Dear Folks,
The following message is for Fabio Gadducci. I don't have access to his
address, so I'll just send it to the list.
I'm now using my Dad's e-mail address, but this is the last time I will be
checking it for mail. It seems to me that you have not yet sent the
translation for pages 10 and 17 of "The Mars Mystery." So when you send
them to me, you can send them to my usual address:
David.A.Gerstein at Williams.edu
I look forward to receiving it. Hope you've had a good Christmas and that
you'll have a happy 1994.
Your friend,
David Gerstein
Author
Topic: 199401
(189 messages)
Larry Gerstein
No subject
Message 1 -
1994-01-01 at 03:33:09
Per Starback
Cover credits
Message 2 -
1994-01-02 at 01:13:52
Don wrote:
> [Disney] wanted to put my name on the cover of the issue that
> reprinted "Return to Xanadu", but I said that I would decline having
> my name on a cover before Barks had his name on a cover. I think
> Barks and I shared that honor of being the first people to get cover
> credits on a Disney comic on UNCLE $CROOGE #275, when I wasn't
> looking (unless I'm mistaken).
Here in Sweden Unca Carl has been credited on the cover of the
so-called "Golden Books" at least (since 1984). Those are pretty
thick books with hard covers. I'm not sure Carl would *want* to get
cover credits. In a way he might feel that the publishers are using
*his* name to increase sells with him getting nothing out of it, or
something like that. Here is an interesting (although somewhat old)
letter that I somehow have gotten a copy of:
Walt Disney Productions
CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIVISION
P-450 R-1
To ____ALL MARKETING MANAGERS____ Date _____May 13, 1986______
From __WAYNE MORRIS______________ Subject __Carl Barks________
CM #27
This is to make you aware of a situation that has developed
relative to the use of the name and likeness of Carl Barks.
As you are all aware, our licensee, Another Rainbow, is
producing a series of 30 books called THE CARL BARKS LIBRARY.
This series will contain mostly black and white reprints of
virtually all the Disney character comics stories created by
Carl Barks for Western Publishing. The series also includes a
great deal of biographical material on Carl as well as a
number of recent interviews. Another Rainbow is paying us the
usual full royalty on this series. As Carl has contributed a
great deal of his time and new material to this series,
Another Rainbow is paying him a royalty as well.
A recently proposed European reprint of this series proved
upsetting to Carl. So much so that he made it clear to us
that he would seek redress through the courts for any reprints
of the series done without his approval and, of course,
revenue participation.
It is our position that we may use Carl Bark's [sic! /PS] name
in connection with any of the material he created relating to
our characters. Your publishers may, if they wish, use Carl's
name on the cover of any book or magazine containing a
collection of stories he produced for Western. You may not,
however, use a picture of Carl on the cover of any book or
magazine without his permission. It is our position that you
may use one previously published portrait of Carl, or a
picture of him at his drawing board creating Disney character
art, on the inside of the book or magazine. You may use any
biographical material on Carl that has already appeared in
print _other_ than material contained in Another Rainbow's
CARL BARKS LIBRARY. Much of that material is from recent
interviews. You may use Carl's name on any advertising done
for a book but you may _not_ use his picture on any
advertising.
From this point on, please send us, prior to publication,
copies of any book or magazine covers or inside pages as well
as any advertising which will feature Carl's name, likeness or
biographical material.
WM:gs
cc: Wendall Mohler
Greg Crosby
Robyn Tynan
David Cleghorn
--(end of quote)--
I bet it mostly was the Another Rainbow people who was upset!
-- "
Per Starback, Uppsala, Sweden. email: starback at minsk.docs.uu.se
"Life is but a gamble! Let flipism chart your ramble!"
> [Disney] wanted to put my name on the cover of the issue that
> reprinted "Return to Xanadu", but I said that I would decline having
> my name on a cover before Barks had his name on a cover. I think
> Barks and I shared that honor of being the first people to get cover
> credits on a Disney comic on UNCLE $CROOGE #275, when I wasn't
> looking (unless I'm mistaken).
Here in Sweden Unca Carl has been credited on the cover of the
so-called "Golden Books" at least (since 1984). Those are pretty
thick books with hard covers. I'm not sure Carl would *want* to get
cover credits. In a way he might feel that the publishers are using
*his* name to increase sells with him getting nothing out of it, or
something like that. Here is an interesting (although somewhat old)
letter that I somehow have gotten a copy of:
Walt Disney Productions
CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIVISION
P-450 R-1
To ____ALL MARKETING MANAGERS____ Date _____May 13, 1986______
From __WAYNE MORRIS______________ Subject __Carl Barks________
CM #27
This is to make you aware of a situation that has developed
relative to the use of the name and likeness of Carl Barks.
As you are all aware, our licensee, Another Rainbow, is
producing a series of 30 books called THE CARL BARKS LIBRARY.
This series will contain mostly black and white reprints of
virtually all the Disney character comics stories created by
Carl Barks for Western Publishing. The series also includes a
great deal of biographical material on Carl as well as a
number of recent interviews. Another Rainbow is paying us the
usual full royalty on this series. As Carl has contributed a
great deal of his time and new material to this series,
Another Rainbow is paying him a royalty as well.
A recently proposed European reprint of this series proved
upsetting to Carl. So much so that he made it clear to us
that he would seek redress through the courts for any reprints
of the series done without his approval and, of course,
revenue participation.
