REVIEW: SPIRIT: NEW ADVENTURES #1: Pen-Elayne For Your Thoughts
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Will Eisner's THE SPIRIT: THE NEW ADVENTURES #1
(Kitchen Sink)
Featuring
"The Most Important Meal"
"Force of Arms"
"Gossip and Gertrude Granch"
Writer: Alan Moore
Artist/Letterer: Dave Gibbons <10034...@compuserve.com>
Colorist: Angus McKie
WHAT GOES ON: A reintroduction to Will Eisner's most famous and long-
lasting character, courtesy of a knockout writer/artist team. [Dave
White's index grade: 3.6]
Here's what I thought...
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
I have a secret shame. I'm not a Will Eisner reader, and I know I should
be. I've never even read GRAPHIC STORYTELLING. But this book has done
its main job for me-- as soon as I can afford to shell out the bucks, I'm
going on an Eisner buying-and-reading spree. If this stuff is a tribute,
I can only imagine how wondrous the original is.
I have, however, picked up enough information about the original series to
appreciate Moore's and Gibbons' homages, like making the title a part of
the artwork on the splash page. As clever as they are, though, I
appreciated the real deal reproed here (from "The Spirit vs. Sam
'Slippery' Eall," originally published in 1947) even more.
That's not to say, of course, that Moore and Gibbons and McKie don't do a
fabulous job. The twists on the first and third story (and the great
thing about that third story, the poignancy of which still haunts me, is
that the reader can pretty much guess what's going on about a third of the
way through, and can only watch helplessly as events play themselves out
inevitably) were well done, although I felt the second story dropped the
ball. I get the feeling Denny Colt wasn't nearly as brash a ladykiller as
he's depicted here-- and there's no reason for Moore and Gibbons to show
him as such when, throughout the rest of the story, they've used the art
as a counterpoint to the narrative. Methinks it would have worked better
had the Spirit simply kissed Ellen's hand cavalierly rather than
unfastening her hair and taking her into his arms. I don't know that much
about Colt, but it still didn't seem in character, and served as a rather
heavy-handed motivation for Creap to become the Octopus.
Overall, though, a nice look into the past and perhaps the future of a
cast of characters whose adventures I look forward to reading. Quite
recommended.
So, what did y'all think?
- Elayne
--
This review is copyright 1998 by Elayne Wechsler-Chaput, who makes no real
excuses for the lateness of this week's reviews but has a decent lame one,
having been enthralled, as she is every year, by Sunday's showing of THE
TEN COMMANDMENTS. "So let it be written, so let it be done." Hee!
donh...@yahoo.com
In article <6gvge4$d...@panix3.panix.com>,
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>
> Will Eisner's THE SPIRIT: THE NEW ADVENTURES #1
> (Kitchen Sink)
>
> Featuring
> "The Most Important Meal"
> "Force of Arms"
> "Gossip and Gertrude Granch"
> Writer: Alan Moore
> Artist/Letterer: Dave Gibbons <10034...@compuserve.com>
> Colorist: Angus McKie
>
> cast of characters whose adventures I look forward to reading. Quite
> recommended.
>
> So, what did y'all think?
>
> - Elayne
I thought it was one of the best things I've read all year so far. The other
being (coincidentally) another Moore-scripted book, Youngblood #1. Everyone
pick up Youngblood #1 if you haven't already!
Don
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
JetBl...@aol.com
In article <6gvge4$d...@panix3.panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote: Will Eisner's THE SPIRIT: THE NEW ADVENTURES
of characters whose adventures I look forward to reading. Quiterecommended.
with you that I haven't been a real big reader of Eisner, but I can say I
have read a number of his SPIRIT stories in the past and had equally enjoyed
them then.I'm very glad this has seen print, and just as Elayne has stated, I
too will be hunting down some of those trades that have crossed my eye once
too often at the comic store.I love the fact that Eisner himself is penciling
the covers. I saw Brian Boland <sp> will be doing one of the upcoming
covers. Ah, the delight. I look forward to more of this and hopefully many
new readers will find this a worthwhile venture....at least once.-Jimmie
Robinson artist / creator, Image / JetBlack
Mark Bernstein
On 14 Apr 1998 05:01:01 -0700, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>
>I have a secret shame. I'm not a Will Eisner reader, and I know I should
>be. I've never even read GRAPHIC STORYTELLING. But this book has done
>its main job for me-- as soon as I can afford to shell out the bucks, I'm
>going on an Eisner buying-and-reading spree. If this stuff is a tribute,
>I can only imagine how wondrous the original is.
>
Eisner's work on The Spirit is wonderful. if often diluted a bit by
his assistants. The work he's been producing for the last twenty
years is *better*. If I were putting together a list of all-time,
must-read graphic novels, A Contract With God, To The Heart Of The
Storm, and his most recent work, Dropsie Avenue: The Neighborhood
would all be very near the top of the list. If you can find them,
grab them.
(Me, I'm going to show up at Motor City Con early, get in line, and
get my first edition of A Contract With God autographed. And I almost
*never* stand in line for autographs.)
Mark Bernstein
markbe...@hotmail.com
Ann Arbor, MI
Lee Randall
In <3533fa3c...@news.arbortext.com> markbe...@hotmail.com
(Mark Bernstein) writes:
>years is *better*. If I were putting together a list of all-time,
>must-read graphic novels, A Contract With God, To The Heart Of The
>Storm, and his most recent work, Dropsie Avenue: The Neighborhood
>would all be very near the top of the list. If you can find them,
>grab them.
I'd add _A Life Force_ to that list-- it's certainly up there with
_Storm_ and _Dropsie_, though I'd be hard-pressed to pick a favorite.
I find that his longer works tend to be better: the shorter vignettes,
like _Invisible People_ or _The Dreamer_, don't have the same
"masterwork" qualities that the longer ones do. Don't get me wrong: he
is Eisner, and his throwaway stuff is better than 95% of what's on the
stands, but I think his longer works are much, much stronger, and a
very strong argument for comics as a serious medium. :)
And I think it's all pretty much in print-- check
http://www.kitchensink.com, according to the add in the back of the
first ish.
BTW, was anyone at the Popular Culture Association Conference in
Orlando last weekend? Eisner was a speaker and panelist; I was
wondering how it went.
-Bill
(on Lee's account)
Mikel Midnight
In article <6h17p0$6...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
lee...@ix.netcom.com(Lee Randall) wrote:
> In <3533fa3c...@news.arbortext.com> markbe...@hotmail.com
> (Mark Bernstein) writes:
>
> >years is *better*. If I were putting together a list of all-time,
> >must-read graphic novels, A Contract With God, To The Heart Of The
> >Storm, and his most recent work, Dropsie Avenue: The Neighborhood
> >would all be very near the top of the list. If you can find them,
> >grab them.
>
> I'd add _A Life Force_ to that list-- it's certainly up there with
> _Storm_ and _Dropsie_, though I'd be hard-pressed to pick a favorite.
> I find that his longer works tend to be better: the shorter vignettes,
> like _Invisible People_ or _The Dreamer_, don't have the same
> "masterwork" qualities that the longer ones do. Don't get me wrong: he
> is Eisner, and his throwaway stuff is better than 95% of what's on the
> stands, but I think his longer works are much, much stronger, and a
> very strong argument for comics as a serious medium. :)
I think Eisner is enormously talented but after a while I have found his
current work to be increasingly maudlin. _The Building_ and _Invisible
People_ were so painful for me to read that I haven't bothered with any of
his other current publications.
What I would like to see would be a reprint of his current Spirit work ...
fans have been asking for this for years and I don't know why KS has
ignored it ... it would have been perfect in my option to spread the
handful of new stories Eisner has done since 1951 over the course of this
miniseries, if you don't think they're substantial enough to merit an
individual publication.
I would also like to see a nicely recolored presentation of the 'Mr.
Mystic' story that featured the Spirit ... I have only read about that one.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
"She always had a terrific sense of humor" Mikel Midnight
(Valerie Solonas, as described by her mother)
blak...@best.com
__________________________________________________http://www.best.com/~blaklion
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Jimmie Robinson <JetBl...@aol.com> wrote:
: I thought it was a great read. I will admit
: with you that I haven't been a real big reader of Eisner, but I can say I
: have read a number of his SPIRIT stories in the past and had equally enjoyed
: them then.I'm very glad this has seen print, and just as Elayne has stated, I
: too will be hunting down some of those trades that have crossed my eye once
: too often at the comic store.I love the fact that Eisner himself is penciling
: the covers. I saw Brian Boland <sp> will be doing one of the upcoming
: covers. Ah, the delight. I look forward to more of this and hopefully many
: new readers will find this a worthwhile venture....at least once.
Well, it makes me feel better that people a lot farther along in the
industry than me still have a ways to go to get their Eisner education.
So Jimmie, now that you've found your way to rac*, what's up with CODE
BLUE? I miss the continuing adventures of Amanda and Gunn!
- Elayne
--
What I mean by deviant: completely lacking in the social skills and
knowledge possessed by most of the rest of humanity... Most of us are
perfectly normal most of the time. We only become jerks and morons on
Usenet, like other decent people. -- Andrew C. Lannen
don...@brunnet.net
In article <6gvge4$d...@panix3.panix.com>,
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>
> Will Eisner's THE SPIRIT: THE NEW ADVENTURES #1
> Writer: Alan Moore
> Artist/Letterer: Dave Gibbons <10034...@compuserve.com>
> Colorist: Angus McKie
>
> WHAT GOES ON: A reintroduction to Will Eisner's most famous and long-
> lasting character, courtesy of a knockout writer/artist team. [Dave
> White's index grade: 3.6]
>
> Here's what I thought...
