I didn't mean to say: "a major seller of a comic book is it's COLOUR", I meant
to say "...is it's COVER"
Sorreee...
Mattias
Author
Topic: 199310
(214 messages)
Mattias Hallin
Addendum
Message 136 -
1993-10-15 at 10:59:25
Bjorn-are.Davidsen
Even more on Byzantium
Message 137 -
1993-10-15 at 11:08:11
Don!
I am very sorry if I have made you a bit perplexed! I think the lesson (for me) is
that it seldom pays to write in a hurry, because then you'll have to write even
more later to clear up misunderstandings.
However, I am a bit perplexed myself. In my indeed very mild criticism of your
fantastic story on the libraries I think never did mention (or never intended to
mention) the AGE of the buildings. My point was the general SHAPE of some of
them, and especially the churches (or mosques which even in todays or mid
1950's Istanbul are kind of copies of the Byzantinian style, except for the
addition of minarets.). I can't see that I ever mentioned or commented on your
drawing "modern buildings" instead of ancient ones (perhaps in some way, which
I certainly did not intend, it may still have been implied "between the lines"?).
And I still have to maintain that there are one small panel which must be from
1204 (because of crusaders and burning buildings).
And to Even: I would be very inetrested in the result of your research on
Byzantine libraries! However, I think you may have to turn to literature on
Byzantium, because (as I mentioned in my first mail) there is a curious omission
of references to Byzantium in most standard refereence works.
Bjorn Are
I am very sorry if I have made you a bit perplexed! I think the lesson (for me) is
that it seldom pays to write in a hurry, because then you'll have to write even
more later to clear up misunderstandings.
However, I am a bit perplexed myself. In my indeed very mild criticism of your
fantastic story on the libraries I think never did mention (or never intended to
mention) the AGE of the buildings. My point was the general SHAPE of some of
them, and especially the churches (or mosques which even in todays or mid
1950's Istanbul are kind of copies of the Byzantinian style, except for the
addition of minarets.). I can't see that I ever mentioned or commented on your
drawing "modern buildings" instead of ancient ones (perhaps in some way, which
I certainly did not intend, it may still have been implied "between the lines"?).
And I still have to maintain that there are one small panel which must be from
1204 (because of crusaders and burning buildings).
And to Even: I would be very inetrested in the result of your research on
Byzantine libraries! However, I think you may have to turn to literature on
Byzantium, because (as I mentioned in my first mail) there is a curious omission
of references to Byzantium in most standard refereence works.
Bjorn Are
Geir.Hasnes
The lack of puns in translations.
Message 138 -
1993-10-15 at 11:50:23
Hello out there,
you seem to be discussing Disney-comics language at a microlevel.
In 1984 I received the first book in the Norwegian annual series of Barks
reprints for review. I sat down to find out how close the translation was
to the original, and I was perplexed. It was a great eye-opener for me that
a Barks translation could be considered to be the same rape of his stories
as was the Italian Giant books (I Donald Duck etc). I actually was able to
distinguish the translators errors into 15 different classes, of which
misunderstanding and flatness were causes for only a few. It was _shit_. I
was amazed, it was unbelivable. (In 1989 I talked with those who had
translated the book - they said my review was a shock to them - they had
workd so hard with the translation.)
The year after, I received the next book, and could observe that they had
cared no more about this translation. So many of Barks puns had disappeared
and the language was so clumsy that I was ashamed, and I wrote a review
again where I expressed my disappointment. At that time I think it was I
first read some articles about Barks language in The Duckburg Times, by at
least Andrew Lendacky and I think some others whom I dont remember just
now, and it dawned upon me that Barks was a great writer also, not just a
good artist.
Since that time, I have made the following observations:
* The Disney corporation regard comics as being a commercial product for
children.
* All kinds of wordplay are consequently natural enemies to the series. The
children whom the series are intended for are not considered literate
enough to understand and enjoy wordplay.
* If a Disney writer is to make a pun, he has to pray to God that it shall
not be seen by the editors. If it is seen, it is changed.
* Barks language was using contemporary speech, slang, newly formed
language structures.
* The Disney editors want the series to be moulded from the frozen language
of that day. The translators have to use that language - unless it is
considered safe to use more _modern_ language.
* Thus the emotional expressions of Donald and Scrooge are repeated, even
though it is a small matter to invent or even use modern day expressions.
This holds true for the translators, and to a certain extent for the
writers.
* This means that there is a very limited possibility that new writers will
have the freedom to create fresh language in the series.
* The Disney comic books are _dying_. When I first observed the fact, I
went back the years to see when this process started. Already in 1962,
there are clear evidence that the new artists / writers were dead. Plain
dead. The decline began in the late 50s in the USA.
* Barks was a genius in his contrapuntal art - where contrapuntal means his
utilization of counterpoint between words and pictures. His dynamics and
his other abilities were superb. He had a depth that noone at that time
understood. * The Norwegian Disney company dont understand that yet. They
accept that he was great, but when they keep on with their silly policies,
they show that they lack an understanding of anything else than commercial
purposes. Consequently, has a translation been done, it is never revised.
* I have hated the Norwegian Donald Duck comic book since the middle of the
70s. The reason I read it is that I have a free subscription. The only
series that I have enjoyed since are Don Rosas. To a certain extent van
Horns. Now and then the Dutch artists and Branca. To a great extent a new
writer / artist who has had two series published, that looked almost
exactly like Barks. If I didnt know all of Barks, I would have believed it
was him! Who is he?
