There have lately been a rather stupid discussion about something I don´t think exist at all, "Falk lore"! For me there is Phantom lore, and everyone who make Phantom stories according to Falk´s way is allowed to make small adjustsments to make the stories fit into the lore of the Phantom.

But what is the so called Falk Lore??

Falk wrote the story, and to begin with we did not know how many former Phantoms there were, we could read 16, 19 even 20 until we finally got stled with 21. All came from Falk, so they are lore, or ...?

Now to Egmont!

Memebers here have made it a custom not to discuss the Phantom but rather dicuss how I spend my time here, no wonder members are low on Phantom knowledge then.

In one post a member accused Egmont for having a "long list of changing of Falk Lore", of course no one could really come up with the list of important changes. Mostly because most members do not know what Falk Lore is, they have just heard about some changes, they think.

I have no problem to agree that from time to time Egmont change detailes to make stories fit their own writing. Some times it is bad, sometimes this is OK.

But a ong list of changing of Falk Lore?? No way! And i dare everyone to come up with this list, and of course try to convice me these are changing of Falk Lore and not some unimportatn details in an old story. There is a big difference!!

Good weekend all.

So there is no such thing as "Falk Lore"??? But the below quote is yours which is the first mention of "Falk Lore" on this forum.



So you are the member who has brought up "Falk Lore".

Secondly, you have argued numerous times that Moonstone's Phantom is not the Phantom because it totally different to what Falk wrote so therefore it can't be The Phantom.

I am not trying to be controversial here, but in this post you have said there is no such thing as Falk Lore but you argued numerous times that something is not The Phantom because it does not equal what Falk himself wrote.

Therefore haven't you argued yourself that Falk Lore exists. I am just a little confused.



Just of the top of my head, the Phantom is the descendant of a viking, the Phantom is the descendant of a Gladiator, the Phantom has an illegitimate son, this illegitimate son married an ex-pirate and had a child, the Phantom's rings are made from the nails that nailed Christ to the cross, Lubanaga was President and the big one all the Singh Pirates other the Kabai (if Falk has written about any of these, I am quite happy to be corrected, and can you please direct me to the appropriate stories). And I am sure I can find more when I have time that Egmont have done that changes what Falk has originally written.

Now you will argue that Falk never wrote about any of these, so therfore it can't be "Falk Lore" but if Falk didn't write about it then it is not "Falk Lore" and therfore Egmont have changed what is officially Falk.

No use discussing, Geaghs. This thread will soon be locked, considering the aggressive tone with which it has been started. So just keep quiet..

pcs

Well, that makes sense, just as I thought!

No Egmont is accused not only to have changed what Falk did write, but also to change what he has not!

Back to the thinker, you need it! Stick with you Moonstone, Falk or the Phantom is nothing for you!!

Ivan

You asked what is "Falk Lore". "Falk Lore" is what Falk has written. If Falk has not written it, therefore it can not be "Falk Lore". So anything that Egmont, Moonstone. Dynamite, Frew, Charlton, Gold Key, King, etc, add is a changing to "Falk Lore". Simple as that.

Interesting to see you have not commented on the first half of my post.



Maybe, but I will continue to argue politely and as direct as possible. Ivan want's discussion about the Phantom, I am quite willing to try.

I don't quite understand what it means.. but I am assuming it means no good!!

pcs

We are discussing the changing not adding! I agree Egmont has added a lot of Phantom facts that Falk did not want or dared not write because of KFS. That is some of what is good with Egmont, all done in a Falk manner of course.

But again, I dare you! The list of important facts, written by Falk and changed by Egmont!

Ivan

Okay, here's where the problem arose with the original argument.



For starters, try quoting people correctly. What germ said in the other thread was:



Note that nowhere did he say "important changes." When I gave a few examples of changes, that is when you "moved the goalposts" (a logical fallacy), and said essentially that the examples I gave didn't count because they weren't big enough changes. I pointed out that this wasn't the original argument, and then things got all messy.

All you had to say was "Oh, sorry. I meant bigger, more profound changes than those examples."

But of course, no matter what examples people come up with, you can say they don't count because they aren't "important" enough. There is not quantitative way of measuring how "important" a change is. So unless you can come up with an acceptable definition, there's no way anyone can provide you with any evidence (if there is any).

However, the origin of the original discussion was the fact that in The Cabin Boy and The Princess it is revealed that the first Phantom's mother was a princess, and you said that (paraphrasing) Egmont wouldn't have written that if Falk had already written about the mother of the first Phantom. That suggests that you do actually think that changes to the Phantom mothers/wives are important changes. In this case, the examples I gave of changes to Phantom wives should be "important" enough for you.

But if they're not, and you can't come up with some kind of definition of what "important" is, then no one can really provide any evidence, if there is any evidence to be found.

What you don't seam to inderstand is that to be called "Lore" a fact has to be important. There is no such thing as an simple Falk Lore.

You came up with two or three example few have ever considered, IOW, so unimportant for the story of the Phantom that it can't be loore.
By revieling such little understanding and knowledge about the Phantom and what is important you make it hard for me to take you serious and have a discussion on a level I require. Sorry, I act just as the oposite part in a "discussion", this time as an idiot.