>
> S
> P
> O
> I
> L
> E
> R
>
> S
> P
> A
> C
> E
>
> I have a secret shame. I'm not a Will Eisner reader, and I know I should
> be. I've never even read GRAPHIC STORYTELLING.
I made a similar confession in my review. :)
> I get the feeling Denny Colt wasn't nearly as brash a ladykiller as
> he's depicted here-- and there's no reason for Moore and Gibbons to show
> him as such when, throughout the rest of the story, they've used the art
> as a counterpoint to the narrative. Methinks it would have worked better
> had the Spirit simply kissed Ellen's hand cavalierly rather than
> unfastening her hair and taking her into his arms. I don't know that much
> about Colt, but it still didn't seem in character, and served as a rather
> heavy-handed motivation for Creap to become the Octopus.
Keep in mind tha portion of the story was being filtered through Creap's eyes.
Sure, he was knowingly twisting the truth to his own ends, but perhaps that
is how he perceived Colt's encounter with Ellen.
Don MacPherson
Sgarre
Mikel Midnight wrote:
>
> In article <6h17p0$6...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
> lee...@ix.netcom.com(Lee Randall) wrote:
>
> > In <3533fa3c...@news.arbortext.com> markbe...@hotmail.com
> > (Mark Bernstein) writes:
> >
> > >years is *better*. If I were putting together a list of all-time,
> > >must-read graphic novels, A Contract With God, To The Heart Of The
> > >Storm, and his most recent work, Dropsie Avenue: The Neighborhood
> > >would all be very near the top of the list. If you can find them,
> > >grab them.
> >
> > I'd add _A Life Force_ to that list-- it's certainly up there with
> > _Storm_ and _Dropsie_, though I'd be hard-pressed to pick a favorite.
> > I find that his longer works tend to be better: the shorter vignettes,
> > like _Invisible People_ or _The Dreamer_, don't have the same
> > "masterwork" qualities that the longer ones do. Don't get me wrong: he
> > is Eisner, and his throwaway stuff is better than 95% of what's on the
> > stands, but I think his longer works are much, much stronger, and a
> > very strong argument for comics as a serious medium. :)
>
> I think Eisner is enormously talented but after a while I have found his
> current work to be increasingly maudlin. _The Building_ and _Invisible
> People_ were so painful for me to read that I haven't bothered with any of
> his other current publications.
Watch out! You may have CBG railing against you for slandering Eisner's
Golden Status like Gary Groth did when he happened to point out exactly
the same thing a few years ago!
Essentially, I agree with what you say. Eisner is a genius and deserves
all the respect he gets. But from a purely critical standpoint, some of
his stories are ruined by an overly sentimental/mawkish quality. I don't
consider it damning (every creator has his flaws) but actually more
annoying because it tends to sour otherwise excellent work for me.
Elayne - go buy any run of Kitchen Sink's reprinting of Eisner's spirit.
There's nary a bad one on the bunch and the covers are extraordinary (I
vaguely remember one, I think it was reprinting the story "Wild Rice" -
can that be right? - that had a beautiful cover with really effective
color!)
Tom Galloway
In article <6gvge4$d...@panix3.panix.com>,
>P
>O
>I
>L
>E
>R
>
>S
>P
>A
>C
>E
>
>had the Spirit simply kissed Ellen's hand cavalierly rather than
>unfastening her hair and taking her into his arms. I don't know that much
>about Colt, but it still didn't seem in character, and served as a rather
>heavy-handed motivation for Creap to become the Octopus.
I'd assume that Moore and Gibbons were somewhat constrained by the original
Eisner story which introduced Ellen and Homer, since that's what he did
there. This does tie in to what I found most impressive about the issue;
Moore took one of Eisner's stories and retold it from the perspectives of
several characters other than the Spirit and did a wonderful job with them.
The one caveat is that it should be noted that while it's implied out the
wazoo that Homer becomes the Octopus, it's never actually stated. Which is
as it should be; Eisner never stated who the Octopus was, and frankly while
I do like the concept that he's someone from the background of an early
Spirit case I'm not sure Homer Creap is the best choice; the Octopus never
seemed to me to be that psychology oriented, and frankly Homer has a *lot*
of work to do to get up to the Octopus' level of crime stature.
tyg t...@netcom.com
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
Tom Galloway wrote:
>
> >
> >S
> >P
> >O
> >I
> >L
> >E
> >R
> >
> >S
> >P
> >A
> >C
> >E
> >
> Eisner story which introduced Ellen and Homer, since that's what he did
> there. This does tie in to what I found most impressive about the issue;
> Moore took one of Eisner's stories and retold it from the perspectives of
> several characters other than the Spirit and did a wonderful job with them.
> The one caveat is that it should be noted that while it's implied out the
> wazoo that Homer becomes the Octopus, it's never actually stated. Which is
> as it should be; Eisner never stated who the Octopus was, and frankly while
> I do like the concept that he's someone from the background of an early
> Spirit case I'm not sure Homer Creap is the best choice; the Octopus never
> seemed to me to be that psychology oriented, and frankly Homer has a *lot*
> of work to do to get up to the Octopus' level of crime stature.
Thank God someone finally answered that! I asked twice then gave up. :(
As I recalled the Octopus face and ID were never shown.
But I am far from having read all the Spirit stories.
Thanks for clarifying.
But I thought this new story by Moore DID say Creap is the Octopus.
Rereading it I see that it really own says they have the same taste
in gloves.
--
Yes, I've finally resorted to a Spam block.
To respond, remove the letters BLOCK from my address.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Rich.
Lee Randall
In <3534FD...@USCCMAIL.uscc.bms.com> Sgarre
<user...@USCCMAIL.uscc.bms.com> writes:
>Mikel Midnight wrote:
>>
>> I think Eisner is enormously talented but after a while I have found his
>> current work to be increasingly maudlin. _The Building_ and _Invisible
>> People_ were so painful for me to read that I haven't bothered with any
of
>> his other current publications.
>
>
>Essentially, I agree with what you say. Eisner is a genius and deserves
>all the respect he gets. But from a purely critical standpoint, some of
>his stories are ruined by an overly sentimental/mawkish quality. I
don't
>consider it damning (every creator has his flaws) but actually more
>annoying because it tends to sour otherwise excellent work for me.
I think this mawkishness tends to be most apparent in his shorter work,
like the aforementioned _Invisible People_, which is just 3 vignettes,
and not very strong ones at that. The weakness is only compounded by
the awkward repetition of the title in each story in bold letters: "I
dunno, he was a INVISIBLE PERSON or sumpin'!" The same thing happens
in _The Dreamer_ (which I'll forgive somewhat, because it's basically
autobiography about comics' birth). Eisner's never been too great with
dialogue.
As far as sentimentality, again, I'd say this is something mostly
absent from his longer works, and if it is in there (as I'm sure it is
in the largely autobiographical _Heart of the Storm_, though I don't
have it handy and haven't read it in a while) then it's overshadowed by
the sheer scope of the narrative. _Storm_ is basically his entire
youthful life up until he goes to war, _Dropsie Avenue_ is the life of
a city district over 80-100 years IIRC, so moments of sentimentality
(or crappy dialogue) don't seem so huge. But overall, I've been
immensely impressed with his long works, and unimpressed or
disappointed with the shorter ones. But the Spirit stories are a
different beast entirely. :)
Bill
(on Lee's account)
Joseph T. Arendt
In a previous article, fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) says:
>Will Eisner's THE SPIRIT: THE NEW ADVENTURES #1
>(Kitchen Sink)
>
>Featuring
> "The Most Important Meal"
> "Force of Arms"
> "Gossip and Gertrude Granch"
> Writer: Alan Moore
> Artist/Letterer: Dave Gibbons <10034...@compuserve.com>
> Colorist: Angus McKie
>
>WHAT GOES ON: A reintroduction to Will Eisner's most famous and long-
>lasting character, courtesy of a knockout writer/artist team. [Dave
>White's index grade: 3.6]
>
>Here's what I thought...
>
>S
>P
>O
>I
>L
>E
>R
>
>S
>P
>A
>C
>E
>
Hi, Elayne. I've almost completely stopped buying comics and
reading the newsgroups. I did get this comic, though. I wander on to
r.a.c.reviews about once a week to see if anything looks so fantastically
good I'll go back to comic buying. Mainly, I find comics that
I had been sporadicallys still buying such as _Steel_ and
_Quantum and Woody_ are being canceled.
Anyway, I did buy this new book about _The Spirit_.
>I have a secret shame. I'm not a Will Eisner reader, and I know I should
>be. I've never even read GRAPHIC STORYTELLING.
It is a classic. This reminds me of what Mark Twain said about
people who liked to pretend they read the great classics of
literature then would ever really read them. :-)
I do highly recommend Eisner's book _Sequential Art_. For
someone going into comics, I think it would be even better than
Scott McCloud's _Understanding Comics_. Although McCloud's work
is more academically interesting and less opinionated, Eisner's
seems better for learning how to get things done effectively.
As for _The Spirit_, I think Alan Moore had his work cut out for
him because the origin story as Will Eisner did it certainly
didn't have much appeal to me! As said in the blurb in the
back, Eisner did three origins over the years and all of them
are highly contradictory.
