Keskustelujen arkisto

"Maybe I'm wrong... but in 1990, the only hardback "library"
books I saw were the Abbeville/Mondadori books and a Gottfredson
reprint series, MICKYS KLASSIKER. Since then has someone begun
publishing translations of the CBL... I don't mean just some
collection of all-Barks stories, but in Another Rainbow's format? If
so, why aren't ads for the thing in Ehapa's regular comics? (They
weren't as of last summer.)" ...said/asked David Gerstein.

I don't know about Germany, but in Scandinavia there has so far been no attempt
to translate/lift the CBL, either directly or as a concept (with the kind of
exception of Horst Schr|ders older Barks/Gottfradson projects; but I suppose
you knew about them).

There is however two kinds of nothing-but-Barks publications in Sweden: the
"Kalle Ankas B{stisar" series (translates as approx.: "Donald Duck's Favvies"),
which is an album format soft-cover series that's been running for at least 15
or 20 years or something like that. Also there are the "Guldb|ckerna" (The
Golden Books), subtitled "Gamla, goda {ventyr av Carl Barks" (Good Old Stories
by CB). These are hardcover, comic-BOOK format and often includes rare or
never-before translated material, nicely translated, coloured and printed.
Neither series have any chronological ambitions.

Thought you'd like to know...

Mattias

Torsten:
> [...] Unfortunately, all I remember is that the address is
> "lysator something". Could somebody please tell me the ftp address? Is
> there a gopher, also?

ftp.lysator.liu.se. No gopher. (That is, there is a gopher service
at lysator, but the disney-comics archive is not reachable from it.)
--
Per

I just got the latest newsletter from my comics subscription company. They
had the following review in their "Books You Should Not Miss" section.

Uncle Scrooge #285 - If you're a fan of Uncle Scrooge or just want to read
a darn good story, don't miss this issue. This month
marks the beginning of the serialization of Don Rosa's
"Life of Scrooge." Rosa is considered by many to be the
best duck artist since Carl Barks, and this may be
Rosa's best work yet. The "Life of Scrooge" series is
presented in 12 chapters, with each installment running
15-28 pages. Rosa will provide a new cover for each of
the 12 issues as well as commnetary about each chapter.
The initial installment, which runs 15 pages, shows
Scrooge's life as a youngster in Scotland and how he got
his first dime. The history of Scrooge has never been
revealed before and I can't think of anyone better to
tell the story than Don Rosa.

There is also the following regular comics listings for books available in
February.

Donald Duck Adventures #25 - "The Hoard at the Rainbow's End," a 20-page
adventure by Dutch artist Ben Verhagen, is the
featured story this issue. Follow Donald and the
kids as they try to unearth an Asiatic treasure for
Uncle Scrooge.

That sounds interesting. Any of our Dutch readers care to comment on this one?

Uncle Scrooge #285 - Beginning this issue and continuing over the next two
years, Gladstone reprints Don Rosa's anxiously
awaited "Life of Scrooge" series - previously
published in Europe - one chapter each issue for 12
issues. The first chapter details Scrooge's life as
a young duck in Scotland, his dreams of riches and
the acquisition of his "first dime."

2 years!!! Aaaaaaaargggggh! That's way too long, IMHO. Make it monthly!!

WDC&S #590 - "High Flying Picnic" by Daan Jippes tells of Donald's ill-fated
attempts to woo Daisy during a hot-air balloon
outing. Also featured is the final chapter of "The
World of Tomorrow," a Mickey Mouse tale of post-war
anxiety by Bill Walsh and Floyd Gottfredson.

Carl Barks Library of Donald Duck Adventures in Color Vol. 1 - This new
full-color paperback series reprints Carl Barks' Duck
stories from the original Dell "Donald Duck"
four-color and regular series books, as well as
selected tales from other sources. Each book in the
series comes with a trading card depicting a scene
from a story in the accompanying book. These cards
will not be sold separately or in sets. The first
book features "Donald Duck Finds Pirate Gold", from
"Donald Duck Four Color #9," Barks' classic
collaboration with fellow artist Jack Hannah and his
first official Donald Duck adventure.

Anyone know how many volumes in this series? Is it monthly as well? Between
that and the "CBL of WDC&S" I'll be shelling out mucho Duck dollars monthly
over the next few years. And when they do the irregular special (like Xmas
tales, or Gyro), it'll go even higher!!

Carl Barks' Library of Walt Disney's Comics and Stories in Color Vol. 25 -
Reprints WDC&S #160-164.