It is our position that we may use Carl Bark's [sic! /PS] name
in connection with any of the material he created relating to
our characters. Your publishers may, if they wish, use Carl's
name on the cover of any book or magazine containing a
collection of stories he produced for Western. You may not,
however, use a picture of Carl on the cover of any book or
magazine without his permission. It is our position that you
may use one previously published portrait of Carl, or a
picture of him at his drawing board creating Disney character
art, on the inside of the book or magazine. You may use any
biographical material on Carl that has already appeared in
print _other_ than material contained in Another Rainbow's
CARL BARKS LIBRARY. Much of that material is from recent
interviews. You may use Carl's name on any advertising done
for a book but you may _not_ use his picture on any
advertising.
From this point on, please send us, prior to publication,
copies of any book or magazine covers or inside pages as well
as any advertising which will feature Carl's name, likeness or
biographical material.
WM:gs
cc: Wendall Mohler
Greg Crosby
Robyn Tynan
David Cleghorn
--(end of quote)--
I bet it mostly was the Another Rainbow people who was upset!
-- "
Per Starback, Uppsala, Sweden. email: starback at minsk.docs.uu.se
"Life is but a gamble! Let flipism chart your ramble!"
Per Starback
Don's Duck Family Tree
Message 3 -
1994-01-02 at 02:01:15
It's published in Sweden now, in the first issue of the Donald Duck
weekly this new year. I don't buy new Swedish comic books very often,
but I did an exception in this case. It's a pull-out poster and only
half of the portraits are there. The rest of them are white spots
where you are supposed to put the rest of them yourself as they come
as stickers in the upcoming issues. ("Collect them all!")
Too bad it wasn't published all at the same time, but it looks nice
anyway. Pretty easy to find the D.U.C.K. too!
Don is not credited, and the accompanying text says that there are
several views on the relationship between the ducks, and that this
tree presents one comic book artist's version of the family tree "to a
great extent using Carl Barks's own ideas and sketches". They haven't
bothered to try to explain why this tree doesn't correspond to how the
characters always have been related in the Swedish text. (Donald
being HDL's paternal uncle and Scrooge being Donald's paternal uncle,
not maternal.)
When Mattias earlier said that he had some unspecified minor critique
(did you ever get back to that, Mattias?) of the tree, Don wrote
> whatever it is, I'm blameless! That was strictly Barks or others,
> and all I did was create some faces to link grandparents to
> grandchildren or uncles to nephews or such. I did make Grandma Duck a
> Coot, but I think that was rather good, especially as it gave her a
> spot in the "Life" series. I wanted to make Ludwig Von Drake the
> husband of $crooge's sister Matilda, but I was vetoed by everyone...
> likewise, I don't regard Fethry as a "real" character, but they told
> me to stick him in there since he's sooooo popular in Europe.
and you've mentioned before that you ignored Barks's note that
Gladstone was adopted by Matilda and her (ignored) husband Goosetave
Gander. (I guess that means you changed Luke the Goose's name to be
Luke Gander? I can't check as the names of course are translated.)
But there yet one more change, isn't it? In Barks's notes from the
fifties Gus Goose is a nephew of that Luke (and thus not really
related to the ducks at all), but in your tree he has a completely
different position. What's your reasoning behind that?
-- "
Per Starback, Uppsala, Sweden. email: starback at minsk.docs.uu.se
"Life is but a gamble! Let flipism chart your ramble!"
weekly this new year. I don't buy new Swedish comic books very often,
but I did an exception in this case. It's a pull-out poster and only
half of the portraits are there. The rest of them are white spots
where you are supposed to put the rest of them yourself as they come
as stickers in the upcoming issues. ("Collect them all!")
Too bad it wasn't published all at the same time, but it looks nice
anyway. Pretty easy to find the D.U.C.K. too!
Don is not credited, and the accompanying text says that there are
several views on the relationship between the ducks, and that this
tree presents one comic book artist's version of the family tree "to a
great extent using Carl Barks's own ideas and sketches". They haven't
bothered to try to explain why this tree doesn't correspond to how the
characters always have been related in the Swedish text. (Donald
being HDL's paternal uncle and Scrooge being Donald's paternal uncle,
not maternal.)
When Mattias earlier said that he had some unspecified minor critique
(did you ever get back to that, Mattias?) of the tree, Don wrote
> whatever it is, I'm blameless! That was strictly Barks or others,
> and all I did was create some faces to link grandparents to
> grandchildren or uncles to nephews or such. I did make Grandma Duck a
> Coot, but I think that was rather good, especially as it gave her a
> spot in the "Life" series. I wanted to make Ludwig Von Drake the
> husband of $crooge's sister Matilda, but I was vetoed by everyone...
> likewise, I don't regard Fethry as a "real" character, but they told
> me to stick him in there since he's sooooo popular in Europe.
and you've mentioned before that you ignored Barks's note that
Gladstone was adopted by Matilda and her (ignored) husband Goosetave
Gander. (I guess that means you changed Luke the Goose's name to be
Luke Gander? I can't check as the names of course are translated.)
But there yet one more change, isn't it? In Barks's notes from the
fifties Gus Goose is a nephew of that Luke (and thus not really
related to the ducks at all), but in your tree he has a completely
different position. What's your reasoning behind that?
-- "
Per Starback, Uppsala, Sweden. email: starback at minsk.docs.uu.se
"Life is but a gamble! Let flipism chart your ramble!"
Tryg Helseth
Giving credit where credit is due.
