Three Cheers for Bill Van Horn

Santiago Ceballos, William Van Horn, Paul Murry, Don Rosa, etc.

Postby Egg » Tue May 09, 2006 7:42 am

Dear old slightly-psychopatic Egg is not cantankerous. Ask the neighbours! They never complain. They know they just have to bear my ferocious howling sounds. Or else I'LL complain and then they know what to expect. Heh-heh-heh.
Egg
Member
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:19 am

Postby Egg » Wed May 10, 2006 5:57 am

It's not all dark within Egg. I like most of Van Horn's work for 'Horsing Around with History'. It has the feel of a Barks 1960s story.

In solo work, I like Van Horn's art more than his writing.
Egg
Member
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:19 am

Postby Egg » Thu May 11, 2006 11:58 pm

William Van Horn wrote:Boohooohhooooo......
Can I a least say 'goodbye', mister Egg?

:lol:

Egg is so ferocious, creators won't even dare to say goodbye. Egg wants discussions! Good sides, bad sides. Scientifically and emotionally. Heart and soul. Everything. Cluthy Egg loves discussing so much, that most people run away as soon as he starts writing. (sigh! how come?)

WB wrote:Hi Mr. Van Horn! I must say yet again that I love your work. :) I hope the previous insult by Egg doesnt drive you away. It's always nice IMO to see creators give input on thier work and being stateside with the Disney material I've discovered that its not often to find a place to discuss the comic books I've grown up with since childhood where the language isnt all something I don't really know. ^^;;

Egg is not convinced William Van Horn is really William Van Horn. Otherwise Egg would have run away to Farawaystan, as fast as his shell can roll.

WB wrote:No one has to always agree with the other person, and maybe I probably read it the wrong way as I'm just a newbie (maybe lost in translation?) but your phrasing of this comes off as more than just a wee bit rude.

Egg is exaggerating. It's a retorical question. Egg is just a bit disturbed by the idea of the frame-story. To my knowledge, no far no one has gone so far as to reverse engineer a Barks classic to make it compatible with a frame-work. Not even Don Rosa. I think Van Horn shouldn't have lend himself for that. Barks's stories are good as they are.
As the truth is too painful I just try to be a bit funny about it. What else can we Barks Lovers do? :P

WB wrote:A) How in the world did he screw up anything? To say that makes little or no sense. He did not change or rewrite the fundamental aspects of the story. He did not write any of the characters out of character, and he did not take the story (which is known as far as I've seen by people to be the only really apocryphal story that Barks has done in terms of continuity) and poo-poo on it.

The description "really apocryphal story that Barks has done in terms of continuity" is nonsense. Barks has made a lot of stories with good luck charms. So 'The Magic Hourglass' is canon as canon can be.
I really miss Dutch contributor Keessie on this. He's very good in explaining Barks's continuity.

Exactly for this reason I'm worried about Gemstone being so odd. Is this going to be a habit? They change a Barks classic to their view, hiring a Barks-influence artist, to reverse engineer a Barks classic to their will, suggesting it's a correction. That's rude. A black page in Barks history.
'The Magic Hourglass' stands on its own for more than 50 years. It has been published as a classic around the world. And now some minority decides it should be retold their way. Why? What were they thinking?

WB wrote:Having read the story both with (recent Gemstone reprint) and without (old Gemstone reprint)his framing sequence, I kinda have to say that the framing sequence made it make sense (at least in my perspective) before Rosa's non-inception of it in Life and Times had even come to play.

Can you explain this? I think the story fits because Scrooge gets so upset he gets uncertain. And so he gets unlucky, because his business thoughts are distracted.
Also, Scrooge is shown being superstitious in multible Barks stories. Superstition can be seen in a lot of Barks stories. In a way, Gladstone's luck could be superstition, too.

WB wrote:the way I see it, the framing sequence neither makes the story any more valid or invalid than it standing own its own or chosen to be left out of LaT. Its like one of those tall tales that can be interpreted any way you want it and IMO thats a creative way to go about it.

Can someone submit scans? Can they be found on internet somewhere?