I never found much all that spiritly about the Spirit. In one of the
Kitchen Sink reprints, even Will Eisner himself makes fun of the
schlocky origin of the Spirit in an interview text piece. If you
don't know, in most of the Kitchen Sink reprints I've read, there is a
blurb where Eisner himself discusses the circumstances and particulars
of each story, that sometimes being at least as interesting as the
story itself. Anyway, the origin is treated as comic book nonsense,
meant in the worst context. This is not to say most of the stories
are bad. Most, in fact, are quite good. However, that the Spirit is
a masked vigilante is often not all that important a story element.
That he had once been in suspended animation is entirely forgetable.
Another part of the comic book nonsense was a flying car that
the Spirit had prior to WWII. That just faded away and wasn't
mentioned any more. It was as though when trying to be more like
a typical comic book with suspended animation, flying cars, and
such, it IMHO fell flat. When it goes on to territory no other
comics have done such as corruption in city gov't that even the
Spirit cannot come close to stopping but has to accept as a fact
of life, it soars.
In many of the stories, that the Spirit wears a mask can be
ignored. Just read it as a detective story. What gets really
weird is near the end of the run. People have apparently figured
out that Denny Colt is the Spirit. They refer to him casually by
name of Denny Colt even when he is in costume. He goes to the
moon and, inside his space helmet, still wears the mask, in spite
of everybody in the ship knowing who he really is. (That drawn
not by Eisner, but Woody who did many of the Weird Science/Weird
Fantasy science fiction comics.)
It seems Will Eisner wanted to get rid of the mask, but was told
he couldn't for trademark reasons.
The art in the original _The Spirit_, though, is incredible.
Something to check out is any fight scenes. Eisner, in _Sequential
Art_, is a big believer in showing in art rather than telling and in
using the size and shape of panels and amount of dialog to adjust the
pace. Very little is said during fights in The Spirit, since Eisner
figures there isn't time for long speechs between blows in a real
fight. The fights are unlike any I've seen in any other comic book.
It is almost the polar opposite of the Marvel Method.
Eisner also admits to being influenced by live-action Jewish
theater. His father was a set painter for the theater for a
while.
In this new comic, I felt the art TRIED for what Eisner used to
do, but somehow didn't quite succeed.
As a character, I don't find Denny Colt aka the Spirit too interesting
as a superhero. I don't feel Alan Moore has much to work with. What
I liked about _The Spirit_ strip was art, pacing, dialog, maturity,
and so forth often light years beyond what anybody else was doing and,
in some cases, STILL light years beyond what anybody else is doing!
So, in Eisner's origin, Denny Colt ends up bathed in some kind
of fluid and appears dead. He isn't dead, though. He wakes
up and climbs out of the grave. He decides to let the world
think he is dead, dons a mask, and becomes a vigilante. Other
than that the chemical made him seem dead and led to the world
think he was dead, it plays no other part. No superpowers. It
doesn't put others into suspended animation. I don't think it
is ever mentioned again. As for who Denny Colt really is and
why he needs to hide that from the world, I never figured that
out. Why CAN'T the Spirit let the world know he is Denny
Colt? It isn't like he has much use for the Denny Colt identity
since Denny is supposed to be dead.
Imagine you, Elayne, had no living relatives and became a cop.
Then, you somehow were thought dead. Secretly, you work and
solve a crime or three. How long will you remain "dead"? What's
the point? There seems nobody you are protecting by remaining
"dead."
Granted, I've only read SOME of _The Spirit_ comics. Maybe this
kind of thing is clarified in stories I haven't read.
I never figured this out when Eisner was writing and Alan Moore's
book didn't enlighten me either.
> I get the feeling Denny Colt wasn't nearly as brash a ladykiller as
> he's depicted here-- and there's no reason for Moore and Gibbons to
> show him as such when, throughout the rest of the story, they've used
> the art as a counterpoint to the narrative. Methinks it would have
> worked better had the Spirit simply kissed Ellen's hand cavalierly
> rather than unfastening her hair and taking her into his arms.
Um...Elayne...I believe the Spirit unfastening Ellen's hair and
passionately kissing her was vintage WILL EISNER himself, not Alan
Moore at all. I don't think Ellen is in the real origin, but in the
third or so issue when she does appear, I think this is exactly what
happens. The Spirit pulls off her glasses, undoes her hair, gives her
a long, long kiss. After this, Ellen can barely remember her fiancee,
who has a silly name and appearance to let the reader know he can
be safely laughed at, even exists.
The Spirit also seems to hang around more with the bad girls such as
P'Gell. Ellen herself sometimes has to get fairly aggressive to keep
the Spirit to herself, sometimes resorting to tying him down! A very
famous cover of _The Spirit_ shows him giving Ellen a spanking for
some reason or other.
Thus, the kiss seems exactly what the Spirit would do. He is no Bruce
Wayne or Clark Kent! Not by any means.
My favorite work by Will Eisner is not _The Spirit_, but a semi-true,
semi-fictional autobiography called _To The Heart of the Storm_.
It looks at pre-WWII antisemitism in the U.S. without ever getting
too preachy. This happens along with a boy named Will growing
up. In terms of story, art, mood, emotions, and so on, I found it
fantastic.
Time to disappear again. Not even lurking, just gone. :-)
Joseph Arendt
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
don...@brunnet.net wrote:
: In article <6gvge4$d...@panix3.panix.com>,
: fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
: >
: > S
: > P
: > O
: > I
: > L
: > E
: > R
: >
: > S
: > P
: > A
: > C
: > E
: > I get the feeling Denny Colt wasn't nearly as brash a ladykiller as
: > he's depicted here-- and there's no reason for Moore and Gibbons to show
: > him as such when, throughout the rest of the story, they've used the art
: > as a counterpoint to the narrative. Methinks it would have worked better
: > had the Spirit simply kissed Ellen's hand cavalierly rather than
: > about Colt, but it still didn't seem in character, and served as a rather
: > heavy-handed motivation for Creap to become the Octopus.
: Keep in mind tha portion of the story was being filtered through Creap's eyes.
: Sure, he was knowingly twisting the truth to his own ends, but perhaps that
: is how he perceived Colt's encounter with Ellen.
But how he perceives things was the *dialogue* portion. Throughout the
rest of the story, the art showed *what really happened*, which was the
point of the tale, that Homer's view is skewed. To have him say something
happened and to have the art actually concur was, I thought, not in
keeping with the rest of the story's structure.
don...@brunnet.net
In article <6h362f$h...@panix3.panix.com>,
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>
> don...@brunnet.net wrote:
> : In article <6gvge4$d...@panix3.panix.com>,
> : fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
> : >
> : > S
> : > P
> : > O
> : > I
> : > L
> : > E
> : > R
> : >
> : > S
> : > P
> : > A
> : > C
> : > E
> : >
> : eyes. Sure, he was knowingly twisting the truth to his own ends, but
> : perhaps that is how he perceived Colt's encounter with Ellen.
>
> But how he perceives things was the *dialogue* portion. Throughout the
> rest of the story, the art showed *what really happened*, which was the
> point of the tale, that Homer's view is skewed. To have him say something
> happened and to have the art actually concur was, I thought, not in
> keeping with the rest of the story's structure.
True, but one could argue there are *three* levels of perception. Reality,
Homer's perception and Homer's lies.
One would be stretching the analysis too far, but one could argue that. :)
Lee Randall
In <6h31bc$e21$1...@pale-rider.INS.CWRU.Edu> bl...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Joseph T. Arendt) writes:
>
>Another part of the comic book nonsense was a flying car that
>the Spirit had prior to WWII. That just faded away and wasn't
The flying car is a riot.
>of everybody in the ship knowing who he really is. (That drawn
>not by Eisner, but Woody who did many of the Weird Science/Weird
>Fantasy science fiction comics.)
Actually, it's Wallace Wood.
>Eisner also admits to being influenced by live-action Jewish
>theater. His father was a set painter for the theater for a
>while.
The father's life is actually included in part of _To the Heart of the
Storm_. I like the bit with the fly.
>In this new comic, I felt the art TRIED for what Eisner used to
>do, but somehow didn't quite succeed.
It's pretty hard-- Gibbons apes some of the superficial trappings of
Eisner's grid-less pages, by using flowers or blood as panel borders or
a notebook as a page frame, but he never deviates from a tiered panel
layout. It'll be interesting to see what these other artists (Eddie
Campbell, Dan Burr, etc) do.
>out. Why CAN'T the Spirit let the world know he is Denny
>Colt? It isn't like he has much use for the Denny Colt identity
>since Denny is supposed to be dead.
I think the idea is that Colt was a cop/criminologist, and as such had
to work in the system and all its resulting red tape. As the Spirit,
Colt can continue to fight crime, without being tied up by regular
procedure and law; and if Commissioner Dolan knows his identity (as he
and Ellen do), then "the Spirit" can operate without being a vigilante
pursued by the law, like a Spider-Man or whatnot. So he wouldn't be an
effective crimefighter as Colt, but he is as the Spirit.