Message 4 -
1994-01-02 at 02:16:58
On 30 Dec 93 01:13:39 EST, Don Rosa wrote:
>When Hamilton was originally bargaining to get the license in 1986, he gave
>in to many of Disney's archaic attitudes, but one thing he INSISTED on in
>spite of Disney's refusals was that writer and artist credits would be
>given. When Disney took over, they couldn't very well stop giving art
Well you do learn things here you wouldn't read in the paper! Since
Gladstone comics were the first the give credit, I had guessed that
Hamilton had something to do with it. I didn't know that Disney put up
such a fight against it, but I'm not surprised.
>when Disney gave foreign credits for the reprints, they would imply that
>it was all new material being done just for Disney Comics.
Yeah, if you didn't recognize the artist names or material you sure were
left with that impression.
>that I would decline having my name on a cover before Barks had his name
>on a cover. I think Barks and I shared that honor of being the first
>people to get cover credits on a Disney comic on UNCLE $CROOGE #275,
>when I wasn't looking (unless I'm mistaken).
Yep, that's the one. In the lower left-hand corner it says, "In this
issue: Carl Barks and Don Rosa!"
>I hear) to European laws that say that if a writer or artist gets
>printed credits he then gains some form of ownership in his own creation
>(an idea intolerable to Disney!).
Disney Corporation is a jealous god... :)
Tryg Heseth <tryve at maroon.tc.umn.edu>
"I wish the all could be Calisota Ducks!" -The Beach Drakes
>When Hamilton was originally bargaining to get the license in 1986, he gave
>in to many of Disney's archaic attitudes, but one thing he INSISTED on in
>spite of Disney's refusals was that writer and artist credits would be
>given. When Disney took over, they couldn't very well stop giving art
Well you do learn things here you wouldn't read in the paper! Since
Gladstone comics were the first the give credit, I had guessed that
Hamilton had something to do with it. I didn't know that Disney put up
such a fight against it, but I'm not surprised.
>when Disney gave foreign credits for the reprints, they would imply that
>it was all new material being done just for Disney Comics.
Yeah, if you didn't recognize the artist names or material you sure were
left with that impression.
>that I would decline having my name on a cover before Barks had his name
>on a cover. I think Barks and I shared that honor of being the first
>people to get cover credits on a Disney comic on UNCLE $CROOGE #275,
>when I wasn't looking (unless I'm mistaken).
Yep, that's the one. In the lower left-hand corner it says, "In this
issue: Carl Barks and Don Rosa!"
>I hear) to European laws that say that if a writer or artist gets
>printed credits he then gains some form of ownership in his own creation
>(an idea intolerable to Disney!).
Disney Corporation is a jealous god... :)
Tryg Heseth <tryve at maroon.tc.umn.edu>
"I wish the all could be Calisota Ducks!" -The Beach Drakes
Wilmer Rivers
More credit where it's due
Message 5 -
1994-01-02 at 08:13:19
Don Rosa writes:
> When I went to work for Egmont in 1990, they soon thereafter
> started printing full credits in all the European Egmont countries (I'm
> not sure if my presence had anything to do with it -- it was never
> something I asked them for), but Disney soon demanded they stop due (so
> I hear) to European laws that say that if a writer or artist gets
> printed credits he then gains some form of ownership in his own creation
> (an idea intolerable to Disney!).
I can just see it now: "Mickey's Christmas Carol! Starring characters
from the Walt Disney Corporation! Story, dialog, and art copyrighted by
the Walt Disney Corporation! Based on a concept by a dead English guy."
Or am I being just a bit **too* cynical?
Wilmer Rivers
> When I went to work for Egmont in 1990, they soon thereafter
> started printing full credits in all the European Egmont countries (I'm
> not sure if my presence had anything to do with it -- it was never
> something I asked them for), but Disney soon demanded they stop due (so
> I hear) to European laws that say that if a writer or artist gets
> printed credits he then gains some form of ownership in his own creation
> (an idea intolerable to Disney!).
I can just see it now: "Mickey's Christmas Carol! Starring characters
from the Walt Disney Corporation! Story, dialog, and art copyrighted by
the Walt Disney Corporation! Based on a concept by a dead English guy."
Or am I being just a bit **too* cynical?
Wilmer Rivers
Don Rosa
+Postage Due+Disney-comics digest #200.
Message 6 -
1994-01-02 at 09:01:44
PER:
re: my Duck Family Tree. Yes, I know it was just used in Sweden
as I received a call from a Swedish newspaper on Thursday about it. I
would have worried a bit about whether my version would correspond to
foreign versions, but I had no idea that when one made a reference in
some/all European languages to an aunt or uncle or grandparent that the
lineage of that relative (maternal or paternal) was contained in the
name. In English we have no such distinction. So I never dreamed that
anyone had any preconceived idea as to whether HDL were related to
Donald by their father or that $crooge was Donald's father's brother,
according to the Euro texts. This would seem to show some sexist
attitudes that it's always the paternal relatives that are more
desireable or important? At any rate, though I would have worried, I
wouldn't have done it differently. I may rag on American tastes and
mores a lot, but when it comes to the Ducks it's ONLY the American
version that is correct -- any variations to that version are all
incorrect if it comes to push and shove. (It never came to push and
shove until I started screwing with it.)
I don't have Barks' family tree in front of me right now... but
the only change(s) I recall making were in order to avoid the needless
business of Gladstone's parents dying and him being adopted by another
relative; and, in fact, in a brief (and the only half-way amiable)
correspondence I had with Barks, he sent me a NEW version of his idea
of the Family Tree and he had forgotten the adoption/death stuff also.
