


David:
>>                          - I'm Mickey Mouse, and this is Goofy.
>>                          - Yes, isn't it?
>
>      That's from "Island in the Sky," right?  (Can't resist a 
>challenge like that! ;-)

Indeed! 8:)


The Trojan Horse...
I didn't really mean to say anything about it, at least not until I've 
read all of it (Part II will be published tomorrow). But since I've 
made the expections that I was going to say something about it...
I wasn't too impressed. I've never liked van Horns style very much.
I do not think it's bad, but it's some kind of unfamiliar, even though I've
read every single story by him which have been published here.
I don't mind as long as it's his own stories he's drawing, but when this
new story is advertised as a 'New Story by Barks' (and we've been waiting
for it for months...), I was expecting something else.

What was I expecting? In my opinion a 'Barks Story' is not only a manus
written by Barks, and drawn by anybody (a good example are those JW stories).
It has to be drawn by him too. The story in Barks stories (this apply to
anyone, I guess) isn't just in the balloons, but also in the expressions 
of the ducks. The expressions in van Horn's ducks are, IMHO, to, eh...,
exaggerated (is that the word...?). I don't see the fine tune in his 
art, as I see in Barks', and then it's a bit difficult to see that there
is anything special about the story.
 
I would still say it's well above the average new Disney story.

In addition (some addition...) there are so few details. And almost no
bacground details at all.

My conclusion is _not_ that Barks should stop writing new stories (if he
should want to write another one), but I would like to see it drawn by
someone who is more fond of details and who makes the ducks look real,
f.ex. Don Rosa (I know that unfortunately won't happen), Daan Jippes,
Freddy Milton or Marco Rota.

Stories drawn by the ones I mentioned above (and a lot of others) looks
real. I mean, the ducks look like they really exist, and you can easy tell
by their look what mood they are in at any time. And any character in one
panel, is exactly the same character when it appears next time in the same
story. I don't get that feeling when I read a story drawn by van Horn.

Hope you understand what I mean. It's not easy to explain in a foreign
language.

Well, I still want to read part II :-)



   Jorgen A. Bangor (jorgenb at ifi.uio.no)

      Since David got my first, I'm trying a new one :)

      - Fur gawsh sakes Mickey! I did just what you _told_ me to!