WB wrote:What do you mean by that? Cause the way it reads it seems like you're saying that if anyone talks ill of anything Barks that isn't anything but "pure like" then you'll flame them. (Not to mention it makes you come off a wee bit obsessed)

When trying to get an opinion across, it gets clearer when it's put in black and white. Especially when writing in a foreign language, it's difficult to put exactly the right words down, so that's why I just come up with a clear statement that can be discussed.

WB wrote:Again - maybe I'm wrong and your statement is probably lost in translation a bit, but if that is indeed true (at the risk of coming off a bit strong) I think you're being somewhat way too extreme.

Just to get theoretical: What would be wrong with an extreme opinion on the matter?

WB wrote:I'm not scared. :) In my professional years with Sonic I've dealt with crazy bonkers fans and tons of weird furries during my career that would make anybody all kinds of crazy. I've seen faaaaaaar worse. ^__^

Sonic?
Ha! I don't believe you've seen far worse. I'm the world's biggest Egg. And I want to stay that way! :D

WB wrote:He's pretty much assumed the mantle of successor of the Donald Duck 10 pager in many people's eyes and many people's opinion brings something to the table that has never been there before. But like I said earlier, your mileage may vary.

Does Barks have any successor? I think most Barks-imitating artists use tricks to look that way. Barks was Barks all by himself. That's a principal difference.
Maybe they could be called "Barks adopters", or something like that?

WB wrote:Sometimes when you end up "expelling everybody outside the city walls", you end up finding that you're the only one left, both alone and unwanted, inside the city. ;)

If everyone has left, I can finally discuss! :P

WB wrote:
Egg wrote:just to please some silly brainless feelingless readers and editors,

This one statement shows me that you don't seem to know much of anything about the comic book process and how it works.

Are we going to bet on this? Egg knows enough about production processes to know that some people just do whatever they like, without much thought behind it.
Of course I'm exaggerating by calling them brainless, but I do think that editors sometimes do their very best to be seen that way. There are many examples of screwed-up stories just because some editor makes a silly mistake.

WB wrote:See - your editors give you a job. They ask you to do something. You do it. You don't do your own thing, defy them vehemently, or raise a stink about it. You have every right to disagree and present your own case and if you can convince the editor that this way isnt the best way to go then better for all parties. Sometimes you hit creative stumbling blocks but in the end its all about learning to work with people and doing your job.

That's true. But I wonder if William Van Horn doesn't have enough credits to bow out of the honour. But I also think that about other artists, for example when the Dutch editor decided to use software-balloons. Can't they protest?
Egg
Member
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:19 am

Postby Egg » Fri May 12, 2006 2:03 am

clutchy Egg wrote:... no far no one has gone so far ...

Should be read as: To my knowledge, no one has gone so far as to reverse engineer a Barks classic to make it compatible with a frame-work.

WB wrote:So those editors that you call brainless do what they do for a reason. That does not mean that they are always right (I've worked with editors before that make something as simple as "okaying a framing sequence" seem like quantum physics) but I'm certain that even the oft revered Barks has had to deal with changes that were both GOOD (let's say the rewrite of Delivery Dillema, a story thats been said he didnt originally write that he made changes too) and BAD (the incredibly asinine and stupid idea of square block lettering by Gold Key/Whitman around the time of late 60's/70's)

Yes, okay, but these are examples of editing during the making of the story. In the case of 'The Magic Hourglass', an already finished story has been reworked.

Come to think of it, in the Carl Barks Library, the story 'The Golden River' (US 22) has been changed by the editors, by inserting an outtake and removing Barks's okayed art.
Even though the okayed but now scrapped art has been published apart from the story, the original intention has been screwed up.
They also could have printed the outtakes apart from the story, as it should be.

As far as I've understood, the original print of 'The Golden River' seems as Barks intended it to be. Less theory and more fun. By adding a couple of more gags and a little less straight business, chopping a page of straight stuff and adding a page of gags. In the CBL-reprint this is ruined. Barks's balance is destroyed.

WB wrote:I'm not trying to be condescending - excuse that if it looks that way - but understand the creative process of both sides past and present before you mock it, and learn how to lighten up a bit and not take everything so mad seriously. :)

Ha! Tell that to those readers who reportedly asked Gemstone about 'The Magic Hourglass'.
If they change history by complaining, then why shouldn't Egg give it a try to put the record straight again? Where would the world be without knight Egg?