* Now even though I enjoy Don Rosas series, especially his combination of
details and mythology that Barks had made, I find Rosas series to fit very
well into what I perceive about the Disney companys attitude. Rosa says
openly that he writes out of the 50s. I think that is correct. You can
never create a modern Donald and Scrooge, but you can keep that myth alive
by adding to it.
* To try to copy Barks and his Duck stories which is what Vicar and all the
other people do, except Rosa, van Horn and a few others, is like copying
Shakespeare. That is not only impossible, it will always fail.
* Never read a Barks translation!
* Dont believe you can do anything to the Disney editors. It is faith
without reason. You have to play _their_ game. The reason Don is doing so
well, is that the editors see that his work is loved and well received
although they never thought it would be. They cant understand why and
ascribe it to a growing cult phenomena. But as long as they earn money on
it, it is (relatively) OK. But dont conflict with the Disney line!
If anyone wants me to give examples of Barks ill-treated puns or for that
case all of his ill-treated work, Ill see if I can get some time to write
about that.
I reagrd Barks as great literature, and Disney as money-grabbing idiots. It
will take a few hundred years before the literary expertise understands
what Disney is doing to Barks. The next thing will be to begin to rewrite
Barks to make him easier to understand for the children of the next
generation.
Well, back to work. It is interesting to read your letters even though I
dont have much time to write to the digest. I enjoy receiving it every
morning.
And by the way, the name Flood doesnt mean flood, it means a great
slowly-running (relatively) river.
Yours,
Geir Hasnes.
you seem to be discussing Disney-comics language at a microlevel.
In 1984 I received the first book in the Norwegian annual series of Barks
reprints for review. I sat down to find out how close the translation was
to the original, and I was perplexed. It was a great eye-opener for me that
a Barks translation could be considered to be the same rape of his stories
as was the Italian Giant books (I Donald Duck etc). I actually was able to
distinguish the translators errors into 15 different classes, of which
misunderstanding and flatness were causes for only a few. It was _shit_. I
was amazed, it was unbelivable. (In 1989 I talked with those who had
translated the book - they said my review was a shock to them - they had
workd so hard with the translation.)
The year after, I received the next book, and could observe that they had
cared no more about this translation. So many of Barks puns had disappeared
and the language was so clumsy that I was ashamed, and I wrote a review
again where I expressed my disappointment. At that time I think it was I
first read some articles about Barks language in The Duckburg Times, by at
least Andrew Lendacky and I think some others whom I dont remember just
now, and it dawned upon me that Barks was a great writer also, not just a
good artist.
Since that time, I have made the following observations:
* The Disney corporation regard comics as being a commercial product for
children.
* All kinds of wordplay are consequently natural enemies to the series. The
children whom the series are intended for are not considered literate
enough to understand and enjoy wordplay.
* If a Disney writer is to make a pun, he has to pray to God that it shall
not be seen by the editors. If it is seen, it is changed.
* Barks language was using contemporary speech, slang, newly formed
language structures.
* The Disney editors want the series to be moulded from the frozen language
of that day. The translators have to use that language - unless it is
considered safe to use more _modern_ language.
* Thus the emotional expressions of Donald and Scrooge are repeated, even
though it is a small matter to invent or even use modern day expressions.
This holds true for the translators, and to a certain extent for the
writers.
* This means that there is a very limited possibility that new writers will
have the freedom to create fresh language in the series.
* The Disney comic books are _dying_. When I first observed the fact, I
went back the years to see when this process started. Already in 1962,
there are clear evidence that the new artists / writers were dead. Plain
dead. The decline began in the late 50s in the USA.
* Barks was a genius in his contrapuntal art - where contrapuntal means his
utilization of counterpoint between words and pictures. His dynamics and
his other abilities were superb. He had a depth that noone at that time
understood. * The Norwegian Disney company dont understand that yet. They
accept that he was great, but when they keep on with their silly policies,
they show that they lack an understanding of anything else than commercial
purposes. Consequently, has a translation been done, it is never revised.
* I have hated the Norwegian Donald Duck comic book since the middle of the
70s. The reason I read it is that I have a free subscription. The only
series that I have enjoyed since are Don Rosas. To a certain extent van
Horns. Now and then the Dutch artists and Branca. To a great extent a new
writer / artist who has had two series published, that looked almost
exactly like Barks. If I didnt know all of Barks, I would have believed it
was him! Who is he?
* Now even though I enjoy Don Rosas series, especially his combination of
details and mythology that Barks had made, I find Rosas series to fit very
well into what I perceive about the Disney companys attitude. Rosa says
openly that he writes out of the 50s. I think that is correct. You can
never create a modern Donald and Scrooge, but you can keep that myth alive
by adding to it.
* To try to copy Barks and his Duck stories which is what Vicar and all the
other people do, except Rosa, van Horn and a few others, is like copying
Shakespeare. That is not only impossible, it will always fail.
* Never read a Barks translation!
* Dont believe you can do anything to the Disney editors. It is faith
without reason. You have to play _their_ game. The reason Don is doing so
well, is that the editors see that his work is loved and well received
although they never thought it would be. They cant understand why and
ascribe it to a growing cult phenomena. But as long as they earn money on
it, it is (relatively) OK. But dont conflict with the Disney line!
If anyone wants me to give examples of Barks ill-treated puns or for that
case all of his ill-treated work, Ill see if I can get some time to write
about that.