>Time to disappear again. Not even lurking, just gone. :-)
Guess I'll just lurk. :)
Todd VerBeek, gwm
My pal Joseph T. Arendt said:
>So, in Eisner's origin, Denny Colt ends up bathed in some kind
>of fluid and appears dead. He isn't dead, though. He wakes
>up and climbs out of the grave. He decides to let the world
>think he is dead, dons a mask, and becomes a vigilante. Other
>than that the chemical made him seem dead and led to the world
>think he was dead, it plays no other part. No superpowers. It
>doesn't put others into suspended animation. I don't think it
>is ever mentioned again. As for who Denny Colt really is and
>why he needs to hide that from the world, I never figured that
>out. Why CAN'T the Spirit let the world know he is Denny
>Colt? It isn't like he has much use for the Denny Colt identity
>since Denny is supposed to be dead.
>
>Imagine you, Elayne, had no living relatives and became a cop.
>Then, you somehow were thought dead. Secretly, you work and
>solve a crime or three. How long will you remain "dead"? What's
>the point? There seems nobody you are protecting by remaining
>"dead."
He's protecting himself. If "The Spirit" tracks down one of your partners
in crime and gets him sent up the river, there's not much you can do about
it. But if "Denny Colt" does it, all you have to do is look him up in the
phone book, go to his house, and teach him a lesson.
Perhaps a better question is: Why =would= he want to point out he's not
dead?
Cheers, Todd
"Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all."
- Billy Bragg, _The Internationale_
Kevin J. Maroney
Sgarre <user...@USCCMAIL.uscc.bms.com> wrote:
>Mikel Midnight wrote:
>> I think Eisner is enormously talented but after a while I have found his
>> current work to be increasingly maudlin. _The Building_ and _Invisible
>> People_ were so painful for me to read that I haven't bothered with any of
>> his other current publications.
>
>Essentially, I agree with what you say. Eisner is a genius and deserves
>all the respect he gets. But from a purely critical standpoint, some of
>his stories are ruined by an overly sentimental/mawkish quality.
Eisner was, and is, a genius of graphic storytelling, and he has some
flare for whatever the graphics equivalent of "le mot just" might be.
He has an eye for telling detail. He also has a tendency to let
stereotype stand in for character and a penchant for overblown
sentimentality that overwhelms the genuinely subtle charms in his
stories.
None of this is new: Every criticism I just made dates back at least
to _A Contract with God_. When I read _Contract_, my stated reaction
was, "Telling bad _New Yorker_-wannabe short stories in comic format
doesn't advance the medium." I was too harsh; the title story in that
collection is quite good, but the rest are terrible.
All imho, of course. I know that there are many people who get a great
deal out of Eisner's post-_Contract_ works.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
"Love doesn't have a point. Love *is* the point."--Alan Moore
julio
In article <353a478c...@news.newsguy.com>, ver...@bigfoot.com (Todd
VerBeek, gwm) wrote:
> He's protecting himself. If "The Spirit" tracks down one of your partners
> in crime and gets him sent up the river, there's not much you can do about
> it. But if "Denny Colt" does it, all you have to do is look him up in the
> phone book, go to his house, and teach him a lesson.
The thing is, "Denny Colt" is not in the phone book. You cannot find him
that way. He lives in a secret underground cave under a stone in Wildwood
Cemetery. For practical purposes, Denny Colt does not exist. Everybody,
including Dolan and Ellen, calls him "Spirit" all the time.
So there is no reason for the mask, and Eisner himself has admitted this.
It was just a dumb superhero convention that he got stuck with.
One should not read Eisner's Spirit stories looking for the same things
one looks for in today's superhero stories... continuity, logic (or
pseudo-logic), character development, or what not. That's not what they
are about. Nor are they really about the Spirit himself, for the most
part. They are totally or almost totally plot- and action-driven. It's
all about telling a short tale, of the "crime/suspense" variety, usually
with a surprise or humorous twist, and spectacular storytelling--action,
lighting, camera angles, transitions, sounds effects, everything is
masterfully rendered to serve the story.
I enjoyed Moore and Gibbons' work tremendously. I imagine Eisner
chuckling as he read it and wishing he had had such talent available to
him in his study in the old days (not that he didn't have a lot of talent
there, of course). This was fan fiction done by pros, and it was done
exactly right.
I have no real hopes for this series, though. Sooner or later, somebody
is going to start trying to inject continuity into it, and taking it too
seriously, and it will go the way of Don Rosa's duck stories.
Julio
Mikko Aittola
jgea...@comp.uark.edu (julio) writes:
> I have no real hopes for this series, though. Sooner or later, somebody
> is going to start trying to inject continuity into it, and taking it too
> seriously, and it will go the way of Don Rosa's duck stories.
While I agree 100% on the Spirit stuff you wrote, the comment about
Don puzzled me.
While Don takes Barks' stories "seriously", he's always said that
whenever the story needs it, he changes the "continuity".
And what Don means with "continuity" isn't same as term that
is now used with current Marvel and DC comics. I think he
referred his continuity as "Weisinger style continuity" or
something like that. (I hope I didn't misunderstood him...)
Actually, I think Don's work with Ducks and Moore/Gibbons Spirit
story have lots in common in the way that they're also nods to past
great stories.
/Mikko
julio
In article <idnd8eg...@trumpetti.hut.fi>, Mikko Aittola
<mait...@trumpetti.hut.fi> wrote:
Well, this is only my opinion, but...
Rosa started out fine, but more and more he's become obsessed with
minutiae, and, partly as a result of that, his stories have become
virtually unreadable, at least for me.
I realize I may be in a minority; looking at the letters page of the latest
issue of "Uncle Scrooge" I got, I see statements like "Rosa has...revealed
to us the secrets and origins of Duckburg, the Duck Family Tree and The
Junior Woodchucks Guidebook. Don Rosa is the only one talented enough to
reveal one of Disney comics greatest mysteries: Why the Duck and Mouse
universes are separate?"
Well, excuse me, but I don't care. There is obviously a constituency for
what Rosa is doing, and he may even have a mandate for it, but he did not
get it from me. I don't pay him (indirectly, obviously) to disclose to me
the first name of Grandma Duck or amaze me with the revelation that the
ducks are related to Cornelius Coot on Grandma's side. I don't want to
know the origin of the Junior Woodchucks. I just want a good,
entertaining, unpretentious story that moves along at anything faster than
a glacial pace, and does not keep getting sidetracked into all sorts of
cute little historical anecdotes and continuity winks.
These days I start reading a Rosa story and lose interest rapidly after the
first few pages. "I don't have time for this" pretty much sums up my
feelings. Clearly, the continuity obsession is only part of the problem:
Rosa just crams so many little details and jokes in every panel that it
takes him twice as many panels, and ten times as many words, to get from
point A to point B of the story as it would have taken Carl Barks (or,
indeed, almost anybody else). It's gotten so bad I'll do just about
anything else--read the Tony Strobl Beagle Boys backup story, read the
letter pages, read the ads--anything rather than keep plodding along a Rosa
tale.
Which is a shame, really, because the guy has talent, and some of his
earlier stories are absolute classics. And the thousand little jokes
crammed away in every panel *are* usually funny, at least for the most
part. But a thousand jokes do not make a story, and retroactive continuity
alone does not make a story either, and when you finally get to the actual
story Rosa has to tell you find (well, at least, *I* find) that it's either
not worth it, just a peg to hang the jokes and the continuity on, or, if it
really has any merit *as a story*, that it would have been better served by
trimming it down by at least half the extra weight.
As might have this post, I suspect. :-) (So how come I have time for
*this*...?)
Julio
Yngvar Folling
> I find that his longer works tend to be better: the shorter vignettes,
> like _Invisible People_ or _The Dreamer_, don't have the same
> "masterwork" qualities that the longer ones do. Don't get me wrong: he
> is Eisner, and his throwaway stuff is better than 95% of what's on the
> stands, but I think his longer works are much, much stronger, and a
> very strong argument for comics as a serious medium. :)
I'd say that there are exceptions. "Life on another planet" is a long
work that didn't do much for me. Definitely Eisner's style in drawings
and panel layouts, but lacking in story and characterization.
Yngvar
Don Rosa
Sooner or later, somebody
>is going to start trying to inject continuity into it, and taking it too
>seriously, and it will go the way of Don Rosa's duck stories.
>
Hm? And which way is that?
Don Rosa
> And what Don means with "continuity" isn't same as term that
> is now used with current Marvel and DC comics. I think he
> referred his continuity as "Weisinger style continuity" or
> something like that. (I hope I didn't misunderstood him
You understood me perfectly. Thanks.
Don Rosa
>Sooner or later, somebody
>is going to start trying to inject continuity into it, and taking it too
>seriously, and it will go the way of Don Rosa's duck stories.
>
>Julio
(me:) Hm? And which way is that?
Oh. Never mind. I see you've explained which way that is...
julio wrote in message ...
>Well, this is only my opinion, but...>
>Rosa started out fine, but more and more he's become obsessed with
>minutiae, and, partly as a result of that, his stories have become
>virtually unreadable, at least for me. It's gotten so bad I'll do just
about
>anything else--read the Tony Strobl Beagle Boys backup story, read the
>letter pages, read the ads--anything rather than keep plodding along a Rosa
>tale.
Not just your opinion. You are very probably 100% correct. But I guess it's
a simple matter of you not being the reader who I'm doing my stories for, as
it is with all comics and comic authors and readers. You're who Tony Strobl
was doing stories for. Fair enough. I think it's good that comics have
something for all readers, eh?
julio
{I'm posting and e-mailing this, since sometimes not all articles show up
in all the news servers.}
In article <ErrJv...@iglou.com>, "Don Rosa" <don...@iglou.com> wrote:
> julio wrote in message ...