WB wrote:Just my opinion mind you.

As a sidenote, I especially like your comment on okaying a framing sequence seeming like quantum physics. Do you mean that every possibility could be turned into parallel and consequental possibilities, while leaving all possibilities open?

Rockerduck wrote:Aaaah, I see you met Egg. Yes, he's obsessed with Barks.

Aaaah, I see my head-shrinker has arrived.

Rockerduck wrote:Yes, it is dangerous to say something negative about Barks or his work. Do not criticise him. Always praise Barks and never argue with Egg. It's for your own safety. ;)

Ha! Just open a topic about negativity on Barks's work and you'll see. Egg is interested in weak sides of Barks's work, to learn from them, but never found any in 'The Magic Hourglass'. It's a statue that stands on its own.

Rockerduck wrote:[Bill Watterson] He fought for a new Sunday Strip-format, the possibility to take sabbaticals, and most important, not having to exploit his creations to commercialism.

Egg has a lot of respect for that.

Robb_K wrote:According to others on this thread, it's better for role-playing to keep the true identities of the "characters" unknown!

There are people who really want to stay anonymous. I for myself already have made my real identity known multiple times. I don't care about it anymore. I just feared that there would be guessing of people who don't want to be known. That would chase them away.
Now everyone can decide for themselves what they prefer.

Robb_K wrote:However, it's nice to see that the International Forum is growing in International membership. I'm sure that will add a bit more flavour to the discussions.

Tell a friend! Egg is here!!! :P

Doctor Witchie Britchie wrote:I don't hold the Magic Hourglass framing sequence against Van Horn--if he had done it someone else would have anyway; it wasn't his idea.

What?!?!?!? I think good old Doctor Witchie Britchie is being a little tongue-in-cheek and a bit cantankerous now. If people would live this way, and often they do, then anyone could just chop down the forests. And Doctor Witchie Britchie must know what that means.

Doctor Witchie Britchie wrote:Mr. Van Horn shows that he respects the Barks tradition by crafting all his stories entirely on his own and not piggybacking on Barks' work.

I tend to disagree with this. Or did William Van Horn do the job for free?

Doctor Witchie Britchie wrote:He still has my highest respect as a writer and artist.

Me too. William Van Horn is a good artist. But if something is wrong, it's wrong. I have to stay stern. :P

Doctor Witchie Britchie wrote:And I still respect Egg, too, cantankerous as he can be (just kidding!)

Ha! Egg is proud to be cantankerous. Egg will chase anyone who defends chopping down forests! I get down all trees to find where Doctor Witchie Britchie is hiding. (TIMBER! TIMBER!)
Egg
Member
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:19 am

Postby Doctor Witchie Britchie » Fri May 12, 2006 11:03 pm

Ha ha! Fooled you, Egg--I'm hiding out in my clinic in Wiggy Ziggy! Just try to come there and I'll give you some cockroaches dipped in greasy kid stuff!

When I said that the Magic Hourglass framing sequence wasn't Van Horn's idea and that someone would have done it anyway, I meant that I'm sure Gemstone decided it needed a framing sequence to fit into "continuity" (Bah! Phooey!) and hired Van Horn to draw the sequence. If he had refused, Gemstone would have got someone else to do it--maybe Rosa himself? Incidentally, here's the "report" on the Gemstone Magic Hourglass which I got the shocking information from. It comes from the site of Christopher Barat, an American who reviews Gemstone's comic books (and other stuff) on a weekly basis:

This story from 1950 has long been an irritating burr in the tooki of continuity-addled "fanboys" who insist that its portrayal of Scrooge's wealth as depending entirely upon his possession of an ancient, mystical hourglass needs to be permanently swept under the rug (or, if you prefer, magic carpet). For my own part, while I regard the hourglass thing as one of the inevitable bumps along the road of Scrooge's development as a character with a consistent, commonly-accepted backstory, the presence of real, live human(!) Arabs alongside the standard ducks, dogs, and pigs is more than enough to place this tale in the "Questionable" file. So how to handle this "hot potato" of a classic story when it comes time for the inevitable reprinting? Bill Van Horn provides a clever framing sequence in which Donald's Nephew Louie presents the story as a "tall tale" at a Junior Woodchucks' fireside tale-telling confab! Enough wiggle room is left so that the reader can regard the tale as possibly having happened, but as Louie says at the end, "That's the fun thing about a tall tale… Nobody has to believe it!". A nice finesse, indeed.

