Pocket Books, Serial Format, and Mickey Stories

[Danehog@aol.com]

In a message dated 3/10/2003 2:49:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
ari.seppi at iki.fi writes:

> Dane:
> >(Sorry; I originally sent this to one user, as opposed to the entire list. 
> 
> >I need a mail program that actually WORKS!)
> 
> Actually there is nothing wrong with your mail program (at least in this
> case). The list doesn't add Reply-To-header so your mailer can't
> know that it is supposed to send the message to the whole list as
> a default.

Ah! Really? I'm not surprised, considering I do a lot of goofy 
computer-related things accidentally. I'm sure I did *something* that made 
the message be sent to a single user, but it's one of those mysteries never 
to be solved.

(i.e., it's meaningless to put time into TO solve!)

> I thought the story was quite ordinary. However, it was strangely a bit
> interesting even when it was mainly put together from standardized
> duck story parts. The monster was nice.
> 

Some comic book stories--even mediocre ones--just seem better when put into a 
serialized format. I don't know why this is, but some writers just seem to be 
born for the serialized format.

Barks definitely wasn't. Gottfredson definitely was.

> *) I don't remember "Panicking Pachyderm" but based on the
> description it sounds like one of those not-so-good Mickey stories.
> 

Right. In fact, when I read it, I thought, "you have to be joking." I think 
Mickey is such a black-and-white (literally!), one-dimensional character that 
it's difficult to make proper story-lines that make an amusing story. Floyd 
Gottfredson succeeded with Mickey, but he's really the only Mickey 
comic-artist that I've ever really appreciated.

I do like some of the WDC&S serials, though. (By Dick Moores, etc.)

-- 
Thanks for reading this nonsense,

Dane Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://nafsk.se/pipermail/dcml/attachments/20030310/4cd8a18c/attachment.html