> >Well, this is only my opinion, but...>
> >Rosa started out fine, but more and more he's become obsessed with
> >minutiae, and, partly as a result of that, his stories have become
> >virtually unreadable, at least for me. It's gotten so bad I'll do just
> about
> >anything else--read the Tony Strobl Beagle Boys backup story, read the
> >letter pages, read the ads--anything rather than keep plodding along a Rosa
> >tale.
>
> Not just your opinion. You are very probably 100% correct. But I guess it's
> a simple matter of you not being the reader who I'm doing my stories for, as
> it is with all comics and comic authors and readers. You're who Tony Strobl
> was doing stories for. Fair enough. I think it's good that comics have
> something for all readers, eh?
Indeed. But, since you have been so nice as to respond to this, I
wouldn't want to leave you with the wrong impression. I *loved* your
earlier stories. I loved them without reservation; I thought they were,
without question, the best Duck tales since Carl Barks, and some of your
wholly original stories ("Treasure under glass" comes to mind) were at
least as good as Barks' best.
The problem I have described, of not actually feeling motivated to finish
reading one of your stories, didn't start until somewhere during the "Life
and times of Scrooge McDuck" saga. Even then, many of the installments
were absolutely great---funny, clever, and true to (the way I see) the
character. But it was around then, with some of the weaker episodes, that
you started to lose me as a reader.
Some of this is almost certainly just me--I am notorious for losing
interest in the work of almost any artist or creator after a few years,
even when that creator is still producing commercially and artistically
worthwhile stuff. But some of it is also you--your tales feel different,
your take on the characters seems to have changed somewhat over the years,
and--more to the point of my original post--too often, too much of the
story revolves around establishing some history point or other (How did
the nephews join the Woodchucks? What happened to Fort Duckburg?). I'm
sure lots of readers love this stuff; I just can't get very excited about
it.
And, of course, as you said above, that's fine. You've got to do what you
love doing, and your love for your work is still apparent in every page
you draw. And you still come up with some really funny, crazy stuff that
occasionally makes me laugh out loud (I loved the giant bat from Borneo in
that recent Donald/Woodchuck story). I think it's just that, ultimately,
I don't really share your vision of the Duck universe as a universe with a
history. (Or a universe whose history matters at all.)
Thanks, though, for your nice response and for many years of very
enjoyable stories...
Julio Gea-Banacloche
Don Rosa
>But some of it is also you--your tales feel different,
>your take on the characters seems to have changed somewhat over the years,
Hm. I guess you must be right since it's something you've sensed... but I
sure don't *feel* any differently than I did originally. One difference
might be that Gladstone did not want me to do sequels to old stories because
American readers are not very familiar with the originals... so the matter
never even arose other than that one time they needed a sequel to "Lost in
the Andes" to accompany a Barks lithograph. But when I started working for
Egmont, one of the things the editors *wanted* me to do were sequels to
Barks stories because they said the readers had been asking for these for
years, but they had no one who was familiar enough with the old material to
try it. So, even though I do LOVE doing sequels, I'm really not so sure they
are good ideas (other than for me to have fun), but it's what the editors
request of me, and I'm glad to do the deed. This also applies to the entire
"Life of $crooge" series.
>>>too often, too much of the
>story revolves around establishing some history point or other (How did
>the nephews join the Woodchucks? What happened to Fort Duckburg?). I'm
>sure lots of readers love this stuff; I just can't get very excited about
>it.
The only apology I can make is that I have been compelled to do too MUCH of
that sort of thing in the past 6 months... but the Egmont editors have asked
me for a 50th anniversary story for $crooge and Gladstone and a 60th for
HD&L -- the editors tell me these must be "very special" stories. So...
since everything under the sun has already been done with these characters,
and nothing about their "universe" can be changed a single iota (not that
I'd want to!), that ONLY leaves an "origin" or "untold tale" as something
which would make the story stand out as a special occasion. I was personally
very pleased with the $crooge-50th and HD&L 60th stories that I did (whereas
I usually don't like my stories so much)... but that Gladstone Gander 50th
was just too much on the heels of the other two. I'm glad that I'm not faced
with any more anniversary-story requests for at least a while! So, I liked
that HD&L 60th, but I do agree even it was too soon after the $crooge stuff
of my past 5 years to have so many more untold stories.
(By the way, as per something you said earlier... it was not ME who gave
Grandma Duck her first name of Elvira... it was done in a 1950 story in
WDC&S.)
>And, of course, as you said above, that's fine. You've got to do what you
>love doing, and your love for your work is still apparent in every page
>you draw.
Well, that's nice to know!
>And you still come up with some really funny, crazy stuff that
>occasionally makes me laugh out loud
That, too!
>I don't really share your vision of the Duck universe as a universe with a
>history. (Or a universe whose history matters at all.)
I guess we do differ, because that comment boggles me. How can a universe
exist without a history? And why would you not want to hear about it? And am
I the only one who delves into it? No, I only do it more than the others
(and with more glee!).
This is like how some people accuse me of plegarizing Barks by doing stories
based on comments in his old stories. First, it all belongs to Disney, not
Barks (though I think he was never paid .0001% enough for it), so I can't
plegarize anything. Secondly, it's more *difficult* to do a sequel to a
classic than something completely original, because it requires MUCH more
reference and logic and planning, and being careful to (hopefully) write a
new plot involving old ideas without screwing them up with too-new too-weird
crap. Yet the thing that most often puzzles me is that all other writers can
tell about $crooge having all that money (like in Barks stories) or having a
Money Bin (like in Barks) or wearing a top hat (like in Barks) or having
enemies like the Beagles or Flintheart or Magica (like in Barks) or making
his fortune in the Yukon (like in Barks) or having all these other
Duckburgers like Gladstone and Gyro and everyone (like in Barks)... but as
soon as I take one further step and refer to $crooge's days as a cowboy
(like in Barks) a few readers start shouting "Plegarism!" "Unoriginal!" ---
this seems like wacky resoning to me! But I don't want anyone to be unhappy,
so I usually just tell those folks that I apologise for such things that
they don't enjoy... and advise them that they should not read my stories to
avoid more of it in the future (since more will definitely be coming).
>Thanks, though, for your nice response and for many years of very
>enjoyable stories...
Thank you!!!
julio
> So, even though I do LOVE doing sequels, I'm really not so sure they
> are good ideas (other than for me to have fun), but it's what the editors
> request of me, and I'm glad to do the deed.
Actually, I've enjoyed many of the sequels (the "Return to Xanadu" story
was perhaps my favorite; I got a real sense of adventure out of it). It's
the "untold tales" that I have problems with.
> The only apology I can make is that I have been compelled to do too MUCH of
> that sort of thing in the past 6 months... but the Egmont editors have asked
> me for a 50th anniversary story for $crooge and Gladstone and a 60th for
> HD&L [...]
So it is as I suspected... you do have a mandate :-)
Part of my problem is that the only Gladstone title I get regularly is US
(U$?), and the *only* stories of yours that have appeared in that title
for the past three years or so have been "untold tales." (Not counting
the hilarious Donald/Scrooge/Gladstone story in US #300, I think, which I
believe was one of your first Duck tales.) This, more than anything else,
accounts for the tone of exasperation of my original post.
> (By the way, as per something you said earlier... it was not ME who gave
> Grandma Duck her first name of Elvira... it was done in a 1950 story in
> WDC&S.)
I'll be darned... :-) Shows you how much I know, huh?
[I wrote:]
> >I don't really share your vision of the Duck universe as a universe with a
> >history. (Or a universe whose history matters at all.)
>
> I guess we do differ, because that comment boggles me. How can a universe
> exist without a history?
Well, I don't know, but it does (or it did, anyway, before you came
along!). Basically, it's because in the old tales nobody actually
remembers anything from one story to the next. Nothing that happens one
issue has consequences for the next issue. Donald is often portrayed as a
good for nothing, despite the fact that he has just as often been
portrayed as being exceptionally good at unusual tasks (such as snake
charming or rain making). Donald never has a penny even though he
occasionally gets large sums of money (such as in the purple stamp
story). He sometimes has a dog and sometimes he doesn't, and it isn't
always the same dog. Scrooge's fortune once fell in a big cave under the
money bin and the only way he could get it out was using a little toy
train and he calculated it would take him hundreds of years to get it
back, and of course the next time he shows up he's got his whole fortune
back, nobody ever mentions the cave under the money bin again and nobody
explains how he did it.
Now, you may say "Hey! Here's something calling for an Untold Tale! How
*did* he get his fortune back?" I call this "the Roy Thomas syndrome" (if
you're not familiar with it, ask any citizen of
rec.arts.comics.dc.universe about it).
Basically, Barks' Duck world *is* a world without a history. The
characters live in an eternal present: every story begins with a clean
slate.
> And why would you not want to hear about it?
This is harder to explain. It may just boil down to a matter of taste.
It may simply be that when you force a history upon it I do not feel that
I am reading about the same universe anymore. And it may also be that it
*does* feel forced at times. If you look at the premises on which that
"eternal present" rests too closely, you start almost begging for
questions that cannot be answered and should not be asked. Why don't the
nephews ever grow up? What grade are they in in school? Whatever
happened to their parents? How come they are still living with Donald
after all these years? Has he ever formally adopted them? And so on and
so forth.
> This is like how some people accuse me of plegarizing Barks by doing stories
> based on comments in his old stories.