Needless to say, I DO NOT AGREE with Barat's conclusion that this is a "nice finesse." More like ridiculous obession with that darned continuity.
Doctor Witchie Britchie
Member
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:51 pm

Postby Robb_K » Sat May 13, 2006 2:16 am

Egg wrote:
William Van Horn wrote:Boohooohhooooo......
Can I a least say 'goodbye', mister Egg?

:lol:

Egg is so ferocious, creators won't even dare to say goodbye. Egg wants discussions! Good sides, bad sides. Scientifically and emotionally. Heart and soul. Everything. Cluthy Egg loves discussing so much, that most people run away as soon as he starts writing. (sigh! how come?)

WB wrote:Hi Mr. Van Horn! I must say yet again that I love your work. :) I hope the previous insult by Egg doesnt drive you away. It's always nice IMO to see creators give input on thier work and being stateside with the Disney material I've discovered that its not often to find a place to discuss the comic books I've grown up with since childhood where the language isnt all something I don't really know. ^^;;

Egg is not convinced William Van Horn is really William Van Horn. Otherwise Egg would have run away to Farawaystan, as fast as his shell can roll.

WB wrote:No one has to always agree with the other person, and maybe I probably read it the wrong way as I'm just a newbie (maybe lost in translation?) but your phrasing of this comes off as more than just a wee bit rude.

Egg is exaggerating. It's a retorical question. Egg is just a bit disturbed by the idea of the frame-story. To my knowledge, no far no one has gone so far as to reverse engineer a Barks classic to make it compatible with a frame-work. Not even Don Rosa. I think Van Horn shouldn't have lend himself for that. Barks's stories are good as they are.
As the truth is too painful I just try to be a bit funny about it. What else can we Barks Lovers do? :P

WB wrote:A) How in the world did he screw up anything? To say that makes little or no sense. He did not change or rewrite the fundamental aspects of the story. He did not write any of the characters out of character, and he did not take the story (which is known as far as I've seen by people to be the only really apocryphal story that Barks has done in terms of continuity) and poo-poo on it.

The description "really apocryphal story that Barks has done in terms of continuity" is nonsense. Barks has made a lot of stories with good luck charms. So 'The Magic Hourglass' is canon as canon can be.
I really miss Dutch contributor Keessie on this. He's very good in explaining Barks's continuity.

Exactly for this reason I'm worried about Gemstone being so odd. Is this going to be a habit? They change a Barks classic to their view, hiring a Barks-influence artist, to reverse engineer a Barks classic to their will, suggesting it's a correction. That's rude. A black page in Barks history.
'The Magic Hourglass' stands on its own for more than 50 years. It has been published as a classic around the world. And now some minority decides it should be retold their way. Why? What were they thinking?

WB wrote:Having read the story both with (recent Gemstone reprint) and without (old Gemstone reprint)his framing sequence, I kinda have to say that the framing sequence made it make sense (at least in my perspective) before Rosa's non-inception of it in Life and Times had even come to play.

Can you explain this? I think the story fits because Scrooge gets so upset he gets uncertain. And so he gets unlucky, because his business thoughts are distracted.
Also, Scrooge is shown being superstitious in multible Barks stories. Superstition can be seen in a lot of Barks stories. In a way, Gladstone's luck could be superstition, too.

WB wrote:the way I see it, the framing sequence neither makes the story any more valid or invalid than it standing own its own or chosen to be left out of LaT. Its like one of those tall tales that can be interpreted any way you want it and IMO thats a creative way to go about it.

Can someone submit scans? Can they be found on internet somewhere?

WB wrote:What do you mean by that? Cause the way it reads it seems like you're saying that if anyone talks ill of anything Barks that isn't anything but "pure like" then you'll flame them. (Not to mention it makes you come off a wee bit obsessed)

When trying to get an opinion across, it gets clearer when it's put in black and white. Especially when writing in a foreign language, it's difficult to put exactly the right words down, so that's why I just come up with a clear statement that can be discussed.