The problem was that if I dropped the adoption bit, I had to move
Goostave Gander over to marry Daphne, or Gladstone's name would be
Gladstone GOOSE. I'd hafta look back to see what it was that you're
referring to me doing with Gus, but I thought I left the relationships
the same, but simply changed some names, again due to the switching
caused by simplifying Gladstone's history. I know that I left one
distant relative off the tree as being too difficult to include:
Goostave's ancestor (I think the sister of his mother?) Susiebelle Swan,
that Mattias riminded me of. Did you have a specific question about the
tree or have I not correctly answered about something I changed? Just
ask... it was a year or so ago, but it was all CAREFULLY thought out
with all options weighed.
As for the business of Barks objecting to his name appearing in
foreign editions, please do NOT blame Another Rainbow or Bruce Hamilton
for these complaints being filed. As you'll see now that Barks has
formed his own "studio", there will be far more of this sort of thing
from now on. Carl Barks, as I think Geir stated, is one of the 20th
Century's greatest storytellers and a man whose work I admire so much
that I liquidated my own family's 85 year old company in order to
follow. But apparently he seems to have never had any affection for the
Ducks and seems to be, to either a small or large degree, somewhat
scornful of adult comic fans, his sole interest in them being how to
profit from them. And this perhaps explains why he resents my doing
stories that lean too much on his creations. But whether or not these
are noble emotions, he deserves every penny and ten times more that he
can get from his modern efforts since it can never approach what Disney
owes him for the hundreds of millions (perhaps billions?) of dollars
that Disney and its licensees have made for 50 years off comics based
almost solely on Barks' creations.
re: my Duck Family Tree. Yes, I know it was just used in Sweden
as I received a call from a Swedish newspaper on Thursday about it. I
would have worried a bit about whether my version would correspond to
foreign versions, but I had no idea that when one made a reference in
some/all European languages to an aunt or uncle or grandparent that the
lineage of that relative (maternal or paternal) was contained in the
name. In English we have no such distinction. So I never dreamed that
anyone had any preconceived idea as to whether HDL were related to
Donald by their father or that $crooge was Donald's father's brother,
according to the Euro texts. This would seem to show some sexist
attitudes that it's always the paternal relatives that are more
desireable or important? At any rate, though I would have worried, I
wouldn't have done it differently. I may rag on American tastes and
mores a lot, but when it comes to the Ducks it's ONLY the American
version that is correct -- any variations to that version are all
incorrect if it comes to push and shove. (It never came to push and
shove until I started screwing with it.)
I don't have Barks' family tree in front of me right now... but
the only change(s) I recall making were in order to avoid the needless
business of Gladstone's parents dying and him being adopted by another
relative; and, in fact, in a brief (and the only half-way amiable)
correspondence I had with Barks, he sent me a NEW version of his idea
of the Family Tree and he had forgotten the adoption/death stuff also.
The problem was that if I dropped the adoption bit, I had to move
Goostave Gander over to marry Daphne, or Gladstone's name would be
Gladstone GOOSE. I'd hafta look back to see what it was that you're
referring to me doing with Gus, but I thought I left the relationships
the same, but simply changed some names, again due to the switching
caused by simplifying Gladstone's history. I know that I left one
distant relative off the tree as being too difficult to include:
Goostave's ancestor (I think the sister of his mother?) Susiebelle Swan,
that Mattias riminded me of. Did you have a specific question about the
tree or have I not correctly answered about something I changed? Just
ask... it was a year or so ago, but it was all CAREFULLY thought out
with all options weighed.
As for the business of Barks objecting to his name appearing in
foreign editions, please do NOT blame Another Rainbow or Bruce Hamilton
for these complaints being filed. As you'll see now that Barks has
formed his own "studio", there will be far more of this sort of thing
from now on. Carl Barks, as I think Geir stated, is one of the 20th
Century's greatest storytellers and a man whose work I admire so much
that I liquidated my own family's 85 year old company in order to
follow. But apparently he seems to have never had any affection for the
Ducks and seems to be, to either a small or large degree, somewhat
scornful of adult comic fans, his sole interest in them being how to
profit from them. And this perhaps explains why he resents my doing
stories that lean too much on his creations. But whether or not these
are noble emotions, he deserves every penny and ten times more that he
can get from his modern efforts since it can never approach what Disney
owes him for the hundreds of millions (perhaps billions?) of dollars
that Disney and its licensees have made for 50 years off comics based
almost solely on Barks' creations.
Don Rosa
Disney-comics digest #200.
Message 7 -
1994-01-02 at 09:07:49
PER:
Oh, and as to that cover credits, I failed to mention just now
that when I referred to no one having ever gotten cover credit, I was
referring to comic books, which (in America) refers only to the lil'
pamphlet magazines, not BOOKS (regardless of the name!). Of course,
Barks has received cover credit on books and albums for some years now.
This also refered to Sweden in that (so I'm told) no one had ever gotten
cover credit on the weekly magazines; again, I wasn't referring to books
or albums just because I said comic BOOKS. Confusing languages, eh? You
know how I feel about this maternal/paternal relative's title bizniz!
Oh, and as to that cover credits, I failed to mention just now
that when I referred to no one having ever gotten cover credit, I was
referring to comic books, which (in America) refers only to the lil'
pamphlet magazines, not BOOKS (regardless of the name!). Of course,
Barks has received cover credit on books and albums for some years now.
This also refered to Sweden in that (so I'm told) no one had ever gotten
cover credit on the weekly magazines; again, I wasn't referring to books
or albums just because I said comic BOOKS. Confusing languages, eh? You
know how I feel about this maternal/paternal relative's title bizniz!