I had no idea people had ever accused you of that, but it is, of course,
an absurd accusation.
> First, it all belongs to Disney, not Barks
I see your point. I think anybody who looks at your work must realize
that, by this point, you are not just aping Barks, but creating your own
thing--your own universe, really, based on hints dropped by Barks, but
it's clearly a different thing. These aren't even Barks' ducks that you
are drawing anymore. Their facial expression, their body language,
everything about them is by now unmistakably yours. You are creating your
own legacy here, and it is remarkable because what Barks did was so good
and had such staying power that it's hard to imagine anybodye else could
come up with a different vision and make it work that well--and yet, what
you are doing clearly works for many, many people (even when it doesn't
always work for me). It may even work better than Barks for the "modern"
kind of reader who has been brought up in a world of "continuing stories
with continuity" (heck, even sitcoms have continuity these days).
> It's more *difficult* to do a sequel to a
> classic than something completely original, because it requires MUCH more
> reference and logic and planning
Well, you seem to do a lot of research even for your "completely original"
stories. I mentioned "Treasure under glass" in a previous post. I would
ask you, but I'm pretty sure the answer would be yes, whether everything
you say there about captain Francisco Melian, his ship "Candelaria" and
his diving bells is true...
On the other hand, I can ask you this, *have* you ever actually been to
the Archivo General de Indias in Sevilla? If not, it might be worth a
trip the next time you go to Europe, just to see Sevilla, which is one of
Spain's prettiest cities (not that I would be biased by the fact that I
was born there, myself).
What I'm puzzled by is the fact that nobody else has joined in this
conversation yet. It is not often that we get a creator to drop by, and
few of them are ever as gracious as you have been. Thanks again!
Julio
Don Rosa
>Part of my problem is that the only Gladstone title I get regularly is US
>(U$?), and the *only* stories of yours that have appeared in that title
>for the past three years or so have been "untold tales."
Yikes. You can hardly judge my work only by what's appeared in U$ for the
past few years. They've been using my stuff in WDC&S and one good'n in "THE
ADVENTUROUS $CROOGE MCDUCK" or whatever that odd new title was.
>> I guess we do differ, because that comment boggles me. How can a universe
>> exist without a history?
>
>Well, I don't know, but it does (or it did, anyway, before you came
>along!).
Of course it didn't! There MUST be a history to a universe, even if no one
is writing every story about that history. And I can think of no other comic
character that reeks of having a past history more than $crooge, who has
lived so many adventures in so many times, according to ALL the past Duck
writers. That's one reason the character fascinates me! History doesn't
cease to exist simply because every story does not deal with it.
Barks would sometimes tell tales of $crooge's early days... so would other
writers/artists... one of my favorite tales of $crooge's youth in the
Klondike was by your Strobl.... and for 30 years there have been hundreds of
other tales of $crooge's or Duckburg's past done in Europe. But you don't
notice those because the other writers treat the subject so lightly and
casually that those tales are forgotten as soon as they're read. My stories
are not better (certainly not drawn better!), but I *do* put such effort and
joy and accuracy-to-Barks in them that they catch your attention.
> Basically, it's because in the old tales nobody actually
>remembers anything from one story to the next. Nothing that happens one
>issue has consequences for the next issue. Donald is often portrayed as a
>good for nothing, despite the fact that he has just as often been
>portrayed as being exceptionally good at unusual tasks (such as snake
>charming or rain making). Donald never has a penny even though he
>occasionally gets large sums of money (such as in the purple stamp
>story).
Aha! We are not so far apart as you seem to assume! Here is my precise
attitude to what I call my "limited continuity" of the Duck Universe:
With every story that I do, every story that is taking place in the present,
the story takes place... then "time" winds back and that story is forgotten,
as if it never occured. I, too, have had Donald discover at least one
fabulous treasure, then be flat broke again in the next story. I have
destroyed the Money Bin totally, then refered to it afterwards as if it has
stood untouched and intact for 50 years. I have done stories where Donald is
the "world master" at some skill, then a helpless boob again in the next
tale.
What I regard as "fixed" inviolate "history" is EVERYTHING that has come
before the "present". Everything that Barks ever said that $crooge did in
Montana in 1882 or in Scotland in 1910. Naturally! Would I call those
classic stories "lies"? Or "mistakes"? I grew up on that stuff. It HAS to be
true to the history of the character.
Maybe you don't like something like my Duck Family Tree? But that's not MY
Family Tree. It's an almost direct copy of Barks' version... but maybe you'd
never seen that one, only mine? I only created characters to link *his*
characters together. If a Bark-father had a Barks-son, I'd give the father a
wife... stuff like that.
>He sometimes has a dog and sometimes he doesn't, and it isn't
>always the same dog.
Well... any story that shows Donald having a dog other than Bolivar is
incorrect, and the product of a sloppy editor. Donald has one dog, a
St.Bernard... and three nephews. Would you object to Donald having only two
nephews in one story, named Fat & Slat? Sure. Three nephews, one dog,
correct names... but let's get off the dog subject, it will muddy the
waters.
>Scrooge's fortune once fell in a big cave under the
>money bin and the only way he could get it out was using a little toy
>train and he calculated it would take him hundreds of years to get it
>back, and of course the next time he shows up he's got his whole fortune
>back, nobody ever mentions the cave under the money bin again and nobody
>explains how he did it.
Yes, they DO mention it. To ME. For 10 years, several editors and many fans
want me to tell that tale of how $crooge saved his money from that pit. That
story seems to cry for an explanation -- it was done when $crooge was only a
semi-regular character, so there was little concern when it was written
whether that ending meant we'd see him again or not. But that's still one
"untold tale" I resist (because there are other, more interesting ones, when
the editors force my hand).
>Now, you may say "Hey! Here's something calling for an Untold Tale! How
>*did* he get his fortune back?" I call this "the Roy Thomas syndrome" (if
>you're not familiar with it, ask any citizen of
>rec.arts.comics.dc.universe about it).
Well, all those citizens would be wrong. It is the "Mort Weisinger Syndrome"
continuity. It was going on in Superman comics 15 years before Marvel
started their "hyper-continuity" style. I don't do Marvel continuity. I do
Weisinger continuity. And proud of it. I was reading Superman at the same
time I read Uncle $crooge... so naturally I am a product of both comics (and
others). I have never tried to do $crooge comics (nor claimed that I have)
in the "Barks style". I can ONLY do them in MY "style" (such as it is),
naturally... that's all I'm capable of... and do them with reverence to the
Barks stories I loved as a kid.
>Basically, Barks' Duck world *is* a world without a history.
Then how could Barks do stories or make constant references to $crooge's
early days? How could I have constructed a 12 part series, 212 pages, out of
those references if they did not exist? And that doesn't even mention the
many, many other writers who have told stories about $crooge's (or Donald's)
past... but I choose to ignore those. You seem to be ignoring them all.
>The
>characters live in an eternal present: every story begins with a clean
>slate.
Correct. They live in an eternal present. Exactly correct. With an
unchanging past history. You sound like you think the one precludes the
other somehow. I don't follow you.
>If you look at the premises on which that
>"eternal present" rests too closely, you start almost begging for
>questions that cannot be answered and should not be asked. Why don't the
>nephews ever grow up? What grade are they in in school? Whatever
>happened to their parents? How come they are still living with Donald
>after all these years?
No, because now *you* are making it overly complex. The "eternal present" is
so simple. It does NOT follow the current year. If you knew more about my
stories, you'd know (or would have noticed the clues) that my stories all
take place in the 50s. Not in 1952 or 1957... but I see time in the Duck
Universe as getting lost in a sorta time-loop, swirling endlessly in the
mid-50s. This seems to agree with what you want, and makes the explanation
so simple, and even in agreement with your own words. Every story disappears
after it takes place, so time never advances. I'm doing it JUST the way you
want, eh? (Sounds like it to me.)
>I think anybody who looks at your work must realize
>that, by this point, you are not just aping Barks, but creating your own
>thing--your own universe, really, based on hints dropped by Barks, but
>it's clearly a different thing. These aren't even Barks' ducks that you
>are drawing anymore. Their facial expression, their body language,
>everything about them is by now unmistakably yours. You are creating your
>own legacy here, and it is remarkable because what Barks did was so good
>and had such staying power that it's hard to imagine anybodye else could
>come up with a different vision and make it work that well--and yet, what
>you are doing clearly works for many, many people
I either agree with all of that, or I would hope it was true! I couldn't
hope for more!
>Well, you seem to do a lot of research even for your "completely original"
>stories. I mentioned "Treasure under glass" in a previous post. I would
>ask you, but I'm pretty sure the answer would be yes, whether everything
>you say there about captain Francisco Melian, his ship "Candelaria" and
>his diving bells is true...