Hello Mattias,

some comments to your comments:

>There is however two kinds of nothing-but-Barks publications in Sweden: the
>"Kalle Ankas B{stisar" series (translates as approx.: "Donald Duck's Favvies"),
>which is an album format soft-cover series that's been running for at least 15
>or 20 years or something like that. Also there are the "Guldb|ckerna" (The
>Golden Books), subtitled "Gamla, goda {ventyr av Carl Barks" (Good Old Stories
>by CB). These are hardcover, comic-BOOK format and often includes rare or
>never-before translated material, nicely translated, coloured and printed.
>Neither series have any chronological ambitions.
>
The soft-cover series was in Norway Barks-only until some years ago when
they started mixing in other artists. The book series is identical in
Sweden and Norway, but the translations are in my opinion not especially
good, rather the oppsite. I would love to have a Rosa Library, but I fear
we have to wait until they have earned what they may earn on comic book
printings and reprints and scattered albums. The last few days, I reread
all the Rosa stories I had available in English and also searched out all
the Norwegian translations, and I even compared some of the translations (I
was ill so I had to do something easy) and the translations werent that
bad! Please Don, help give us a Rosa album series in Norway, I dont want
that Vicar crap.

> anyhow, I certainly DON'T agree with Geir's
>analysis as it was presented on this list!
>
>Geir: one of your major misconceptions, in my opinion, is of what should and
>does constitute "adult" subject matter in a comic book, and in connection with
>this your notion that Barks' comics was originally intended for an adult
>audience. The latter is, I would say, completely wrong, even by Barks' own
>statements. His comics were exclusively made for the comic book market, which
>in it's turn was aimed at CHILDREN. The newspaper strips of, e.g., Taliaferro
>and Gottfredson is another matter - the newspapers themselves were of course
>primarily adult reading, and there was, I believe, no doubt at the time that
>the daily comic strips were read by young and old alike. But this is not true
>for Barks!

When they started doing comic strips nearly 100 years ago they didnt think
of it as aimed to either adults or children. In the 30s Disney didnt
present his cartoons as something for children, neither was the Gottfredson
/ Taliaferro strips intended that way. The whole time, it was a natural
thing for children to take part in the adults culture, and get whatever
they might out of it. Disney appealed to both adults and children and was
meant that way. The Disney stories / cartoons were not made especially for
children, but of course they appealed especially to children.

When Barks started doing his series, he was well into his 40s and he
thought as people of that generation did, that his stories would be aimed
at both adults and children. Just like fairy-tales. The Disney comic book
started with printing Taliaferro and Gottfredson (etc.) and these strips
were as you said yourselves primarily intended for adults.

50 years ago they didnt have the chasm between childrens entertainment and
adult entertainment which you have today. So when Barks wrote his stories,
he wrote something that adults could fully understand and children
understand up to a certain point. Have a look at that new years resolution
10-pager from 1945 I think where Daisy hits Donald as a result of him
mentioning that she flies off the handle much easier than him. That is what
I call an adult dialogue, intended for adults. Children have no idea of
what is going on or the context for the male chauvinist joke.

I started reading the comics when I was three years old and I can remember
what I felt about them. I was four and a half when I read about the lost
crown of Genghis Khan. I could not understand why the people in the last
panel wanted Scrooge to tell them about Gu. I understood that many years
later. I was six when the square eggs mystery was printed in Norway. I did
not see the fun in Donald being low down in the hierarchy at the museum.
That was an adult thing. The older I got, the more I understood.

I can vividly remember when it dawned upon me that I was no longer reading
the comics with they eyes of Huey, Dewey and Louie, when I realized that I
began to see it all through the eyes of Donald. I now see that in a few
decades, I will possibly even see it all from the viewpoint of Scrooge.

The genius of Barks is shown in (among other things) that he was able to
tell a story so that he did justice to both the adult and the kid in the
story.

I have read Barks aloud for my children for nearly 8 years and we have been
though most of it, I think. I have learnt a lot from that, and shall not
discuss that here. But I have seen that very often, Barks makes fun of
something that only makes sense for an adult.

That Barks during the 50s and 60s had to lower his content because it
became more and more obvious that he was read mostly by children, is a
fact. But that cant hide the fact that he wrote about things that
interested himself and that in many ways cannot be fully understood by a
child, not even an intelligent 12-year old boy (of the Junior Woodchucks).
And that has got to do with the adult dialogues and relations.

>Now, your interpretations of the sexual content in Barks' duck comics can
>basically be viewed from three different, equally possible perspectives:
>
>a) they are the conscious effort of Barks to make statements at the
>allegorical/symbolical level about sex in general and duck-sex in particular.
>If this is true, your analysis (and mine in that dratted article) is
>defendable;

This is what I believe, yes.

>b) they do, without any intent on Barks' part, reflect his subconscious - i.e.
>they have something to tell us, not about the sexual attitudes of Donald Duck,
>but of Carl Barks. This is of course entirely POSSIBLE, but how do you think
>Barks himself would feel about such an attempt at "shrinking" him? This is the
>perspective I myself like the least, and it's because of these ramifications
>that I now disapprove of my own article, too. I think it would be both RUDE and
>also unscientific to try to psychoanalyse Barks as a sexual being on the basis
>of comic books for children, made from 25 to 50 years ago;

I happen to know something about literary criticism. So I have in fact
written to Barks and told him that it is OK for him now to be just adored,
but he cannot defend himself against all possible interpretations of his
works in the future. It will certainly come, and it will not be regarded as
unscientific. Neither do I think it shrinks him. He detested the articles
in the CBL, but in a way started to understand that there was some sense in
them. I have spoken at length with Geoffrey Blum about these things also. I
must say that I have seriously tried to write about how Barks thought when
he worked (not about sex), and I have got some incredibly nice letters from
him about what I have seen, so that I do not think that I am completely far
out on this matter. And I have told Barks that the best thing would be to
have some statements about for instance his depiction of sexual symbols,
before people start to speculate wildly about it. In that letter, I
mentioned explicitly those things mentioned in the Dagbladet interview. He
hasnt answered that yet. I dont think it wild, but it may be done in a rude
way, yes. Rudeness often depends on peoples attitudes, though.

Barks was a serious artist and only serious artists can be analyzed and
discussed. There is nothing to discuss in most Duck stories. Try to say
something about the development in the Murry stories, for instance. I loved
them as a boy and love them still, but they are formulaic, and of very
little depth. Barks gave of himself in his stories, unlike (I think) all
the other Disney artists).

>c) they are projections of your (and in my case, my) dirty mind - what we
>have been analyzing is with some probability, as is often enough I believe the
>case, nothing but ourselves!

Well, yes, of course, but I am not alone about having seen all the things I
have seen, and other people have written about these things also.

>Now, I agree readily enough that Barks as a private person, and of course
>during his tenure at "The Calgary Eye Opener", has often enough given examples
>to show that he, too, could be dirty-minded (I use the word "dirty", not
>because I think sex or related matters are actually just that, but because it
>is the common expression for sexual jokes and innuendos) when he had a mind to,
>but I don't believe that he intentionally carried that into his duck stories,
>with the POSSIBLE exception of the abduction sequence in "Back to the Klondike"
>which I also think has undertones of sexual tension between $crooge and Goldie.
>IF this was intended by Barks, or if it is once again nothing more than what we
>chose to read into it, I don't know. Your other examples, Geir, you'll have to
>pardon the expression; but I find them unequivocal at best or (the "phallic"
>interpretations in particular) even downright silly! Sorry!!!

Barks was continually dirty-minded during the Calagary Eye-Opener period.
He intentionally carried that into his Duck stories. Sometimes I do think
that he intentionally hid it in order to see what he could get away with.
And since you dont seem to know it - the reason for censoring four of the
five pages of Back to the Klondike was that the sexual undertones were too
clear. I dont remember where I read that now but I have it in my archive so
I could try to find the reference. The fifth page was censored because
Scrooge actually did something unlawful.

>Another thing, Geir, about this "Duck Comics Should Be For Adults" thing. I
>don't see what is the problem with aiming comics primarily at children. Barks
>did that, too. The (possible, almost certain) difference between him and the
>policies of the Disney Corporation or e.g. Egmont, is that he never tried to
>talk down to the kids, but rather tried to make stories that would satisfy
>himself. I think this is one of the reasons his work still appeals to so many
>of us, adults and children alike. The same thing could be said about any number
>of writers of childrens books, for instance, of musicians and what-have-you.

As I have said before, the problem of writing for either children or adults
didnt exist (almost) in Barkses formative years. Barks was satisfying
adults also. The reason for me to point out these things is primarily that
I read the stories with new eyes and see the greatness in it from another
viewpoint - why, it is much better for me now than when I was a kid! And I
have met so many people who had fond memories of their childhood Donald
comics, and when I showed them how good they were for adults, nearly all of
them said wow! and rushed to the bank to pay for their own copy of the
Barks Library.

>I could go on, but for the time, this'll have to be it. And Geir: no personal
>offence intended, I assure you! I just don't agree with some of the things you
>have seemed to say recently; and I'm very eager to hear what you think about
>all this.