I reagrd Barks as great literature, and Disney as money-grabbing idiots. It
will take a few hundred years before the literary expertise understands
what Disney is doing to Barks. The next thing will be to begin to rewrite
Barks to make him easier to understand for the children of the next
generation.
Well, back to work. It is interesting to read your letters even though I
dont have much time to write to the digest. I enjoy receiving it every
morning.
And by the way, the name Flood doesnt mean flood, it means a great
slowly-running (relatively) river.
Yours,
Geir Hasnes.
Gadducci
Puns&Tastes&...
Message 139 -
1993-10-15 at 14:51:36
Hi, boys!! (Btw, is there any girl out there?)
I'm writing late, as usual.
Anyway, just some news about the Duck Family tree.
There is in Italy a book quite famous betweeen Dinaldists.
"An introduction to Donald: the social phenomenology in Barks'comics".
It was written in the mid-Seventies as a degree thesis by Marovelli,
Paolini and Saccomano, and published by Sansoni in the late seventies.
There I found a nice Duck Family Tree, constructed, according to the
authors, following the Barks'mithology, and it would be nice to make some
confrontation (hey, Per, you have the book, and you can get also the DFT by
Don-which I cannot: what are you waiting for??)
Gigi wrote:
>- to Fabio Gadducci:
>
> Fabio! Do you want to help me to keep Cavazzano's material up?
> Also:
> Are there more info about Cavazzano in "Italian Disney" by
> Granata Press? Have you got that book?
> Or maybe we'll find something in "Cavazzano" volume by Comic Art
> in few days?
>
> Do you know if something by Rosa is been printed in Italy?
Sadly, nothing by Don Rosa has been published in Italy.
And about Cavazzano: the book on Italian Disney is a very interesting one
(the writers are very well known Donaldists here in Italy), with some
original sketches and art, too, but lacks of any information about
stories-code. There exists a complete index of Disney stories by Italian
artists from the mid-Thirties till the late Seventies, done by Franco
Fossati (a poor essaysts, but at that period he was the subeditor of Disney
Comics for Mondadori).
Maybe I could find a copy, is someone is interested (or xerox-copy mine,
eventually, as soon as I rescue that).
Or maybe you should simply wait: next spring will be out issue n.2000 of
the weekly Topolino. There will be a lot of interesting thing: according to
Luca Boschi (to whom I phoned some day ago) the Zecca di Stato will coin a
gold 'first dime', and a bronze version of that will be given away with
issue 2000, which will probably have a hologram cover (wheeeeee). But most
important, starting next December, there will be an exhibition of 3 months
in Rome at the Palaeur building, devoted to Disney comics in the world, but
with a special focus on Italy. The catologue should be a huge one, with,
probably, ALL the codes of the stories published so far in Italy, and some
never printed stories of the Thirties by Pedrocchi e Pinochi.
And then, Harry (Btw, I'll send you the updates to Italian Disney'stuff on
archive asap). I wrote about Giottfredson
>
> And about Mickey: Gottfredson himself told that his best drawn material was
> from the Sixties... Let's just say that I prefer the third way, a god mix
> of drawning and plotting: in this sense, his stuff from the Forties is
> maybe his best...
>
And you replied
>
>Can you mention a particular story? I wonder which story you possibly can
>prefer to "Medioka", "Foreign Legion" or "Phantom Blot"...
>
As usual, there is some non-logical reason, but as an example I really
enjoy more the Eega Beeva stuff than Medioka or Phantom Blot - even if
maybe Foreign Legion is an exception: lemme think more about it!!
Then, about Rota
>I have some, as far as they appeared in Holland. The next is a result of
>a 'grep' from my Dutch index. I edited it a bit, but I kept the Dutch
>descriptions (and the Italian entries).
>
>12 D 92120 DD vliegtuiggevecht met bolderbast
>44 D 9434 DD en de tijdmachine (1st time machine story, with vikings)
>32 I DD van ei tot eend (DD origin story)
>36 I 215 US in: de geldzee (appeared in Disney Comics' U$)
>17 D 5480 US op jacht naar onderzeese schatten
>45 I 228-A DD en kleine krack (one of the two Viking stories)
>32 I DD in de nacht van de saraceen
>36 I 277-A DD geroosterd vlees als redding (another Viking story)
>36 I 245-A DD als forens
>14 D 92444 US inbraak in opdracht
>
>These happen to be ALL the Rota stories I know of. Are there any more
>Italian stories?
>
Yes, there are some others, even if its work has been mainly for Egomont
(besides, he was for a lot the editor of the writers for Disney comics, and
I think he spent on that work most of his time...). I'll try to send you
some information...
Only a note on Cavazzano. Topi wrote
>
> Actually I have no problem with his drawing... my problem is his plots
> - or should I say the lack thereof.
>
> Long stories without any original ideas, very little humour (even lessened
> by the translation, of course), and pretty often the setting/story idea is
> extremely *dull*. Lots of pointless scenes too almost too boring to read.
>
> There are two elements to a good comic story: good art AND good plot, the
> latter being IMHO at least as important as the former. Take Barks' classical
> duck stories - not *only* he can draw - his plots are brilliant too! (Granted,
> he has a habit of repeating himself, but considering the mere quantity of
> his artistic output, that needs no excusing).
>
[...]
>
> The importance of plot/art can of course be different for different persons,
> but when the stories are as bad as Cavazzo's non-plots, *everyybody* should
> note there is something wrong. (For me, btw, I think I appreciate 2/3(!) plot
> and only 1/3 art. Or even 80% plot, 20% art! That may be because I also
> read a lot of books. So, estimation of Cavazzano's comic books would be some-
> thing like "17%" - his drawing is still far from ideal. His non-plots earn
> him no points on my scale. Maybe I should have given him an even poorer rate
> because I think "stories" that bad should be given a negative value...)
>
> I know there are other Italian artists drawing pretty much the same way as
> Cavazzano. Fortunately, their stories are not nearly as bad! They even seem
> to have *plots* pretty often.
>
Sorry, Topi, but I think you are missing the point. For me his art
(depending on the period you are talking of: I prefer late Seventies-first
Eighties) is very good: more dynamic and cinematic then all the other
Disney artists, and often strikingly different from all the other Disney
stuff. But this is my opinion, after all (and ask Harry about that :-).
But, despite my tastes, you have to know that Cavazzano, as most of the
Italian Disneys, is an artist, not a writer. He works (worked) on scripts
by people very talented as Martina, Pezzin, Chendi etc., the same that gave
plots to ALL the others Italian Disneys.
So I do not really understand your remark about plots!! (Not a flame,
though :-).
About puns, Per wrote:
>
>I know that the translator has had problems with puns in Italian
>stories. I don't think most Egmont stories (Rosa excluded!) contain
>any puns at all. (After all, they know the stories will be translated
>anyway.)
>
The problem, I think, is not on puns, but in the kind of (more or less)
aulic and involute Italian language that was used from Forties to
Seventies, very reminiscent of the Thirties'way of speaking (the same used
by the translators back then, and that I associate to Barks stories, too).
However, the characters used always a grammatically correct Italian, the
same thing Mattias says about Swedish duck-comics.
Now things are changed, after that Disney Italy took directly control of
comics production, and characters and transaltors) use a more modern
language. Which I
think happens (differently from what Geir says) mainly because
>
>* The Disney corporation regard comics as being a commercial product for
>children.
>
and all 'difficult' and aulic words
>
>are consequently natural enemies to the series. The
>children whom the series are intended for are not considered literate
>enough to understand and enjoy them.
>
So now we have a more updated language, even if less lively...
oh, for gosh'sake...
We are still talking about comics, isn'it ?!? ;-)
Bye
Fabio
================================================================
Fabio Gadducci Dip. di Informatica
Universita` di Pisa
Tel. +39-50-510268 Corso Italia 40, 56100 PISA (ITALY)
FAX: +39-50-510226 E-mail:gadducci at di.unipi.it
================================================================
I'm writing late, as usual.
Anyway, just some news about the Duck Family tree.
There is in Italy a book quite famous betweeen Dinaldists.
"An introduction to Donald: the social phenomenology in Barks'comics".
It was written in the mid-Seventies as a degree thesis by Marovelli,
Paolini and Saccomano, and published by Sansoni in the late seventies.
There I found a nice Duck Family Tree, constructed, according to the
authors, following the Barks'mithology, and it would be nice to make some
confrontation (hey, Per, you have the book, and you can get also the DFT by
Don-which I cannot: what are you waiting for??)
Gigi wrote:
>- to Fabio Gadducci:
>
> Fabio! Do you want to help me to keep Cavazzano's material up?
> Also:
> Are there more info about Cavazzano in "Italian Disney" by
> Granata Press? Have you got that book?
> Or maybe we'll find something in "Cavazzano" volume by Comic Art
> in few days?
>
> Do you know if something by Rosa is been printed in Italy?
Sadly, nothing by Don Rosa has been published in Italy.
And about Cavazzano: the book on Italian Disney is a very interesting one
(the writers are very well known Donaldists here in Italy), with some
original sketches and art, too, but lacks of any information about
stories-code. There exists a complete index of Disney stories by Italian
artists from the mid-Thirties till the late Seventies, done by Franco
Fossati (a poor essaysts, but at that period he was the subeditor of Disney
Comics for Mondadori).
Maybe I could find a copy, is someone is interested (or xerox-copy mine,
eventually, as soon as I rescue that).
Or maybe you should simply wait: next spring will be out issue n.2000 of
the weekly Topolino. There will be a lot of interesting thing: according to
Luca Boschi (to whom I phoned some day ago) the Zecca di Stato will coin a
gold 'first dime', and a bronze version of that will be given away with
issue 2000, which will probably have a hologram cover (wheeeeee). But most
important, starting next December, there will be an exhibition of 3 months
in Rome at the Palaeur building, devoted to Disney comics in the world, but
with a special focus on Italy. The catologue should be a huge one, with,
probably, ALL the codes of the stories published so far in Italy, and some
never printed stories of the Thirties by Pedrocchi e Pinochi.
And then, Harry (Btw, I'll send you the updates to Italian Disney'stuff on
archive asap). I wrote about Giottfredson
>
> And about Mickey: Gottfredson himself told that his best drawn material was
> from the Sixties... Let's just say that I prefer the third way, a god mix
> of drawning and plotting: in this sense, his stuff from the Forties is
> maybe his best...
>
And you replied
>
>Can you mention a particular story? I wonder which story you possibly can
>prefer to "Medioka", "Foreign Legion" or "Phantom Blot"...
>
As usual, there is some non-logical reason, but as an example I really
enjoy more the Eega Beeva stuff than Medioka or Phantom Blot - even if
maybe Foreign Legion is an exception: lemme think more about it!!
Then, about Rota
>I have some, as far as they appeared in Holland. The next is a result of
>a 'grep' from my Dutch index. I edited it a bit, but I kept the Dutch
>descriptions (and the Italian entries).
>
>12 D 92120 DD vliegtuiggevecht met bolderbast
>44 D 9434 DD en de tijdmachine (1st time machine story, with vikings)
>32 I DD van ei tot eend (DD origin story)
>36 I 215 US in: de geldzee (appeared in Disney Comics' U$)
>17 D 5480 US op jacht naar onderzeese schatten
>45 I 228-A DD en kleine krack (one of the two Viking stories)
>32 I DD in de nacht van de saraceen
>36 I 277-A DD geroosterd vlees als redding (another Viking story)
>36 I 245-A DD als forens
>14 D 92444 US inbraak in opdracht
>
>These happen to be ALL the Rota stories I know of. Are there any more
>Italian stories?
>
Yes, there are some others, even if its work has been mainly for Egomont
(besides, he was for a lot the editor of the writers for Disney comics, and
I think he spent on that work most of his time...). I'll try to send you
some information...
Only a note on Cavazzano. Topi wrote
>
> Actually I have no problem with his drawing... my problem is his plots
> - or should I say the lack thereof.
>
> Long stories without any original ideas, very little humour (even lessened
> by the translation, of course), and pretty often the setting/story idea is
> extremely *dull*. Lots of pointless scenes too almost too boring to read.
>
> There are two elements to a good comic story: good art AND good plot, the
> latter being IMHO at least as important as the former. Take Barks' classical
> duck stories - not *only* he can draw - his plots are brilliant too! (Granted,
> he has a habit of repeating himself, but considering the mere quantity of
> his artistic output, that needs no excusing).
>
[...]
>
> The importance of plot/art can of course be different for different persons,
> but when the stories are as bad as Cavazzo's non-plots, *everyybody* should
> note there is something wrong. (For me, btw, I think I appreciate 2/3(!) plot
> and only 1/3 art. Or even 80% plot, 20% art! That may be because I also
> read a lot of books. So, estimation of Cavazzano's comic books would be some-
> thing like "17%" - his drawing is still far from ideal. His non-plots earn
> him no points on my scale. Maybe I should have given him an even poorer rate
> because I think "stories" that bad should be given a negative value...)
>
> I know there are other Italian artists drawing pretty much the same way as
> Cavazzano. Fortunately, their stories are not nearly as bad! They even seem
> to have *plots* pretty often.
>
Sorry, Topi, but I think you are missing the point. For me his art
(depending on the period you are talking of: I prefer late Seventies-first
Eighties) is very good: more dynamic and cinematic then all the other
Disney artists, and often strikingly different from all the other Disney
stuff. But this is my opinion, after all (and ask Harry about that :-).
But, despite my tastes, you have to know that Cavazzano, as most of the
Italian Disneys, is an artist, not a writer. He works (worked) on scripts
by people very talented as Martina, Pezzin, Chendi etc., the same that gave
plots to ALL the others Italian Disneys.
So I do not really understand your remark about plots!! (Not a flame,
though :-).
About puns, Per wrote:
>
>I know that the translator has had problems with puns in Italian
>stories. I don't think most Egmont stories (Rosa excluded!) contain
>any puns at all. (After all, they know the stories will be translated
>anyway.)
>
The problem, I think, is not on puns, but in the kind of (more or less)
aulic and involute Italian language that was used from Forties to
Seventies, very reminiscent of the Thirties'way of speaking (the same used
by the translators back then, and that I associate to Barks stories, too).
However, the characters used always a grammatically correct Italian, the
same thing Mattias says about Swedish duck-comics.
Now things are changed, after that Disney Italy took directly control of
comics production, and characters and transaltors) use a more modern
language. Which I
think happens (differently from what Geir says) mainly because
>
>* The Disney corporation regard comics as being a commercial product for
>children.
>
and all 'difficult' and aulic words
>
>are consequently natural enemies to the series. The
>children whom the series are intended for are not considered literate
>enough to understand and enjoy them.
>
So now we have a more updated language, even if less lively...
oh, for gosh'sake...
We are still talking about comics, isn'it ?!? ;-)
Bye
Fabio
================================================================
Fabio Gadducci Dip. di Informatica
Universita` di Pisa
Tel. +39-50-510268 Corso Italia 40, 56100 PISA (ITALY)
FAX: +39-50-510226 E-mail:gadducci at di.unipi.it
================================================================
Per Starback
Family trees again
Message 140 -
1993-10-15 at 18:14:05
Fabio wrote:
> There [in the Italian book __Introduzione a Paperino: La
> fenomenologia sociale nei fumetti di Carl Barks_] I found a nice
> Duck Family Tree, constructed, according to the authors, following the
> Barks'mithology, and it would be nice to make some confrontation (hey,
> Per, you have the book, and you can get also the DFT by Don-which I
> cannot: what are you waiting for??)
I don't have Don's tree, and as far as I know it has yet only been
published in a Norwegian newspaper, so my views on it will have to
wait.
Here in Scandinavia the influential book from the 70's was instead Jon
Gisle's _Donaldismen_ (in Norwegian, and then translated into Danish
(_Andeologien_(?)) and Swedish (_Ankismen_), and of course it also
featured a family tree among other things. And then the genealogical
debate has been going on for several years in fanzines etc.
One interesting item that wasn't known back in the seventies is the
duck family tree that Barks made for his own reference in the early
fifties. Of course that's one of several questions you have to decide
upon when making a tree: if only what is actually published in the
comic books is canon.
What was in that small family tree of Barks has been published here
before, but as it may be of continued interest, I've put it at the ftp
archive (as characters/duck-family-tree). When I was at it I also
created a new small characters/gladstone-gander with some genealogical
information on Gladstone Gander.
-- "
Per Starback, Uppsala, Sweden. email: starback at student.docs.uu.se
"My only relatives are my nephew, Donald, and his nephews, Huey,
Dewey, and Louie, and my distant nephew, Gladstone Gander! ...
What a collection!"
> There [in the Italian book __Introduzione a Paperino: La
> fenomenologia sociale nei fumetti di Carl Barks_] I found a nice
> Duck Family Tree, constructed, according to the authors, following the
> Barks'mithology, and it would be nice to make some confrontation (hey,
> Per, you have the book, and you can get also the DFT by Don-which I
> cannot: what are you waiting for??)
I don't have Don's tree, and as far as I know it has yet only been
published in a Norwegian newspaper, so my views on it will have to
wait.
Here in Scandinavia the influential book from the 70's was instead Jon
Gisle's _Donaldismen_ (in Norwegian, and then translated into Danish
(_Andeologien_(?)) and Swedish (_Ankismen_), and of course it also
featured a family tree among other things. And then the genealogical
debate has been going on for several years in fanzines etc.
One interesting item that wasn't known back in the seventies is the
duck family tree that Barks made for his own reference in the early
fifties. Of course that's one of several questions you have to decide
upon when making a tree: if only what is actually published in the
comic books is canon.
What was in that small family tree of Barks has been published here
before, but as it may be of continued interest, I've put it at the ftp
archive (as characters/duck-family-tree). When I was at it I also
created a new small characters/gladstone-gander with some genealogical
information on Gladstone Gander.
-- "
Per Starback, Uppsala, Sweden. email: starback at student.docs.uu.se
"My only relatives are my nephew, Donald, and his nephews, Huey,
Dewey, and Louie, and my distant nephew, Gladstone Gander! ...
What a collection!"
Henri Rantanen
Don's family tree
Message 141 -
1993-10-15 at 19:49:19
Just a quick note:
About the family tree... they are planning to publish it in Finland, too.
Dunno when, but it will be an appendix to some book or comic, anyhow.
Just something I heard from the editor of the weekly Aku Ankka -magazine...
-Henri
--
'I got ran over by truth one day, I did not see the red light
Since the accident I've walked this way, I only did what felt right'
E-mail : trhera at uta.fi
tel : +358-(9)31-2224950
About the family tree... they are planning to publish it in Finland, too.
Dunno when, but it will be an appendix to some book or comic, anyhow.
Just something I heard from the editor of the weekly Aku Ankka -magazine...
-Henri
--
'I got ran over by truth one day, I did not see the red light
Since the accident I've walked this way, I only did what felt right'
E-mail : trhera at uta.fi
tel : +358-(9)31-2224950
Dag Nummedal
Yet more about colours
Message 142 -
1993-10-15 at 20:14:25
I and Don Rosa thought that all the terries and fermies in Barks's
"Land Beneath the Ground" should have the same colour, and not be in
all kinds of colours as they've been in every American colour
printing. But then our beneath-the-ground expert Wilmer Rivers said
that rocks come in a wide variety of colours, so there's nothing
strange with the terries and fermies being that colourful. Maybe so,
but I still think of them as having the same colour, because that's
how they looked when *I* first read the story!
In the CBL there's a few pictures from Nathional Geographic that Barks used as
inspiration for his work. The story "Land Beneath the Ground" is connected to
a picture from some caves. As far as I remember, there was a lot of different
colors, and soft round shapes.
I haven't checked my CBL now, so I'm not 100% sure, but I think Barks intended
the terries and ferries to be colorful.
-Dag Nummedal
"Land Beneath the Ground" should have the same colour, and not be in
all kinds of colours as they've been in every American colour
printing. But then our beneath-the-ground expert Wilmer Rivers said
that rocks come in a wide variety of colours, so there's nothing
strange with the terries and fermies being that colourful. Maybe so,
but I still think of them as having the same colour, because that's
how they looked when *I* first read the story!
In the CBL there's a few pictures from Nathional Geographic that Barks used as
inspiration for his work. The story "Land Beneath the Ground" is connected to
a picture from some caves. As far as I remember, there was a lot of different
colors, and soft round shapes.
I haven't checked my CBL now, so I'm not 100% sure, but I think Barks intended
the terries and ferries to be colorful.
-Dag Nummedal
Sherline Lee
Unsubscribe me.
Message 143 -
1993-10-15 at 23:39:35
Too much traffic...unsubscribe me please.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Chris Lawton
WDC&S 588
Message 144 -
1993-10-16 at 04:24:42
Hiya Gang!
Well, the local newsstand finally got in WDC&S #588.
Just a few thoughts:
A great issue! I'm definately looking forward 'til Dec 7! :)
Yet, something about this issue seems different. I think its the first story.
To me, it seems very Un-Donald like. Wouldn't Mickey or Goofy fit better?
Just stick Mickey in Donald's part frame-for-frame. It really appears that
Donald just wasn't his usual self: the story happened to him, not vice-versa
as we're all used to.
As for the second story: This is why Mickey Mouse is the best!! :) A great
story - Mickey's thrown into very unusual circumstances and we get to watch him
get out. Ahh, you just gotta love 'im! :) Come on you Duck fans - jump ship!
To me, this is a very Mickey Mouse issue!! :) (In only the best sence of the
phrase)
Chris Mickey's #1 Fan!! :) :)
"Some imagination, huh? HAHA!" Mickey - FANTASMIC!
Well, the local newsstand finally got in WDC&S #588.
Just a few thoughts:
A great issue! I'm definately looking forward 'til Dec 7! :)
Yet, something about this issue seems different. I think its the first story.
To me, it seems very Un-Donald like. Wouldn't Mickey or Goofy fit better?
Just stick Mickey in Donald's part frame-for-frame. It really appears that
Donald just wasn't his usual self: the story happened to him, not vice-versa
as we're all used to.
As for the second story: This is why Mickey Mouse is the best!! :) A great
story - Mickey's thrown into very unusual circumstances and we get to watch him
get out. Ahh, you just gotta love 'im! :) Come on you Duck fans - jump ship!
To me, this is a very Mickey Mouse issue!! :) (In only the best sence of the
phrase)
Chris Mickey's #1 Fan!! :) :)
"Some imagination, huh? HAHA!" Mickey - FANTASMIC!
Don Rosa
+Postage Due+Disney-comics digest #129.
Message 145 -
1993-10-16 at 07:38:26
Why would someone wish to be "unsubscribed" due to too much
traffic??? After all the wonderful discussions of that last digest, we
see that as an ending. What -- too much thinking and not enough talk
about Ariel or BEAUTY AND THE BEAST? Or are other folks paying by the
word to read this stuff like I am? Hey - yeah, maybe there IS too much
traffic!
traffic??? After all the wonderful discussions of that last digest, we
see that as an ending. What -- too much thinking and not enough talk
about Ariel or BEAUTY AND THE BEAST? Or are other folks paying by the
word to read this stuff like I am? Hey - yeah, maybe there IS too much
traffic!
Torsten Wesley Adair
+Postage Due+Disney-comics digest #129.
Message 146 -
1993-10-16 at 21:02:59
On 16 Oct 1993, Don Rosa wrote:
> Why would someone wish to be "unsubscribed" due to too much
> traffic??? After all the wonderful discussions of that last digest, we
> see that as an ending. What -- too much thinking and not enough talk
> about Ariel or BEAUTY AND THE BEAST? Or are other folks paying by the
> word to read this stuff like I am? Hey - yeah, maybe there IS too much
> traffic!
Probably because there wasn't anything to interest him or her.
Since that person had and ".edu" ending, there probably wasn't any cost
involved. And yes, there is too much traffic, but I've learned to skim
most information, and I read maybe 50% of what is sent.
Torsten
> Why would someone wish to be "unsubscribed" due to too much
> traffic??? After all the wonderful discussions of that last digest, we
> see that as an ending. What -- too much thinking and not enough talk
> about Ariel or BEAUTY AND THE BEAST? Or are other folks paying by the
> word to read this stuff like I am? Hey - yeah, maybe there IS too much
> traffic!
Probably because there wasn't anything to interest him or her.
Since that person had and ".edu" ending, there probably wasn't any cost
involved. And yes, there is too much traffic, but I've learned to skim
most information, and I read maybe 50% of what is sent.
Torsten
Mark Semich
Duckburg
Message 147 -
1993-10-18 at 06:06:31
Have there ever been any stories explaining just why Duckburg is named
"Duckburg"? At first I thought that it was named after the species of
its residents, but I then realized that most of its denizens seem to
be dogs, not ducks. Then I thought, "Maybe it was founded by a Duck."
- but then I remembered that it was founded by Cornelius Coot.
Shouldn't it be called "Cootville"?
My apologies if Barks or Rosa have explained this one, I'm not as well
read as I'd like to be.
"Duckburg"? At first I thought that it was named after the species of
its residents, but I then realized that most of its denizens seem to
be dogs, not ducks. Then I thought, "Maybe it was founded by a Duck."
- but then I remembered that it was founded by Cornelius Coot.
Shouldn't it be called "Cootville"?
My apologies if Barks or Rosa have explained this one, I'm not as well
read as I'd like to be.
Mattias Hallin
Duckburg
Message 148 -
1993-10-18 at 11:23:18
"Have there ever been any stories explaining just why Duckburg is named
"Duckburg"?" ...asked Mark Semich.
The answer, obviously depends on wether you want the lit. hist. answer or the
donaldistic answer. My guess as to the first alternative is, Yes! it's named
not after it's average denizen (i.e. the dogface) but after it's main
protagonists, Donald Duck and nephews. The first reference to Duckburg I know
of is the tightrope-walking-across-Niagara story from the midforties WDC. (Last
panel, or so)
The DONALDISTIC answer (or rather, ONE donaldistic answer) is provided by Don
Rosa in (I think it is) "His Majesty McDuck", where Cornelius Coot becomes
owner of the older settlement at Killmotor Hill, "Fort Drakeborough", thus
named by the British after 16th-century explorer Sir Francis Drake, who
(according to the story) was the first white duck on the spot. Thus "Duckburg"
would seem to be a derivative of "Drakeborough"...
Well - you pick your choice, I'll pick mine...
Mattias Hallin
"Duckburg"?" ...asked Mark Semich.
The answer, obviously depends on wether you want the lit. hist. answer or the
donaldistic answer. My guess as to the first alternative is, Yes! it's named
not after it's average denizen (i.e. the dogface) but after it's main
protagonists, Donald Duck and nephews. The first reference to Duckburg I know
of is the tightrope-walking-across-Niagara story from the midforties WDC. (Last
panel, or so)
The DONALDISTIC answer (or rather, ONE donaldistic answer) is provided by Don
Rosa in (I think it is) "His Majesty McDuck", where Cornelius Coot becomes
owner of the older settlement at Killmotor Hill, "Fort Drakeborough", thus
named by the British after 16th-century explorer Sir Francis Drake, who
(according to the story) was the first white duck on the spot. Thus "Duckburg"
would seem to be a derivative of "Drakeborough"...
Well - you pick your choice, I'll pick mine...
Mattias Hallin
Even Flood
More about a pun
Message 149 -
1993-10-18 at 14:04:17
Geirs entry about the ban on puns explains something that
has puzzeled me.
In the story "The Lemming with a Locket" Barks makes a
Norwegian pun!
When the Ducks enter the cheese shop after comming to Norway
there are some cheeses in the background labelled
NORD-OST
NORDOST
This means northeast in Norwegian, but could also be the
brand name of a cheese named Nordost or Northcheese. In this
context "ost" means both cheese and east.
It is remarkable that Barks made a pun in a foreign language
that only Scandinavians would understand.
It is even more remarkable that the labels were changed in
the Norwegian edition. I do not remember what the labels read then,
but I did not laugh.
Even
has puzzeled me.
In the story "The Lemming with a Locket" Barks makes a
Norwegian pun!
When the Ducks enter the cheese shop after comming to Norway
there are some cheeses in the background labelled
NORD-OST
NORDOST
This means northeast in Norwegian, but could also be the
brand name of a cheese named Nordost or Northcheese. In this
context "ost" means both cheese and east.
It is remarkable that Barks made a pun in a foreign language
that only Scandinavians would understand.
It is even more remarkable that the labels were changed in
the Norwegian edition. I do not remember what the labels read then,
but I did not laugh.
Even
Fredrik Ekman
William Van Horn
Message 150 -
1993-10-18 at 17:16:44
David writes, on the subject of 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.
Examples, please! I think I agree with you, even though I can't say for
sure until I see exactly what you mean.
> 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.
I agree! Absolutely! The artwork of that story is nothing short of
exceptional. Especially, check the page where Donald first appears the
bee hive (pg 4?). The different size of the panels and the change of
perspective is comic art when at its best. The story is also very good
and reaches the standards set by Barks when at his best.
My second favourite will have to be "Sky-High Hi-Jinks", partly because
that was the first WVH-story I ever read. I was hooked immediately in
spite of (or maybe because of) the somewhat sloppy art.
> LEAST FAVORITE STORY #1: Just a Humble, Bumbling Duck!
Nope! I actually like that one. It, too, has great art and quite a few
hilarous situations. MY least favourite is "Snore Losers", simply because
I find the story itself to be the only real loser of that one. The only
thing I like about it is when Donald uses part of his new-found fortune
to buy several thousand pairs of shoes. Oh, well...
Someone (was that Mark?) mentioned the small insects (I'm not quite sure
they are all mosquitos) that seem to fly around in all his comics. I
would guess that this is his signature, kind of like Don's D.U.C.K. I
have yet not found any Van Horn comic that has not had at least one of
these.
On the whole I think that William Van Horn is great! And besides Don
Rosa he is the only one that has really succeeded in taking the Barksian
universe and make something that has a feeling of freshness to it. I
even prefer Van Horn to Rosa, simply because I find him to be less tied
up to Barks' works.
Speaking of WVH; does anyone have any plans to release a new version of
the Van Horn index? If so, tell me and I will send some additional info.
If not, send updates to me and I will do it instead.
/F
> 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.
Examples, please! I think I agree with you, even though I can't say for
sure until I see exactly what you mean.
> 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.
I agree! Absolutely! The artwork of that story is nothing short of
exceptional. Especially, check the page where Donald first appears the
bee hive (pg 4?). The different size of the panels and the change of
perspective is comic art when at its best. The story is also very good
and reaches the standards set by Barks when at his best.
My second favourite will have to be "Sky-High Hi-Jinks", partly because
that was the first WVH-story I ever read. I was hooked immediately in
spite of (or maybe because of) the somewhat sloppy art.
> LEAST FAVORITE STORY #1: Just a Humble, Bumbling Duck!
Nope! I actually like that one. It, too, has great art and quite a few
hilarous situations. MY least favourite is "Snore Losers", simply because
I find the story itself to be the only real loser of that one. The only
thing I like about it is when Donald uses part of his new-found fortune
to buy several thousand pairs of shoes. Oh, well...
Someone (was that Mark?) mentioned the small insects (I'm not quite sure
they are all mosquitos) that seem to fly around in all his comics. I
would guess that this is his signature, kind of like Don's D.U.C.K. I
have yet not found any Van Horn comic that has not had at least one of
these.
On the whole I think that William Van Horn is great! And besides Don
Rosa he is the only one that has really succeeded in taking the Barksian
universe and make something that has a feeling of freshness to it. I
even prefer Van Horn to Rosa, simply because I find him to be less tied
up to Barks' works.
Speaking of WVH; does anyone have any plans to release a new version of
the Van Horn index? If so, tell me and I will send some additional info.
If not, send updates to me and I will do it instead.
/F