WB wrote:Again - maybe I'm wrong and your statement is probably lost in translation a bit, but if that is indeed true (at the risk of coming off a bit strong) I think you're being somewhat way too extreme.

Just to get theoretical: What would be wrong with an extreme opinion on the matter?

WB wrote:I'm not scared. :) In my professional years with Sonic I've dealt with crazy bonkers fans and tons of weird furries during my career that would make anybody all kinds of crazy. I've seen faaaaaaar worse. ^__^

Sonic?
Ha! I don't believe you've seen far worse. I'm the world's biggest Egg. And I want to stay that way! :D

WB wrote:He's pretty much assumed the mantle of successor of the Donald Duck 10 pager in many people's eyes and many people's opinion brings something to the table that has never been there before. But like I said earlier, your mileage may vary.

Does Barks have any successor? I think most Barks-imitating artists use tricks to look that way. Barks was Barks all by himself. That's a principal difference.
Maybe they could be called "Barks adopters", or something like that?

WB wrote:Sometimes when you end up "expelling everybody outside the city walls", you end up finding that you're the only one left, both alone and unwanted, inside the city. ;)

If everyone has left, I can finally discuss! :P

WB wrote:
Egg wrote:just to please some silly brainless feelingless readers and editors,

This one statement shows me that you don't seem to know much of anything about the comic book process and how it works.

Are we going to bet on this? Egg knows enough about production processes to know that some people just do whatever they like, without much thought behind it.
Of course I'm exaggerating by calling them brainless, but I do think that editors sometimes do their very best to be seen that way. There are many examples of screwed-up stories just because some editor makes a silly mistake.

WB wrote:See - your editors give you a job. They ask you to do something. You do it. You don't do your own thing, defy them vehemently, or raise a stink about it. You have every right to disagree and present your own case and if you can convince the editor that this way isnt the best way to go then better for all parties. Sometimes you hit creative stumbling blocks but in the end its all about learning to work with people and doing your job.

That's true. But I wonder if William Van Horn doesn't have enough credits to bow out of the honour. But I also think that about other artists, for example when the Dutch editor decided to use software-balloons. Can't they protest?

Disney comics artists can protest, but few want to. The pay is TERRIBLE. We can make a lot more money doing other things. We want to work for Disney, because we love the characters so much, we want to draw them, and bring entertainment and fun to kids like we received from the earlier Disney creators. Few, if ANY of us wants to "Rock The Boat". Besides, I assume that William Van Horn doesn't see the "framing" of the Barks story the same way as you do. I, myself have no problem with it, and I'm a Barks fanatic! Barks, himself had NO THOUGHT on the subject of whether or not his depictions of Duckburg, Calisota, The Duck Family and other aspects of the "Duck's World" he created were consistant from story to story (other than the characters of the main players). Based on what he, himself said to me on that subject, I suspect that even HE wouldn't have any problem with The Gemstone editors "framing" his story (although he DID have irritation from the sequels Don Rosa was making to his classic stories.
Robb_K
Member
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:35 pm

Postby Rockerduck » Sat May 13, 2006 9:24 pm

I think Van Horn has that kind of status he can protest, like Don Rosa did. Rosa even went on strike and got what he wanted!

By the way, Rob, it might be a good idea not to quote such an awful lot of text. :)
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby Doctor Witchie Britchie » Sun May 14, 2006 12:13 am

Though I've never known Van Horn to throw his weight about like Rosa--which is another reason I like him. He seems to be a laid-back, unassuming sort.
Doctor Witchie Britchie
Member
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:51 pm

Postby Robb_K » Sun May 14, 2006 2:17 am

Doctor Witchie Britchie wrote:Though I've never known Van Horn to throw his weight about like Rosa--which is another reason I like him. He seems to be a laid-back, unassuming sort.

I agree 100%. Bill Van Horn is an easygoing chap (must be due to having lived for many years in "lay back" Canada, and marrying a nice Canadian girl. In any case, I'd bet he had NO PROBLEM with the framing sequence. He had no need to protest, or to cow tow to Egmont regarding it. I doubt that he wants to ruffle feathers with Egmont. On the other hand, I'm sure they didn't DEMAND that he do it. I 'm sure they just asked him if he wanted to do it, and he said yes. Had he said no, they wouldn't have thought less of him. They would have just asked another artist to do it (possibly Daan Jippes?). I'd have preferred Daan do it. But it doesn't matter.