Not only that, but EVERY HISTORIC DETAIL of EVERY STORY I have ever done is
absolutely, 100% true... or at least true to the theories of some
respectable historian somewhere. This applies to even such stories of mine
that contain fantastic seeming historical facts, like "The Crocodile
Collector", "The Guardians of the Lost Library", "The Lost Charts of
Columbus", and one yet to appear in America (that has the most amazing
historical facts I've ever uncovered) "The Last Lord of Eldorado". I get a
BIG thrill out of creating a (hopefully) entertaining adventure story based
on 100% authentic facts. That's a challenge! It's simple to make up facts to
build a story on. But using REAL history is more fun, and makes the story
much, much more interesting if it's real (at least for me). Now... why do
that when the readers all think I'm making it all up from scratch? Just
because I like to do it that way, and my first goal is to entertain
myself... the readers hopefully will enjoy what I enjoy... not always, but
that's my tough luck. Or... why use real facts when writing stories about
talking ducks? Because I do not SEE them as talking ducks. I literally see
them in my mind's eye, in my heart-of-hearts, as human beings. I have been
reading/looking at Barks' Ducks literally since birth, thanks to an older
sister. And I never realized they were NOT supposed to be people. I thought
that's how a cartoonist drew people. Some sort of "style"... I dunno... I
didn't think about it. I just knew they were people. I mean, Bugs Bunny,
Woody Woodpecker, all that crap, THOSE were cute animals... but Barks'
characters had personalities and character and (yes) HISTORIES. They were
people. My Ducks live in the real world with the real world history. I don't
make up silly names for cities or historical characters and insult the
readers' intelligence. The only difference in my Duck world and the real
world is that the northern third of California is a 51st state called
Calisota... and people seem to either be depicted (but not to be in
actuality) as somewhat resembling waterfowl or having pig or dog noses.
>>>It is not often that we get a creator to drop by, and
>few of them are ever as gracious as you have been.
(Ha! What a gullible fool! They are so easy to trick!)
By the way, this is fun... but I need your ("Julio"'s) full name to
continue. I usually have a sorta policy of not corresponding with anyone who
does not give their full name...
julio
In article <EruoJ...@iglou.com>, "Don Rosa" <don...@iglou.com> wrote:
I've commented on most of the rest, but this part I want to single out:
> Not only that, but EVERY HISTORIC DETAIL of EVERY STORY I have ever done is
> absolutely, 100% true... or at least true to the theories of some
> respectable historian somewhere. This applies to even such stories of mine
> that contain fantastic seeming historical facts, like "The Crocodile
> Collector", "The Guardians of the Lost Library", "The Lost Charts of
> Columbus", and one yet to appear in America (that has the most amazing
> historical facts I've ever uncovered) "The Last Lord of Eldorado".
OK, I want to read all these. Actually, I already have "The Guardians of
the Lost Library", but where can I find the others? Is there a Don Rosa
checklist available on the Web? Heeelp!
> I get a
> BIG thrill out of creating a (hopefully) entertaining adventure story based
> on 100% authentic facts. That's a challenge! It's simple to make up facts to
> build a story on. But using REAL history is more fun, and makes the story
> much, much more interesting if it's real (at least for me). Now... why do
> that when the readers all think I'm making it all up from scratch?
Not *all* the readers think that, I can assure you... And I think it's
great that you do use real history, by the way. I've already learned
quite a bit from your stories (although I find it hard to believe your
depiction of Geronimo is very accurate, personality-wise).
> Just
> because I like to do it that way, and my first goal is to entertain
> myself... the readers hopefully will enjoy what I enjoy... not always, but
> that's my tough luck. Or... why use real facts when writing stories about
> talking ducks? Because I do not SEE them as talking ducks. I literally see
> them in my mind's eye, in my heart-of-hearts, as human beings.
This is really interesting. I think it's another area where we differ
somewhat. It explains why you've given them, on rare occasions
(fortunately rare, I'd say--it's not the sort of stuff I want to see much
of) a range and depth of emotion that Barks never did (I'm thinking of the
death of Scrooge's mother and Scrooge's "romance" with Goldie...)
> My Ducks live in the real world with the real world history. I don't
> make up silly names for cities or historical characters and insult the
> readers' intelligence. The only difference in my Duck world and the real
> world is that the northern third of California is a 51st state called
> Calisota...
There should also be a country named Brutopia somewhere. Have you ever
used Brutopia? Wouldn't you like to? I thought they made great bad guys
("you dog of a duck!").
Julio Gea-Banacloche
Mark Bernstein
On Fri, 17 Apr 1998 11:04:47 -0500, jgea...@comp.uark.edu (julio)
wrote:
>One should not read Eisner's Spirit stories looking for the same things
>one looks for in today's superhero stories... continuity, logic (or
>pseudo-logic), character development, or what not. That's not what they
>are about. Nor are they really about the Spirit himself, for the most
>part. They are totally or almost totally plot- and action-driven. It's
>all about telling a short tale, of the "crime/suspense" variety, usually
>with a surprise or humorous twist, and spectacular storytelling--action,
>lighting, camera angles, transitions, sounds effects, everything is
>masterfully rendered to serve the story.
>
While much of that is true much of the time, there are times when it's
very, very wrong. Eisner is a master of characterization and
character development, and some of the Spirit stories, especially the
ones that focus on characters other than the regulars, place a primary
emphasis on characterization. The story of Gerhard Schnobble is still
one of the most touching short character pieces in the history of
comics. Even the regulars often got more character development in the
course of eight pages than many characters get in twenty-two today.
The joy of the P'Gell stories isn't just the plot twists, it's the
relationship between P'Gell and the Spirit, and the way they react to
each other's machinations.
Mark Bernstein
markbe...@hotmail.com
Ann Arbor, MI
BradW8
>>Here is my precise
attitude to what I call my "limited continuity" of the Duck Universe:
With every story that I do, every story that is taking place in the present,
the story takes place... then "time" winds back and that story is forgotten,
as if it never occured.<<
Umm... except when you reference YOURSELF, as when Donald runs into that
genie-in-a-vase the second time.
emb...@email.mot.com
In article <354118aa...@news.arbortext.com>,
Mark is correct. Also, there was at times continutly. A few times a broader
storyline was conveided over several Spirit stories. The Spirit getting
blinded, or being lost some where, or several others, would be played out
over the course of a half-dozen or so stories.
Michael R. Brown
Don Rosa
>Umm... except when you reference YOURSELF, as when Donald runs into that
>genie-in-a-vase the second time.
Oh, please! That was obviously only a background gag meant to be understood
only by a select few readers.
But still, I have referenced my own past stories on a rare occasion, once in
"The Last Lord of Eldorado" which you haven't seen yet if you're in America.
But that was a sequel, and of course I must reference the earlier story in a
sequel.
But I see that you're right -- I was being unclear. It's not that I don't
reference an earlier adventure story when the sequek demands it... but when
I do something like destroy the Money Bin or have Donald find a million
bucks, *those* stories will "rewind" and be as if they never occured.
Henry Spencer
In article <EruoJ...@iglou.com>, Don Rosa <don...@iglou.com> wrote:
>With every story that I do, every story that is taking place in the present,
>the story takes place... then "time" winds back and that story is forgotten,
I would comment that this is far from unknown even in today's continuity-
conscious "mainstream" comics. How many times have we seen some villain's
latest scheme fail because of a minor oversight, or chance intervention by
a third party, or sheer bad luck... and the villain promptly abandons it,
never to pursue it again, even though a more polished second attempt would
probably succeed. For that matter, the heroes aren't much better at
learning from experience. (How many non-invulnerable heroes get bashed
over the head at least once a year, and never seem to figure out that they
ought to wear a helmet?) This sort of thing was endemic in the Weisinger
era, as Don mentions, but it's by no means unknown even today.
--
Being the last man on the Moon | Henry Spencer
is a very dubious honor. -- Gene Cernan | he...@zoo.toronto.edu
bma...@utmem1.utmem.edu
In article <jgeabana-240...@julio.uark.edu>,
jgea...@comp.uark.edu (julio) wrote:
> In article <EruoJ...@iglou.com>, "Don Rosa" <don...@iglou.com> wrote:
[Snip Material]
> > Or... why use real facts when writing stories about
> > talking ducks? Because I do not SEE them as talking ducks. I literally see
> > them in my mind's eye, in my heart-of-hearts, as human beings.
>
> This is really interesting. I think it's another area where we differ
> somewhat. It explains why you've given them, on rare occasions
> (fortunately rare, I'd say--it's not the sort of stuff I want to see much
> of) a range and depth of emotion that Barks never did (I'm thinking of the
> death of Scrooge's mother and Scrooge's "romance" with Goldie...)
Here, I disagree with Julio. It is exactly this depth of characterization
that attracts me as a writer. In fact, this is a significant part of the
reason why I think that Don Rosa's work is superior to Carl Barks' work.
I say keep these stories coming.
B. Martin
julio
> On Fri, 17 Apr 1998 11:04:47 -0500, jgea...@comp.uark.edu (julio)
> wrote:
>
> >One should not read Eisner's Spirit stories looking for [...] character
development, or what not.
> Eisner is a master of characterization and
> character development, and some of the Spirit stories, especially the
> ones that focus on characters other than the regulars, place a primary
> emphasis on characterization. The story of Gerhard Schnobble is still
> one of the most touching short character pieces in the history of
> comics.
It is true that Eisner did some great character pieces (such as the
Schnobble story) in The Spirit. I should have mentioned that among the
strengths of the series. They are, however, typically one-shots (a
character is introduced, we learn about him, then never see him again), so
it's not what I'd call character development (okay, make that *continuing*
character development).
> Even the regulars often got more character development in the
> course of eight pages than many characters get in twenty-two today.
Hmm. The regulars do get an occasional "spotlight" issue, once in a
blue moon, where we may learn a little more about their personalities
and/or backgrounds (Dolan seems to get most of these, I think). But as
these stories never make, in practice, any difference afterwards, they
still do not add up to character development for me.