Face it, the fact that members here tell they are Moonstone fans and stick to "Falk Lore" (or what they think are Lore) is that they know very little about the Phantom a real fan has been reading for 30 to 60 years.

It is nothing to be mad and feel sorry about, just don't pretend to be better.

Ivan

PS. Who was the first to write about the wife of the 16th Phantom?

Somehow, my points got lost in the general mayhem of another thread..

I don't know about you, but I sure came to know about the Phantom's lineage, including marrying Swedish princesses, his triapsing in Europe, his fights with a gross character called Lubanga, his Chinese connections and his active role in European history, only after reading few Egmonts translated by Frew, God help me if I could read all Egmonts.. my knowledge of Phantom lore would surely have changed upside-down!!

pcs

And added a most value to your limited Phantom knowledge, if you head did not explode in the prosses??

But again, we are not discussing the adding from Egmont, but the changing of Lore!

Ivan

As Ivan says, there's a big difference between adding and changing. Most of the examples so far have been stuff that adds to Falk's original stories, but does not change them.

Take the current Sunday strip for example. Falk never explained why Colonel Weeks left and Colonel Worubu was introduced, not even in the later stories where a retired Colonel Weeks appeared. Tony DePaul now seems to have the intention of explaining Weeks sudden retirement. Does that mean he is changing Falk lore? No, he's just adding something where Falk had mentioned nothing before.

The same thing regarding Egmont's historical stories etc - Falk left a lot of blanks, and did not mind that someone else filled in the gaps. Remember that Lee Falk was not only aware of Semic/Egmont's production of Phantom stories, he wholeheartedly supported it and enjoyed what they did. This was not the case with Phantom stories by most other publishers. I would not, like Ivan, say that Semic/Egmont have changed absolutely nothing, but I do think it's safe to say they had Lee's blessing in whatever decisions they have made. He understood that the important thing was that they create good stories that keep the spirit of the Phantom, and not that every little detail is exactly as Lee wrote it - as we know, Lee had a tendency to change his previously written Phantom facts a lot aswell, so that was obviously nothing he felt was all that important.

What I said, but it may have been covered in others babbeling, is just the same as you. No changing of important Falk Lore, IOW, things Falk would not give his blessing to. We can discuss what is important or not, but not say the Egmont has a long list of changes of "Lore", that is unfair.

I am sure Falk agreed about Egmont´s Ring story and was a bit sorry not to have told it himeself. The most important is that we find the same Phantom in all stories from Sweden as the one Falk wrote about. That can´t be said of all publisher.

Ivan

The discussion seems to have shifted from "Are there changes?" to "Are there important changes?" to "Egmont stories are in the spirit of Falk's writing."



Exactly. There have been changes. I'm not arguing the merit of those changes, or that they aren't in the spirit of Falk's newspaper strips. They absolutely are, I think.

The original argument was about changes. "Long list" may very well be inaccurate/poor wording, but Ivan explicitly stated that there were no changes. Then when I gave examples, he fallaciously "moves the goalposts" and adds that they have to be of some kind of "importance."

In that case there isn't really anything to be arguing. "Importance" is meaningless on its own. Different people would define what aspects are important differently.



No it doesn't. Some definitions of lore:



There's nothing about the knowledge having to be "important". But even if there was, what things are important would need to be defined. Different people will give different answers.

So basically, there have been changes. How many? I don't know, I don't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of every Falk and Egmont story ever written, and I doubt anyone does. Are they "important" changes? Not really, but that depends on what one considers important. Are they in the spirit of what Falk wrote? Probably. Are they good? Again, this depends on personal taste.



Speaking on behalf of the dead is pretty tasteless. This is irrelevant anyway.

Coming into this argument late. Egmont has added lore (i hate this word but lets worry about that later), some has been excellent like the stories on the 1st Phantom but some has not imo been so great (ie The Phantom being a descendant from Gladiators and Vikings) but the argument is about what Egmont has changed from what Falk already wrote about in his stories.

I will attempt to list some examples of Egmont changes AFTER what Falk has already written:

1) Date changed from 1525 to 1536
2) Skull ring given by the Jungle Chiefs by Falk and by an alchemist by Egmont
3) Phantom costume inspired by a Jungle God - Egmont changed to a drug induced dream

* These are changes and not additions, additions is when Egmont has kept what Falk said and added to it-fleshed it out. For example Falk never wrote how the rings came about, he just wrote how the 1st Phantom was GIVEN the ring. Hence a story about how they where created by Christs nails is not changing Falks Lore. BUT a story how some alchemist gave the first Phantom a ring is CHANGING...



Geaghs: imo these are 'additions' to the lore by Egmont and not changes, like the origin story of Devil.



Again PC, these imo are additions, some are rubbish and some are good!


You trying to trick people? For the record it was Egmont. I think this story was Flame which was created in the 70's or early 80's and then in the early 90's, Falk wrote a story about the Amazon pirate who ended up becoming the wife of the 16th.

I think from memory, it caused some juggling to the Phantom tree...


I know this was said to be correct regarding the "Story of Devil" but I personally have not heard it was said regarding the origin of the ring.