Sorry about quoting the entire last quote. I'm from another era (1940s & 1950s) and we didn't even have TV when I was young. I'm TERRIBLE with technology. I didn't even have a computer until 1998. I'm still TERRIBLE with everything to do with computers. I tried to quote only a single small portion of a large post by deleting the unwanted text. But, then, my entire post was rejected (even though i was sure to leave the beginning quote command and the end quote command! So, now I don't attempt to erase portions of posts. Can you tell me how to just quote a portion of a previous post?
Robb_K
Member
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:35 pm

Postby Rockerduck » Sun May 14, 2006 10:48 am

I always just quote a person, and then erase the text I don't need (the portion of the text I'm not going to respond to).
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby Robb_K » Sun May 14, 2006 4:33 pm

Rockerduck wrote:I always just quote a person, and then erase the text I don't need (the portion of the text I'm not going to respond to).

Yes, that's what I always try to do, but often I have failed, by somehow erasing part of the image or quote code (although I don't see how that could have happened, (perhaps blank lines count in the code?) when my erasure didn't go physically into the codes characters (as far as I could see). Nevertheless, I gave up trying to shorten the quotes, when my posts continued to be rejected. I will try again.
Robb_K
Member
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:35 pm

Postby Scoopy » Sun May 14, 2006 5:00 pm

Egg wrote:no one has gone so far as to reverse engineer a Barks classic to make it compatible with a frame-work. Not even Don Rosa. I think Van Horn shouldn't have lend himself for that. Barks's stories are good as they are.

Egg is a troll. Don't feed him.

Image

Image

Image

Image
Scoopy
 

Postby Doctor Witchie Britchie » Sun May 14, 2006 8:13 pm

Errr--what's the idea of putting these Rosa pages on the William Van Horn thread? It seems to me that such an off-topic and out-of-left-field message could be considered, well...trolling.

Though it's also off-topic to comment on the pages, I can't resist making a few observations. These "Prisoner of White Agony Creek" pages seem to me to show once again how much Rosa has utterly deteriorated. All his humor derives from pain, cussing, and ill-nature, or (in the case of Donald's saying the kids are "too young" to know what happened between Scrooge and Goldie during their time on White Agony Creek) thinly-disguised "wink wink" double-entendres.

I also notice that he's continuing his debunking of several beloved historical figures (as he did with King Arthur, Buffalo Bill, and Wyatt Earp in earlier stories). I assume that's supposed to be Earp who's conked with the rock at the top of the third page; I wonder who the other two "American legends" are that get kayoed and thoroughly "shown up" by Rosa's super-nasty-Scrooge. Incidentally, the always-historically-accurate Rosa has drawn poor Earp as far too young; the man was in his fifties when he journeyed to the Klondike. He made the same mistake when he included Earp in "King of the Klondike."

Well, sorry for getting off-topic, but these pages were asking for some criticism.
Doctor Witchie Britchie
Member
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:51 pm

Postby DCML Digest » Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:36 pm

Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:56:54 +0200
From: Gerd Syllwasschy
Subject: A William Van Horn fansite
To: dcml

Peter Kowalewski and I are proud to announce the launch of our William Van Horn site:

http://wvh.barksbase.de/

We hope you like it. And we hope you won't mind the house advertising.

Have fun!

Peter & Gerd

(Email address Syllwasschy removed. Daniel73.)
Last edited by DCML Digest on Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DCML Digest
 

Postby Daniel73 » Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:48 pm

Doctor Witchie Britchie wrote:Errr--what's the idea of putting these Rosa pages on the William Van Horn thread? It seems to me that such an off-topic and out-of-left-field message could be considered, well...trolling.

I think the posting is defendable. It's a comparison of Van Horn's frame-work story for Barks's 'The Magic Hourglass', and Rosa's treatment of Barks's 'Back to the Klondike', as a reply to the statement that "no one has gone so far as to reverse engineer a Barks classic to make it compatible with a frame-work."

Can someone provide scans of Van Horn's framestory?
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

PreviousNext

Return to Other creators

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron