Sergio, there is much information (in English) about Barks and other Disney writers and the various characters they created on this adress: http://www.update.uu.se/~starback/disney-comics/chars/ (I hope you can wander the web...)
Now back to Sergio's complaints. I agree - but from a completely
different point of view.
I'm what is known as a 'Donaldist' - a Disney afficionado - as well as a
Glorantha-fan. In fact, my admiration for Barks (and other great Disney
comic _writers_ - that's what I care about - like Paul Murry, Tony
Strobl and Don Rosa) is almost as big as that I have for a certain Mr G.
Stafford. I also happen to be a big fan of another comic book duck -
Howard, you know.
And exactly because of that, I don't like cheap Disney jokes IMG. I'm not completely rational about this, since I throw in various off-world jokes now and then myself (Men in Blue my foot). But the foreign-language aspect is there - 'Huey, Dewey and Luey' are 'Knatte, Fnatte och Tjatte' in Swedish, so I have to _think_ to get the supposedly hyperfunny joke in Hueymakt Deathdrake, which takes away any small piece of fun there might have been in this lame joke. And I have at least read the comics in English - most of my players haven't.
The Ducks are in a way a stigma on the game - a small one, but it's still there. When mentioning RQ to other roleplayers, I've several times heard them say 'Oh, that's the one where you can play Donald Duck?'. That one was mighty irritating during that period when all SERIOUS roleplayers played horror games, since fantasy games where for the nerds.
> > I feel that understanding the ducks too much takes away from their
>
>
> > comical mystique. Let them stay a race we only vaguely understand.
> Let
>
> > some of them lay eggs and some of them bear live young.
> Like I said, I'me completely in the black in what concerns their
> 'comical
> mystique'.
I _hope_ he doesn't mean you are to use ducks only as a joke. ('This
quest is beginning to get mighty boring. What to do? I know, I'll throw
in a duck wearing a silly costume and speaking with a lisp, with a joke
name. That'll be REALLY funny!) Or that players are to play ducks when
they want to play silly characters (the equivalent of playing a Great
Troll if you want a good warrior or an Elf if you want a good magician).
I hope that because I have a high opinion of Rick Meints.
> The way you see
> ducks is artificial to me. It disrupts the 'suspention of disbelieve'
> that
> makes Glorantha so attractive.
Heavily seconded! Better do that again: Superheavily seconded.
Note that I still think of ducks as comic characters, but then, I find
trolls and dwarves incredibly funny too. And Lunars. And Sartarite
farmers.
I've found an equivalent: Tricksters as mere walking talking Gloranthan
equivalents of Bugs Bunny, running around playing silly jokes, have the
same effect. Especially PC's.
> If Chaosium or Issaries, Inc. or whoelse is thinking of selling
> products
> based on Glorantha they must understand that the buyer should not be
> forced
> to acknowledge and conform to the private refferences and feelings of
> the
> designers of that fiction.
Here I do not agree. Fiction writers should write and publish whatever
they feel like. Writing things that everyone understands in the same way
is impossible, or at least the results would be very boring.
But Glorantha is a _collective_ creation, and everyone involved is
allowed to have a view. Mine is that the particular joke we are
discussing is not funny enough to merit breaking the sense of disbelief.
(Joy due to laughs seeing Daffy Clone < Joy which could have been
achieved my immersing yourself in the world had not Daffy Clone appeared
= No Daffy Clone)
> > Let them call Cacodemon, Quakodemon.
Why?
Powered by hypermail