I love to have controversy and there are no bad feelings with me for your
points of criticism. I am very glad that you took the time to write what
you did and I find it a healthy viewpoint, and with all respect, I am sorry
to say that I mean you have got Barks a little wrong if you want to defend
him from this kind of "psychoanalysis". It would however have been boring
if we couldnt have this kind of discussion between us hardcore Duckfans.

Don:

Have you ever thought of calling the girl scouts Junior Woodchicks? Excuse
me if the pun is bad or if it has been used before, but I couldnt resist
it.

To all:

I just got Barkses schedule in the mail for his visit to Europe next year.
Do you want me to print it in the list or have you all got the info some
way?

Geir Hasnes

"Sudden drop in the activity in these digests, and just *why* is to me,
unknown." ...said David; while Mark figured it's because Don is out of town...

Yeah... or maybe everyone's boss came in, and demanded that SOMETHING else be
done SOMETIMES at least...?! Apart from writing to the list, I mean...

I suppose most of us have access through some kind of "official" computer, at
work or in school or at some university department? Or does a lot of you folks
have to pay up personally, like Don does?

Jes' curious, is all.

Here's one more debate-bait, for anyone who needs something to talk about on
the list: Geir said that he considered Barks was for comics what Shakespeare
was for the drama and Dickens for the novel... I'm not at all sure that I
agree, at least not until that statement is more substantiated. WHY do you
think that, Geir? Does the rest of you agree with Geir, and if - why? Isn't
there quite a few cartoonists that might qualify equally or better than Barks
for that kind of honor? Or did Geir use the Shakespeare/Dickens comparison not
in the literal/literary sense, but in the usual
I-wanna-price-this-guy-highly-so-I'll-compare-him-to-Shakespeare, "this man is
the Rolls-Royce of comics", meaning?

Jes' curious, is all!

Mattias

Here's my two balonian nickels:

Yes, Geir, comic strips and cartoons were not aimed primarily at
children, but comic *books* were, just like Mattias said. It doesn't
matter that they *reprinted* items originally read (perhaps mostly) by
adults. That has been extremely common in children's literature as
well.

> 50 years ago they didnt have the chasm between childrens entertainment and
> adult entertainment which you have today.

There has been a division between entertainment for children and
adults for several hundred years now, and I would say there's been
such a "chasm" for over a hundred years. Certainly Disney comic books
have always been aimed almost exclusively for children (until
Gladstone took over). I'm not sure what you mean by saying that
"children or adults didn't exist (almost) in Barks's formative years".
It's like Barks's formative years was in the Middle Ages or something.
We're talking about rather contemporary stuff here!

> And since you dont seem to know it - the reason for censoring four of the
> five pages of Back to the Klondike was that the sexual undertones were too
> clear. I dont remember where I read that now but I have it in my archive so
> I could try to find the reference. The fifth page was censored because
> Scrooge actually did something unlawful.

I don't know what what kind of references there could be that would
tell for sure why or why not something was censored. Barks himself
has written that "the sequence was cut becaus of violence and dance
hall atmosphere", but of course, he wasn't the one who cut it out.

> Have you [Don] ever thought of calling the girl scouts Junior
> Woodchicks? Excuse me if the pun is bad or if it has been used
> before, but I couldnt resist it.

But they already have a name! They're The Littlest Chickadees.

> I just got Barkses schedule in the mail for his visit to Europe next year.
> Do you want me to print it in the list or have you all got the info some
> way?

I don't have it. I don't think NAFS(k) has it at all. John Nicholson
was going to send it to us, but because of some reason he didn't want
to fax it, so we'll have to wait for the mail I think. Please post
it!
-- "
Per Starback, Uppsala, Sweden. email: starback at student.docs.uu.se
"Life is but a gamble! Let flipism chart your ramble!"

David Gerstein:
> Well, that's all for now. Sudden drop in the activity in
>these digests, and just *why* is to me, unknown.

Mark Semich:
> Probably because Don Rosa is out of town :-)

And Harry Fluks. And I've been pretty busy elsewhere. There's no
surprise that shows, because that's some of the most frequent posters
here. In October there were 214 messages, most of which came from

1. David Gerstein 36
2. Per Starback 28
3. Mattias Hallin 26
4. Don Rosa 22
5. Mark Semich 17
6. Torsten Adair 15
7. Harry Fluks 14
8. Fredrik Ekman 13
9. Even Flood 6
10. Chris Clawton 5
(and 15 other posters)

--
Per