The most egregious example of this would be the Sand Saref story (a
classic found in many reprint collections, and perhaps the only time in
the entire run that anybody refers to The Spirit as "Denny"). Sand Saref
was a childhood friend of Denny Colt whom he runs into, as the Spirit, in
the course of a criminal investigation, after not having seen each other
for many years. The flashbacks to their time growing up together are some
of Eisner's best melodrama, and (to quote Dave White) "damn, it works":
there are some panels of little Sand crying that I remember as absolutely
heartbreaking, thanks to Eisner's powerful art. And yet, when the story
(a two-parter) ends, they go their separate ways, The Spirit is never
shown to even think about her again, his relationship (such as it is) with
Ellen is not affected in the slightest, and worst of all, when Sand shows
up again none of this powerful sentimental background is used or even
acknowledged: she's just become another typical Spirit quasi-villainess,
basically indistinguishable (even physically) from Silk Satin.
This is what I meant in my post. I have the entire postwar Spirit
collection, and there are some gems in there, but you cannot read it as a
continuing story the way you'd read, say, the X-Men, or even Jack Kirby's
Fantastic Four as a continuing story.
In the end, good as the character bits usually are, they are not what you
remember the series for (exceptions like the Schnobble story noted). It's
the wonderful storytelling.
> The joy of the P'Gell stories isn't just the plot twists, it's the
> relationship between P'Gell and the Spirit, and the way they react to
> each other's machinations.
But the "relationship" is always the same, ever since P'Gell's first
appearance. They just go through their paces like a well rehearsed comedy
act (a hilarious one, at that). Nothing ever changes between them--not
even when they got stranded on a desert island for several weeks (although
there were a couple of close calls there, IIRC, but it all added up to
Eisner deliberately passing up on his best opportunity yet to have taken
these characters *somewhere*).
Julio
Bob Heer
So, I see the subject line here and the first thing I think is "Don
Rosa's doing a SPIRIT story? =That= sounds neat!" Guess not, huh? I'm
curious, Don, would you be interested in doing something like that? It
would be nice to see you drawing humans again.
Bob Heer bg...@torfree.net http://www.geocities.com/area51/dimension/1428
TotB Newsletter Gunk'l'dunk v2#5 available now
--
The score is still Q to 12
--
Don Rosa
Bob Heer wrote in message ...
>So, I see the subject line here and the first thing I think is "Don
>Rosa's doing a SPIRIT story? =That= sounds neat!" Guess not, huh?
No, but I *was* one of the contributors to the famous "Spirit Jam" done in
the SPIRIT magazine about 12 years (or more?) ago. There's no bigger Eisner
fan than me!
>I'm
>curious, Don, would you be interested in doing something like that? It
>would be nice to see you drawing humans again.
Well, that would be fun... but I don't draw well enough to do a real Spirit
story. You see how my Duck World is drawn? That's 100% as realistic as I can
draw! I'm attempting total realism with that art, and that's as close as I
can get! And anyway, I *see* the Barks Ducks as humans, in my mind's eye, so
as far as I'm concerned, I *am* drawing humans (though I've learned that
non-Barks-Ducks fans are incapable of understanding that his "Ducks" were
human beings and not "funny animals").
Besides, to even do one "Rosa-style" Spirit story would mean there'd be ONE
less Duck story I'd ever do!
Tom Galloway
In article <Es3xp...@iglou.com>, Don Rosa <don...@iglou.com> wrote:
>Besides, to even do one "Rosa-style" Spirit story would mean there'd be ONE
>less Duck story I'd ever do!
Ah, but there is the Spirit story done by Jules Feiffer in the style of
his Clifford strip as a precedent here. It's about time the Spirit had to
deal with an older femme fatale, and seeing him meet up with Glittering
Goldie could be it!
tyg t...@netcom.com
Mikko Aittola
"Don Rosa" <don...@iglou.com> writes:
> Besides, to even do one "Rosa-style" Spirit story would mean there'd be ONE
> less Duck story I'd ever do!
How about just *writing* a Spirit story then?
BTW, have you been following Tony Isabella's 'Tony's Online Tips'
column at:
< http://www.wfcomics.com/tony/ >
I'd just like to second what he says in Febryary 10th installment:
< http://www.wfcomics.com/tony/backissues/b021098.vs >
/Mikko
Todd VerBeek, gwm
>Bob Heer wrote in message ...
>>curious, Don, would you be interested in doing something like that? It
>>would be nice to see you drawing humans again.
My pal Don Rosa said:
>Well, that would be fun... but I don't draw well enough to do a real Spirit
>story. You see how my Duck World is drawn? That's 100% as realistic as I can
>draw! I'm attempting total realism with that art, and that's as close as I
>can get! And anyway, I *see* the Barks Ducks as humans, in my mind's eye, so
>as far as I'm concerned, I *am* drawing humans (though I've learned that
>non-Barks-Ducks fans are incapable of understanding that his "Ducks" were
>human beings and not "funny animals").
>Besides, to even do one "Rosa-style" Spirit story would mean there'd be ONE
>less Duck story I'd ever do!
But to see that one Spirit-as-a-duck story might be worth it. {smile}
Cheers, Tidd
--
"...It was the year everything changed."
Bob Heer
"Don Rosa" <don...@iglou.com> wrote
> Bob Heer wrote in message ...
> >Rosa's doing a SPIRIT story? =That= sounds neat!" Guess not, huh?
>
> No, but I *was* one of the contributors to the famous "Spirit Jam" done in
> the SPIRIT magazine about 12 years (or more?) ago. There's no bigger Eisner
> fan than me!
17 years. I'll have to dig that one out. I was trying to remember if I
ever saw anything Spirit related from you. Wasn't at least one of the
headers for the Info Centre in TCR a Spirit pastiche? I lost most of my
old TCR issues years ago, unfortunately.
> >I'm
> >curious, Don, would you be interested in doing something like that? It
> >would be nice to see you drawing humans again.
>
> Well, that would be fun... but I don't draw well enough to do a real Spirit
> story. You see how my Duck World is drawn? That's 100% as realistic as I can
> draw! I'm attempting total realism with that art, and that's as close as I
> can get!
That's pretty real by most artist standards. Anyway, the current SPIRIT:
NEW ADVENTURES seems to allow for artists doing their own style, rather
than emulating Eisner (though actually I thought Gibbons and Campbell
seemed to go to far towards making their work look like Eisner, from a
quick glance).
> And anyway, I *see* the Barks Ducks as humans, in my mind's eye, so
> as far as I'm concerned, I *am* drawing humans (though I've learned that
> non-Barks-Ducks fans are incapable of understanding that his "Ducks" were
> human beings and not "funny animals").
Well, of course they're human. But they don't look it.
> Besides, to even do one "Rosa-style" Spirit story would mean there'd be ONE
> less Duck story I'd ever do!
Given Gladstone's current publishing arrangements, I'm not sure that would
be a huge problem (at least for English language readers). I mean, they
seem to keep reprinting stuff I've seen before while there's apparently a
huge amount of stuff that's never been printed in English, and their
cheapest books are a ridiculous $7, and that for a hodge-podge of material
(are they still splitting 24 page stories into three parts?). It would
take years for a break to do a Spirit story filtered down to English
readers.
julio
In article <35629ff4...@news.newsguy.com>, ver...@bigfoot.com (Todd
> But to see that one Spirit-as-a-duck story might be worth it. {smile}
I'd buy it immediately...
Julio
Don Rosa
Bob Heer wrote in message ...
>> No, but I *was* one of the contributors to the famous "Spirit Jam" done
in
>> the SPIRIT magazine about 12 years (or more?) ago.
>17 years.
Ooomiiiigooood!
>I'll have to dig that one out. I was trying to remember if I
>ever saw anything Spirit related from you. Wasn't at least one of the
>headers for the Info Centre in TCR a Spirit pastiche?
Oh, yes! And I did a Spirit cover for RBCC, and numerous Spirit illos in my
columns, and whenever there was a Spirit full-page illo needing to be done
to illustrate someone else's article, they'd know to call on me.
>I lost most of my
>old TCR issues years ago, unfortunately.
I was in RBCC about 10 years before that. (And don't tell me it was 20!)
>Given Gladstone's current publishing arrangements, I'm not sure that would
>be a huge problem (at least for English language readers).
Well, Gladstone's publication or lack thereof really has no effect on me
other than I'm afraid that someday soon I'll no longer get to see my own
stories in a language that I can read...
>I mean, they
>seem to keep reprinting stuff I've seen before while there's apparently a
>huge amount of stuff that's never been printed in English,
Don't ask me to explain their policies -- I really have very little contact
with them. As you probably know, they don't even need to contact me (much
less pay me) when they reprint my stories.
>and their cheapest books are a ridiculous $7,
People seem to blame this situation on Gladstone. Blame it on Disney's utter
lack of support, the sudden new fees charged by national distributors, and
the disinterest the American public has in comics. (And don't judge the
American comic book buyers to be a successful level of readership based on
European or Asian standards -- we wouldn't have comic books in this country
if not for the huge profits made possible off teeny-weeny sales levels due
to the direct-sales system for cult-hobbyists we have. Gladstone is trying
to find ANY means possible to survive. Thank their love of the material that
America has had Disney comics at all for the past 5 years.
>(are they still splitting 24 page stories into three parts?).
If they start using their new $7 UNCLE $CROOGE as the "showcase" for my
work, perhaps they will print the stories in single units. But what
Gladstone (or any other publisher) does with my work is not something in my
control.