Keskustelujen arkisto

----------
X-Sun-Data-Type: text
X-Sun-Data-Description: text
X-Sun-Data-Name: text
X-Sun-Content-Lines: 28

Finally!

After having serious trouble with my email for the last two weeks (often
being quite unable to either send or receive) I am now back on this new
(and quite possibly only temporary) address. During these weeks, I have
sent three letters that obviously never made it and I will include two of
them here, even though they may now be more than just slightly outdated.

The third (or first, depending on how you look at it) of these replies, I
don't seem to have saved before sending it on its way. *sigh* And that
was _such_ a good letter. ;-) Among other things, I replied to Harry's
idea of reforming the FTP archive to include just a few files and
programs to extract info from them. I won't even try to repeat my entire
reasoning here, but in short, it boiled down to that I agree, although
since not all people have access to compilers, some files including
redundant information (extracted with same programs) should also be
included in a special directory.

And about puns and the Swedish translation: Some time ago Harry posted a
comparison between the original and Dutch translation of "Fortune on the
Rocks" where almost every pun of the original was deleted. I in turn
compared that to the Swedish translation and was very happy to find that
every pun included in Harry's letter but one had survived (or been changed
into something equally funny) in the Swedish text.

Yep. Sure feels good to be back!

/F
----------
X-Sun-Data-Type: default
X-Sun-Data-Name: Various replies
X-Sun-Content-Lines: 51

October 3rd, David Gerstein wrote:
>I went through the list of Character Names and simply wrote
>down one by one all the ones you needed in German, then made a list of
>them.

Danke schoen! I'm sorry I've been so slow in responding, but I've just
had an exam and I just didn't have time to do anything about it until
now. The updated version will soon be in the FTP archive, but first I
would like to clarify a few things.

> *Donald Duck = Schnatterich (1934-51)
> = Donald Duck (1951-)

Grateful as I am about all this information about years, there is
currently no support in the list format for incorporating them. I could
just put it in comments after each entry, but most entries wouldn't
carry this kind of info anyway (simply because I don't have it) and I
don't think it would be a great idea to have it for just a few names
even though I admit it's a nice touch. Do you (or anyone) have any
ideas for changing the list format?

> *Gyro Gearloose = Daniel Duesentrieb
> *Captain Nathaniel Churchmouse = Kapt'n Kluese Kapt'n Kirchmaus
> Sylvester Shyster = Baldwin Beutelschneider
> Jiminy Cricket = Jiminy Grashuepfer (1948)

I suppose that all these names should really be spelled with a
instead of ue?

And Henri wrote, on October 4th:
>There. Is anyone interested in a character-list of the Finnish Disney
>characters? I could draw one up...

Please do! And check what we already have in the file interlingual in
the FTP archive first!

Ole, October 5th:
>Fredrik:
>>Yesterday, I found a rather interesting List of Lists on r.a.d.
>What's r.a.d.? Research and Development? Radical Anarchist Devices??

Erm... not quite... r.a.d is the USENET news-group rec.arts.disney. It
is one of the most heavily trafficed groups I subscribe to, and it's
usually full of *crap*. Typical subjects are "Why I love Aladdin",
"Top ten reasons for not marrying Ariel" and "My visit to Disneyland".
Sometimes the entire group seems to be an evidence of Don's views on
Disney fans. Once in a while, however, you may run across something
interesting...

/Fredrik

----------
X-Sun-Data-Type: default
X-Sun-Data-Name: Index maintainers: Attention!
X-Sun-Content-Lines: 43

Hi again!

You may remember that some time ago I wrote a letter pointing out that
there is a rec.arts.disney (See? I wrote it all this time!) List of
Lists and that I wrote and told the maintainer about us. Since then I
have received a reply, but haven't had time to do anything about it
until now. Just yesterday, I noticed that this maintainer has obviously
been in touch with Per, and there is now some sort of general entry for
every list and index in the FTP archive. However, those of you that
whish to have an entry of your own should send mail to:

(Email removed)

Write a specification for your index in the following form:

-----

Index name

created by: name
maintained by: name
posted to rec.arts.disney: how often you post it on r.a.d (hehe)
ftp availability:
ftp.lysator.liu.se [130.236.254.13] : pub/comics/disney/whatever
email availability: Available from maintainer
size: x kb

Description (normally about three lines)

-----

The "created" and "maintained" rows may be exchanged for a "created and
maintained by" row.

I will mail such entries for my own "International Comic Character Names
list" and Rich Bellacera's "List of Recurring Disney Characters", since
Rich no longer has net access and thus cannot do it himself.

I don't know what it may result in, but I think it's a chance to make
ourselves known and spread our works to a somewhat broader audience.

/Fredrik

Dear Folks,

Here's my two cents worth today.

Don Rosa on
=== ==== ==

"PUNS: What they told me when I first went to work for Egmont and
specifically asked them about using puns was that I should write my
stories as if they were going to be seen in English. If I use a pun in
one spot, this compels the translator to create a different pun in his
language, or at least create some other gag; otherwise the translator
just translates -- they aren't paid to be funny when there's nothing
funny in the original script. However, I've found that other Egmont
editors have told other writers just the opposite -- DON'T use puns."

Here are a few examples of comments that you *won't* see in my
stories until the Gladstone editions:

A) Scrooge to his Mt. Vesuvius detectives:
"It's a ruse by any other name... so *shut up*!" became
"It's an *illusion*, you halfwitted Hawkshaws!" at Byron's
request. (I also wrote the revised version, though.)
From "Two in One"

B) Donald to a disobedient pig he's trying to train:
"Act for me, Napoleon, or you'll meet your Waterloo... but
plenty!" became
"Act for me, Napoleon... or I'll make *hamburger* outta you!"
at Anina Bennett's request.
From "Pork-Barrel Politics"

Bob Foster and Byron Erickson edited "Two in One" and gave me
a fairly easy time on wordplay... *only* item A above got the boot as
punning went. But this year Egmont's policy in general has gotten
more stringent. So both Bob and Anina had a hard time with the tons
of wordplay in that story (many pig puns, for one thing), and it's
gone under heavy revision.

But in the end, I think you guys will enjoy it.

What I want to know is... how do William Van Horn's scripts
get by? They're loaded less with puns than simply unique wordplay,
and I imagine a translator having a *very* difficult time.
(Particularly in Russia and Chinese-speaking countries, where Egmont's
license is relatively new.) Which brings me to:

Van Horn (New discussion here)
=== ==== ==== ========== =====

One critical comment: I find that Van Horn tends to do a
story now and then which just has too many weird elements in it to be
taken seriously. Still, he has lots of good stories.

FAVORITE STORY #1: The Bees Have It! This was weird, but had
a very Barksian interpretation of the characters and some of WH's best
art, so I really liked it.
FAVORITE STORY #2: No Room for Human Error. Great, just
great! I always enjoy conflict between Scrooge and Donald,
particularly when outside threats to Scrooge's fortune are involved.
LEAST FAVORITE STORY #1: Just a Humble, Bumbling Duck! The
idea of Donald failing at being a failure by succeeding continuously
from the moment he sets failure as a goal was just too contrived.
Also, the story was depressing without being very funny. I could go
as far as to find what happened to Donald exasperating.

On the whole, though, I really enjoy most of WH's works, and
would be interested to find what others think are his strengths,
weaknesses, triumphs and flops. We seem to hardly mention WH around
here, which is odd considering that he continues to bring relatively
frequent duck stories and that many of them are good ones.

Jim Fletcher
=== ========

Harry Fluks sent me a mid-'60s Dutch DD Weekly. I suppose the
sloppily-drawn story with Madam Mim and Magica living together in a
castle is Fletcher's work? Not only sloppily drawn, but also burying
everything Barks ever did with Magica in the dirt!

Still, I have seen many Jaime Diaz Group stories with equally
poor art -- for example, "Mimic Menace" in Mickey Mouse Advs. #11.
Did they ever have J. Fletcher working for them?

And you still can't get ANY worse than Stan Walsh in my book.
"Mickey Mouse and the Mystery of the Robot Army" still takes my vote
as the worst-looking Disney comic story of all time.

Rec.Arts.Disney and a Matter of Distribution
=============== === = ====== == ============

Yes, a lot of what's on this list *is* dreary and/or benumbed
by "cuteness fever". But look... while Gladstone continues to be
unable, as Disney Comics was, to negotiate to have their comics
distributed in corner shops like they are in Europe, it should come
as no surprise that the ducks and mice as *we* admire them are next to
unknown on r.a.d. compared to the wildly-merchandised feature
characters.

Gladstone has negotiated with Marvel to get their comics into
newsstands with more regularity than they once were (although I see no
sign of improved results myself). They should be negotiating with
Little, Brown & Co. to distribute their CBL Albums -- and in my
opinion, a series of Gottfredson albums -- to *bookstores*. Little,
Brown & Co. makes Tintin a feature in U. S. bookstores with a special
rotating rack. Sue Daigle told me that Gladstone tried to do this
kind of distribution *themselves* with the old (1986-1990) albums and
failed because the costs were too high... hence the current albums'
"periodical"-style distribution. So why not a partnership like
Gladstone worked out with Marvel?

By the way, I envision the Gottfredson albums as being oblong
sort of like MM IN COLOR was, only not quite as wide (the strips can
stack straight up rather than at an angle, if you ask me!). This way
daily strip stories and Sunday strip stories both can be used very
easily. Three dailies to a page with a header on top (no header with
the taller pre-1932 dailies of course).

And they don't have to collect *everything* if Disney refuses.
But they can use about 4/5 of the Gottfredson stories, anyway.

That's all for now, folks.

Your friend,

David

David A Gerstein <David.A.Gerstein at williams.edu> waxes on William Van Horn:

> One critical comment: I find that Van Horn tends to do a
>story now and then which just has too many weird elements in it to be
>taken seriously. Still, he has lots of good stories.

I'd have to say that William Van Horn is one of my favorite Duck-men.
(The other being Don Rosa. I can't really pick a favorite between the
two, as I find them to be too different for comparison.) I would have
to disagree - I *like* the extra-weird stuff that Van Horn puts in his
stories.

I haven't read *all* of them - I'm still working on collecting all of
his back issues. So far, my favorite piece is "Out of Harmony's Way"
from WDC&S 587. This one had me rolling on the floor with nonstop
laughter.

> On the whole, though, I really enjoy most of WH's works, and
>would be interested to find what others think are his strengths,
>weaknesses, triumphs and flops. We seem to hardly mention WH around
>here, which is odd considering that he continues to bring relatively
>frequent duck stories and that many of them are good ones.

I really can't analyze what it is about his work that I like, but his
background in animation provides for fantastic pacing; his fun choice
of words makes reading his dialogue like going on a roller-coaster
ride; and something about his artwork just seems classically funny.

I wonder why he always seems to follow a mosquito around in each
story...

===========================================================================
"Come back here and face the law, you quadrupedal *anarchists*!"
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
mark a. semich mas at csa.bu.edu
===========================================================================

To Bjorn-Are:

Welcome here! I have some points about what you said about
libraries and Constantinople. The meagre souces I have (The
Encylopaedia Britannica) at home does mention the library there
when it was founded in the 4th century, but remains curiosly silent
about it later. And the route taken by the literature described by
Don in GOTLL is certainly an important one. But the Arab connection
is also vital, especially when it comes to Columbus and that is so
curious a story that I yield to the tempatation to give the rough
outline here.

Contrary to myth, it was well known that the earth was round at the
time of Columbus. Even the size was known since the time of the
ancient Greeks. The length of one degree was 56 2/3 miles. That
was the value that either the greek or the arabian scholars established
and Columbus found in the litterature he studied. The unit used was
Arabian miles (1975.5 m) wich give a very accurate number. But
Columbus assumed Italian miles (1477.5 m). And that, combined with
an erroneus estimate of Ptolemy about the extent of Asia and with
stories he probably picked up in Iceland in 1476 about land in the
west weres among the factors that convinced him that the route over
sea to Asia was possible.

So in the context of GOTLL the Muslim connection is important. But
you got me curious - I will look up the Byzantine libraries when I
have some free time. And Don: It is a great Duck story when it can
produce this kind of debate - you have done both the the bakground
and the story well!

Even

David wrote:
> Someone said that this was a version of "En Kleine Krack" in
> another digest, but they must be mistaken, because that's an Italian
> story and this one is one that Rota did for Egmont. (He used to do
> stories for them once-in-a-while, but as we know now works only for
> them.)
>
> Something else points to this as a Danish story besides the
> code number... mainly that this has 8-panel pages while most Italian
> stories have 6-panel ones.

I think that I've read somewhere that Egmont reworked some of Rota's
Italian viking stories and assigned new codes to the new versions.
Maybe that's the cause of the confusion?
-- "
Per Starback, Uppsala, Sweden. email: starback at student.docs.uu.se
"Life is but a gamble! Let flipism chart your ramble!"

Dear Folks,

This will be my last digest entry for four days... I'm going
to visit my grandmother in New Hampshire over a special long weekend.

Mark on Marco (Rota, that is)
==== == ===== ====== ==== ===

Mark told us yesterday:

"Andold Wild Duck" is the first Rota story that I've read. Although I
liked the artwork very much, the story itself struck me as somewhat
average. Given that I'm reading a translation, I don't really know
whether my complaints would be with Rota's writing or with Gary
Gabner's translation. (As scripter, is he the one who does the
translation?) How does this story compare with Rota's other works?

I can clear this up a little. First, though, let me recommend
US 266-67 (1992): Marco Rota's "The Money Ocean" is a supreme triumph
which I prefer by far to "Andold," despite some good moments in the
latter.

And now... Scripters have various duties. When it comes to
Egmont stories, the standard procedure is for Gladstone to look at
them in Egmont's own comics (unless told about them before publication
by the creator, such as Van Horn, Rosa and myself). They then order
them, and the story is delivered in an *English* script... that's
right, English! If it's a Rosa or Van Horn story (or one of mine,
though they haven't seen those yet), the script as it's sent won't
need any work. But if it's a story written by a Briton -- or
especially someone whose first language is *not* English --
"dialoguing," or more precisely "translation into DEV (Duck English
Vernacular)," is called for.
In one case, for a story called "For School the Bell Tolls," I
worked from such an English script. But I prefer to work from the
German comics I sometimes have access to -- because the Germans have
already added a lot of jokes to the basic English script that I can
then work into my version. Besides, if I do the story straight from
German that gives me complete priority on the story. Gladstone
doesn't look at it and say, "Who should dialog this?" The first they
see of it is when I submit the story with English dialogue... so in
effect, I get to choose my favorite stories, then do them! John Clark
encourages this 100%, because he agrees with me that one's favorite
foreign stories make the best dialogues.

With Oberon/Geeillusterde Press (sp?) stories, things are
different. Oberon prepares a version in English like Egmont, but the
original proofs aren't left blank like in Denmark; they're lettered
in Dutch, and those are the proofs other countries get... with an
English script, *if* they order the story *soon after* its *original*
publication! If Gladstone orders a Jippes story from a long time ago,
though, it's more likely that Oberon will have pitched out the English
script... it belongs to the ages, as is their practice. But Gladstone
is still supplied with the Dutch, so they have to get someone who not
only can dialog, *but* translate Dutch. As of now, I'm one of two
among Gladstone writers who can translate Dutch. So far I have
gotten to do the Dutch stories that will be in WDC&S 589 and DDA 25!
(The Jippes story to be in WDC&S 590 must have come to them in English...
or else Dwight Decker, the other fellow, was the translator.)

When it comes to Italian, things are even worse. The Italians
prepare their stories in Italian alone. Anyone who wants them outside
of that country *has* to have a translator. I cannot translate
Italian, but my student dean at Williams can and has agreed to go into
partnership with me! So she'll be paid $5 a page for the translation,
while I'll get considerably more for the dialoguing job. Others, such
as Dwight again -- I think!! -- both translate *and* dialog.

Then there are the weird exceptions. I will be doing a MM
time-travel story for D&M this winter (to be published next summer I
believe). It's Italian, but I have a German version of it to work
from. Since Gladstone can't get English on it, I'll get paid for
translation as well as dialogue. But for the Egmont stories I'm doing
from German, I don't get an extra cent for translation because it's
ultimately my own choice to do it from German... I *could* be working
from English if I wanted to. Then there's a Fred Milton story I did
eons ago called "The Clock Watcher" -- I did it from German, but there
was English available for it so I don't get paid for translation as I
was for the DDA 25 story.

And now you know. Gee, Mark, ain't you sorry you asked?

Your friend,

David

(Other letter coming)

The ar-index has one unidentified story: AR 133. According
to the van-horn listing, this is the story "Heavy Duty" from, I think,
WDC&S 137. A pretty good story, too...

David Gerstein