DCML digest #695

[Don Rosa]

From: "Olaf Solstrand" <harryklein at hotmail.com>
>>>>I have always thought of Magica as a witch. But now - I'm confused.
What's your opinions on this matter, dear friends?

There's every reason for you to be confused since for decades the European
writers have made Barks' Magica into a witch rather than a sorceress. But
since Byron Erickson became the editor, he has returned Magica to her
original version.
I was trying to do that, myself, in the Magica stories that I did before
Byron came along, and I recall that I confused the then-editor when I
referred to Magica as a "amateur sorceress", and they refused to use that
reference because they said that she was an omnipotent witch. But that's
how they'd used her for years.
But the replies you've already received are 100% corect. Magica is a normal
hoomin bean who seeks out ancient alchemy and potions and wands and spells
and seeks to use them to her evil ends... which is to get rich quick. A
"witch" is an occult being with inherent magical powers to do just about
anything at any time. I never could figure out how the Euro writers could
think Magica was a witch who sought $crooge's #1 Dime for some reason -- if
she had such magic powers as she exhibits in those stories, why doesn't she
just conjur up a stack of gold bars whenever she wants? It makes more sense
if, in between each "attack", she must slink off and hunt down some other
wand or spell before she comes back... and it's funnier when she isn't
quite sure how these spells will backfire on her due to her inexperience.

From: joe gouldIII <joegouldiii at yahoo.com>
>>>>I am VERY much aware that
Western does not own any rights to Disney ( , or WB ,
or Walter Lantz , or 40s B-western stars' ) copyrights
, and , I think you'll find that , my original posting
did NOT state that .

I saw some evidence of that, but then, if you knew that, I couldn't figure
out why you thought that simply because a company bought out some
properties (not licenses) that Western owned, why would this be any reason
they would want to pursue a Disney comics license (a much different puppy!)
anymore than anyone else? You referred to this company obtaining "that many
valuable copyrights", but they had *not* acquired anything like that, so
you musta been referring to WB or Lantz or Disney or something. I just
couldn't make sense of your point, and I figured you *must* be
misunderstanding something somewhere.  Sorry!!!

>>>Indeed , as far as properties widely used/successful
in comic books in NA , Western owned:
  The semi-superhero/adventure properties you alluded
to ( Turok , Magnus , etc. ) .

But not for years... those were sold off long ago, along with DOCTOR SOLAR.

>>>>  " LITTLE LULU " - originally , I guess , owned by
one " Marge " , its original creator , but , purchased
by Western -

That's true... but do you think, even if you could find some children in
America who wanted to read comics, would they have ever heard of "Little
Lulu" who was popular before even when some of their parents were reading
comics? Their grandparents would more likely recall LITTLE LULU comics (and
they were good... Western's second best stuff besides Barks'). That doesn't
seem like a valuable property in the 21st Century. I'm afraid it would
attract as many buyers as Western's TRAGG AND THE SKYGODS. Well....
actually probably less... something called "Tragg and the Skygods" would
sound much more interesting to "these darn kids nowadays".