Per Starback
Replies to Don
Message 8 -
1994-01-02 at 15:11:22
Duck Family Tree
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, of course only the American version is correct. I didn't mean
that you should have taken translations in consideration, but I think
that perhaps the Swedish editors should have added some short
explanation of this is the accompanying text. I think lots of
9-year-olds will be confused! I know I would have been.
That NEW version of Barks's tree sounds interesting. I guess the
change regarding Gus Goose happened then as you don't remember
changing it.
As for Susiebelle Swan, it's not evident from the story ("The Gilded
Man", for those who don't know who we're talking about) how she is
related to Gladstone, except that she is a "distant relative", so I
don't think she was sister of his mother. Except being too close a
relative to be "distant" she's older than that. After all that letter
to her was postmarked 1856!
Cover credits
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, I sort of figured that you meant comic books, and I think it's
true (I think) that noone ever has had cover credits on them over
here. Those cover are too crowded with stuff about stickers inside
and things like that, so there's almost no space left for the cover
art, even!
-- "
Per Starback, Uppsala, Sweden. email: starback at minsk.docs.uu.se
"His Majesty's mail is *delivered*,
even if it *is* ninety-six years late!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, of course only the American version is correct. I didn't mean
that you should have taken translations in consideration, but I think
that perhaps the Swedish editors should have added some short
explanation of this is the accompanying text. I think lots of
9-year-olds will be confused! I know I would have been.
That NEW version of Barks's tree sounds interesting. I guess the
change regarding Gus Goose happened then as you don't remember
changing it.
As for Susiebelle Swan, it's not evident from the story ("The Gilded
Man", for those who don't know who we're talking about) how she is
related to Gladstone, except that she is a "distant relative", so I
don't think she was sister of his mother. Except being too close a
relative to be "distant" she's older than that. After all that letter
to her was postmarked 1856!
Cover credits
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, I sort of figured that you meant comic books, and I think it's
true (I think) that noone ever has had cover credits on them over
here. Those cover are too crowded with stuff about stickers inside
and things like that, so there's almost no space left for the cover
art, even!
-- "
Per Starback, Uppsala, Sweden. email: starback at minsk.docs.uu.se
"His Majesty's mail is *delivered*,
even if it *is* ninety-six years late!"
Harry Fluks
New issues
Message 9 -
1994-01-03 at 11:08:32
Last year (i.e. last week), I bought some new Dutch and American Disney comics.
I'll give some loose remarks, to start the year with.
Gladstone's Donald Duck #283 has the following text on the cover:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A BRAND NEW DON ROSA OLYMPICS STORY INSIDE!
So this one slipped through, too, Don?
The story, "From Duckburg to Lillehammer", is of the usual Rosa quality. And
Don may claim he can't draw ducks, but I have seen noone else that draws the
nephews in a way he does on page 10 (bottom row). Excellent!
The rest of the comic is filled with Osborne/Taliaferro strips from 1937.
Dutch Donald Duck Extra 1993-13 features a Van Horn story (Fredrik: it's
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
D 92144). The translators start with a quote in the opening panel:
"Everything's quiet in town! Except in Duck's house but that is
normal... (C. Barks)"
This must be the first time they put a Barks quote PLUS his name in a Dutch
Disney comic... The Dutch have used this quote for years in ads for DD Weekly.
I can't exactly remember which story it was from, and I know the English is
not accurate (it's re-translated Dutch).
--Harry.
Harry PTT Research ()_() Dutch Disney comics freak
Fluks Leidschendam (_) H.W.Fluks at research.ptt.nl
I'll give some loose remarks, to start the year with.
Gladstone's Donald Duck #283 has the following text on the cover:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A BRAND NEW DON ROSA OLYMPICS STORY INSIDE!
So this one slipped through, too, Don?
The story, "From Duckburg to Lillehammer", is of the usual Rosa quality. And
Don may claim he can't draw ducks, but I have seen noone else that draws the
nephews in a way he does on page 10 (bottom row). Excellent!
The rest of the comic is filled with Osborne/Taliaferro strips from 1937.
Dutch Donald Duck Extra 1993-13 features a Van Horn story (Fredrik: it's
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
D 92144). The translators start with a quote in the opening panel:
"Everything's quiet in town! Except in Duck's house but that is
normal... (C. Barks)"
This must be the first time they put a Barks quote PLUS his name in a Dutch
Disney comic... The Dutch have used this quote for years in ads for DD Weekly.
I can't exactly remember which story it was from, and I know the English is
not accurate (it's re-translated Dutch).
--Harry.
Harry PTT Research ()_() Dutch Disney comics freak
Fluks Leidschendam (_) H.W.Fluks at research.ptt.nl
Harry Fluks
Don't mention the artist...
Message 10 -
1994-01-03 at 11:17:22
"
Per Starback:
> Here is an interesting (although somewhat old)
> letter that I somehow have gotten a copy of:
>
> Walt Disney Productions
> CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIVISION
> P-450 R-1
>
> To ____ALL MARKETING MANAGERS____ Date _____May 13, 1986______
> >From __WAYNE MORRIS______________ Subject __Carl Barks________
> (...)
This perfectly explains what happened in Holland: they started to publish
a b/w album series under the name "All stories by Carl Barks". After the
3rd issue (1987), the series was renamed to "All classic stories". The
Dutch must have gotten this letter too.
--Harry.
Harry PTT Research ()_() Dutch Disney comics freak
Fluks Leidschendam (_) H.W.Fluks at research.ptt.nl
Per Starback:
> Here is an interesting (although somewhat old)
> letter that I somehow have gotten a copy of:
>
> Walt Disney Productions
> CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIVISION
> P-450 R-1
>
> To ____ALL MARKETING MANAGERS____ Date _____May 13, 1986______
> >From __WAYNE MORRIS______________ Subject __Carl Barks________
> (...)
This perfectly explains what happened in Holland: they started to publish
a b/w album series under the name "All stories by Carl Barks". After the
3rd issue (1987), the series was renamed to "All classic stories". The
Dutch must have gotten this letter too.
--Harry.
Harry PTT Research ()_() Dutch Disney comics freak
Fluks Leidschendam (_) H.W.Fluks at research.ptt.nl
Mattias Hallin
Happy Days - I'm here again!
Message 11 -
1994-01-03 at 17:43:39
Hiya, y'all!
Here's lookin' at you (and you and you and you...) and hoping
the holidays has agreed with you, and that the new year has started well...
PER:
"Klaxon" betyder ungef{r sis}d{r "signalhorn", "siren" (typ luftv{rn),
n}nting }t det h}llet - men det hade du kanske redan slagit upp?!
PER and DON:
I have some, and might have further, comments to the Duck Family
Tree (and, No; I never got back to that point of possible minor criticism - but
I'll check it out this time); but they'll have to wait another day or so - I
have to buy the Kalle Anka & C:o issue with the published tree first, and check
a few old letters and various references back home - but I'll be sure to get
back to you.
And, anyway, this'll be a busy week, workwise, for me; so I might not have all
the time available right away to comment the ten-day back-log of mail I sifted
this morning - but I'll try to squeeze it into the coffee-break...
All me best - s'long!
Mattias
Here's lookin' at you (and you and you and you...) and hoping
the holidays has agreed with you, and that the new year has started well...
PER:
"Klaxon" betyder ungef{r sis}d{r "signalhorn", "siren" (typ luftv{rn),
n}nting }t det h}llet - men det hade du kanske redan slagit upp?!
PER and DON:
I have some, and might have further, comments to the Duck Family
Tree (and, No; I never got back to that point of possible minor criticism - but
I'll check it out this time); but they'll have to wait another day or so - I
have to buy the Kalle Anka & C:o issue with the published tree first, and check
a few old letters and various references back home - but I'll be sure to get
back to you.
And, anyway, this'll be a busy week, workwise, for me; so I might not have all
the time available right away to comment the ten-day back-log of mail I sifted
this morning - but I'll try to squeeze it into the coffee-break...
All me best - s'long!
Mattias
Tryg Helseth
Being for the benefit of Unca Carl
Message 12 -
1994-01-04 at 01:43:07
On 02 Jan 94 02:01:44 EST, Don Rosa wrote:
>But apparently [Barks] seems to have never had any affection for the
>Ducks and seems to be, to either a small or large degree, somewhat
>scornful of adult comic fans, his sole interest in them being how to
>profit from them.
That makes sense... After all, he need to build up a little nest egg for
whenever he decides to retire... :>
Tryg Heseth <tryve at maroon.tc.umn.edu>
"I wish the all could be Calisota Ducks!" -The Beach Drakes
>But apparently [Barks] seems to have never had any affection for the
>Ducks and seems to be, to either a small or large degree, somewhat
>scornful of adult comic fans, his sole interest in them being how to
>profit from them.
That makes sense... After all, he need to build up a little nest egg for
whenever he decides to retire... :>
Tryg Heseth <tryve at maroon.tc.umn.edu>
"I wish the all could be Calisota Ducks!" -The Beach Drakes
David A Gerstein
Happy New Year, Folks! and some replies
Message 13 -
1994-01-04 at 03:30:10
Hi, Gang!
Glad to be back! I've just (gasp!) scoured all the digests
which came out while I was away, and it's a thrill to see that I'm not
the only person who can indulge in really LO-OOO-ONG letters...
(that's not a criticism, I prefer to read longer ones!)
I'll tackle the points one by one.
TRYG: I love the quote from the "Beach Drakes" you end with,
but you say, "I wish the all could...", and though my old recording of
the Drakes is a little fuzzy since the time my 45 to "The Screaming
Cowboy" brought my record shelf to the ground, I think the quote is,
"I wish THEY all could be Calisota Ducks!"
MICKEY'S INFERNO: This 1949 Italian story by Martina and
Bioletto is ABSOLUTELY and COMPLETELY banned from American comics.
Long ago I actually got Xeroxes from Disney-Burbank's file copy, and
they have stencilled over every page, NOT FOR REPRINT! That out of
the way, though, I can't say it's a great story: I find it very
slow-moving and meandering. Much like the "Goofy Midas" story from
Jaime Diaz, although I think the "Inferno" is better-drawn and more
creative.
THE CHARACTERS AS ACTORS: Yep, Gottfredson's strip made it
clear on multiple occasions that Mickey earned money between
adventures by being an actor at the Disney studios. The studio's
Mouseton division is shown as being a live-action studio -- no mention
of the films as cartoons is made.
I find nothing wrong with OCCASIONAL films in which the
characters play roles, as long as the roles are chosen so that their
REAL personalities can show. That was excellently done in "The Prince
and the Pauper," which I found to be very like "one of the films Mickey
and Goofy made between adventures". On the other hand, I loved
"Mickey's Christmas Carol" on its initial release, but I now feel that
some characters -- particularly Donald and Goofy -- have inadequate
roles. I actually don't find Uncle Scrooge's role so jarring; you'll
note that Bruce Hamilton liked it enough to use art from the Christmas
Carol film here and there in his _U$ in Color_ book. I consider it
far less likely that Scrooge would be an actor than that Donald or
especially Mickey would take such a job, but I have to take the film
as a "what-if" after SOME point.
I find that when Disney characters are shown in films where
they have roles other than their "Mouseton/Duckburg" or "normal"
personas, a real effort is made to shape the role to some view of the
character's personality. "Brave Little Tailor" was a role made for
Mickey, and though I know it didn't "really" happen to him (in the
fictional "normal" persona), I still enjoy it as a product of "Mickey
given an acting role that is very like his "real" personality". In
"The Prince and the Pauper," Donald's role was of course nothing like
his "real" existence; but within the role, he acted just like the
1937 Donald.
I find very few examples of characters playing a role and
losing their personality completely. The major examples are Donald in
the "Christmas Carol" and Horace in "Prince and the Pauper." In that
latter film Horace's voice was the same as it used to be, but his
entire personality was different than ever before. That's an example
of doing things the WRONG way. This wasn't the boisterous,
imaginative Horace of the old MM cartoons and strips. But by and
large, I can accept the idea of doing classic stories with the Disney
characters, if care is taken.
That's one reason I don't like the Diaz Goofy "history"
stories so much. Mickey is a COMPLETE nonentity -- perhaps more so
than in any other creator's work -- and so he's given ANY role. The
idea being that when you get down to it, the Disney characters are
blank slates. WRONG.
I view the Mickey of Gottfredson's strip and of the pre-1942
cartoons (the ones set in Mouseton, I mean, not the set-pieces of the
"Tailor" variety) as the "real" Mickey. This isn't Mickey playing a
role, but the "real" Mickey, or else a re-enactment with a few
theatrical embellishments of something that happened to the "real"
Mickey.
When it comes to the Ducks it's more difficult. I view the
Barks Ducks, and the pre-1948 Taliaferro Ducks, as being the REAL
Donald. For depictions of "Donald playing a role" to succeed, to me
they must give the Duck a role that exploits his personality. I don't
think that Disney Animation views the characters as ultimately blank
slates, with the possible and very dangerous exception of Mickey.
DD 283: Notice how the first strip featuring the Nephews,
last printed in 1987's WDC&S 522, is absent this time around. I asked
John Clark what you guys are thinking. Yep. MAYBE in the 60th-
anniversary issue, but current status unknown. A shame, since I
REALLY wanted this one with the good, new color.
DD 283's ROSA STORY: Don, I actually quite liked this story!
I'm surprised you thought it so poor... the only thing I thought wrong
with it was that the location moved to Lillehammer quite a ways from
the end of the story, so I was surprised when it seemed that the only
reason for going to Lillehammer was to facilitate the single closing
gag. I wouldn't have minded more activities for the Ducks there (if
Donald's bill could take it!).
BTW: Since Donald seemed to take his injuries in stride in
this story, they were not agonizing vis-a-vis your more realistic
style. I like this.
DD 60TH ANNIVERSARY ISSUE: This comic will be not part of the
regular DD or DDA series, but a special comic issued outside of the
usual lineup. My dialogue for Mau Heymans' story "A Plot Against
Donald" is now in, and same for Pedrocchi's "Secret on Mars" is well
on its way. All this and Rosa's story, too! But now back to
THE SECRET ON MARS: This is to be the official title of the
Pedrocchi story as it'll appear in English. I find this story to have
a VERY advanced version of Donald. The story starts deceptively like
a Taliaferro Sunday strip, but before it's over Donald has shown a
type of courage that is strongly reminiscent of the Vacation Parade #1
story. This is a GOOD, VERY Barks-like version of Donald, and I think
that it solidly establishes that the idea of a rounded Donald existed
long before Barks developed it (with no knowledge of Pedrocchi, you
can be sure).
I don't know if more Pedrocchi stories are to appear after
this, but unless many people write in asking for them, I believe no
plans are in the air. The art in this story varies from superb, in a
few very, very good panels, to quite crude. It seems hard for me to
imagine why it varies so much. In general I really like the style,
though; it shows enthusiasm even in the cruder moments.
Pedrocchi was a great pioneer of Italian comics. Maurice
Horn's _World Encyclopedia of Comics_ tells a lot about him, and it's
really interesting to read it... this is a very honored, accomplished
individual whose work Gladstone should take great pride in presenting.
HARRY: I believe it's "Except in Donald Duck's house -- which
is as usual!" I don't remember the first part of the quote, but I
think it's from WDC&S 64's new year's resolution story. This was
reprinted just last year, so maybe some of you have a copy handy.
What Van Horn story is this? One of those in our list? It'll be
interesting to see if the English version quotes Barks...
FULL NAMES OF CHARACTERS: Okay, then... if Goofy's real name
IS Dippy Dawg, then it doesn't follow that Mickey is going to be
Mortimer. Please remember... the character has to have actually HAD
the name in a finished product. By the time any films were in
production, Mickey had lost his earlier monicker.
Mickey = Michel Mouse (given in cartoon "Symphony Hour")
Donald = Donald Fauntleroy Duck
Goofy = Dippy "Goofy" Dawg
The latest Diamond Previews suggests that DDA #26 will have
"Terror of the River" backed by -- groan! -- Tony Strobl's "Donald in
Mathemagic Land." Given that the CBL Album of "Terror" will appear
merely ONE MONTH after this comic, I may actually skip the issue -- a
first for me. Meanwhile WDC&S #591 will feature at long last Van
Horn's "Magica's Missin' Magic", while US #286 will have "Master of
the Mississippi" by Don Rosa. Please note, Don... no cover "LO$"
special logo shown on that issue in Diamond's catalogue. Which brings
me to:
OFFICIAL TITLE OF LO$: I believe that it's only to be called
"The Life of Scrooge" in the U. S. Don, you probably forgot that
there was the Celestial Arts book titled, "Uncle Scrooge McDuck: His
Life and Times." This is just a reversal of your title, and Gladstone
presumably felt that their later book collections would be hopelessly
confused by dealers with the older book if they used the planned
title.
Although I have never asked John Clark ANYTHING about this
one, so I'm really just guessing. I may be wrong, and perhaps the
whole title IS being used.
At last I can say... that's all for now, folks.
Yours,
David Gerstein
Glad to be back! I've just (gasp!) scoured all the digests
which came out while I was away, and it's a thrill to see that I'm not
the only person who can indulge in really LO-OOO-ONG letters...
(that's not a criticism, I prefer to read longer ones!)
I'll tackle the points one by one.
TRYG: I love the quote from the "Beach Drakes" you end with,
but you say, "I wish the all could...", and though my old recording of
the Drakes is a little fuzzy since the time my 45 to "The Screaming
Cowboy" brought my record shelf to the ground, I think the quote is,
"I wish THEY all could be Calisota Ducks!"
MICKEY'S INFERNO: This 1949 Italian story by Martina and
Bioletto is ABSOLUTELY and COMPLETELY banned from American comics.
Long ago I actually got Xeroxes from Disney-Burbank's file copy, and
they have stencilled over every page, NOT FOR REPRINT! That out of
the way, though, I can't say it's a great story: I find it very
slow-moving and meandering. Much like the "Goofy Midas" story from
Jaime Diaz, although I think the "Inferno" is better-drawn and more
creative.
THE CHARACTERS AS ACTORS: Yep, Gottfredson's strip made it
clear on multiple occasions that Mickey earned money between
adventures by being an actor at the Disney studios. The studio's
Mouseton division is shown as being a live-action studio -- no mention
of the films as cartoons is made.
I find nothing wrong with OCCASIONAL films in which the
characters play roles, as long as the roles are chosen so that their
REAL personalities can show. That was excellently done in "The Prince
and the Pauper," which I found to be very like "one of the films Mickey
and Goofy made between adventures". On the other hand, I loved
"Mickey's Christmas Carol" on its initial release, but I now feel that
some characters -- particularly Donald and Goofy -- have inadequate
roles. I actually don't find Uncle Scrooge's role so jarring; you'll
note that Bruce Hamilton liked it enough to use art from the Christmas
Carol film here and there in his _U$ in Color_ book. I consider it
far less likely that Scrooge would be an actor than that Donald or
especially Mickey would take such a job, but I have to take the film
as a "what-if" after SOME point.
I find that when Disney characters are shown in films where
they have roles other than their "Mouseton/Duckburg" or "normal"
personas, a real effort is made to shape the role to some view of the
character's personality. "Brave Little Tailor" was a role made for
Mickey, and though I know it didn't "really" happen to him (in the
fictional "normal" persona), I still enjoy it as a product of "Mickey
given an acting role that is very like his "real" personality". In
"The Prince and the Pauper," Donald's role was of course nothing like
his "real" existence; but within the role, he acted just like the
1937 Donald.
I find very few examples of characters playing a role and
losing their personality completely. The major examples are Donald in
the "Christmas Carol" and Horace in "Prince and the Pauper." In that
latter film Horace's voice was the same as it used to be, but his
entire personality was different than ever before. That's an example
of doing things the WRONG way. This wasn't the boisterous,
imaginative Horace of the old MM cartoons and strips. But by and
large, I can accept the idea of doing classic stories with the Disney
characters, if care is taken.
That's one reason I don't like the Diaz Goofy "history"
stories so much. Mickey is a COMPLETE nonentity -- perhaps more so
than in any other creator's work -- and so he's given ANY role. The
idea being that when you get down to it, the Disney characters are
blank slates. WRONG.
I view the Mickey of Gottfredson's strip and of the pre-1942
cartoons (the ones set in Mouseton, I mean, not the set-pieces of the
"Tailor" variety) as the "real" Mickey. This isn't Mickey playing a
role, but the "real" Mickey, or else a re-enactment with a few
theatrical embellishments of something that happened to the "real"
Mickey.
When it comes to the Ducks it's more difficult. I view the
Barks Ducks, and the pre-1948 Taliaferro Ducks, as being the REAL
Donald. For depictions of "Donald playing a role" to succeed, to me
they must give the Duck a role that exploits his personality. I don't
think that Disney Animation views the characters as ultimately blank
slates, with the possible and very dangerous exception of Mickey.
DD 283: Notice how the first strip featuring the Nephews,
last printed in 1987's WDC&S 522, is absent this time around. I asked
John Clark what you guys are thinking. Yep. MAYBE in the 60th-
anniversary issue, but current status unknown. A shame, since I
REALLY wanted this one with the good, new color.
DD 283's ROSA STORY: Don, I actually quite liked this story!
I'm surprised you thought it so poor... the only thing I thought wrong
with it was that the location moved to Lillehammer quite a ways from
the end of the story, so I was surprised when it seemed that the only
reason for going to Lillehammer was to facilitate the single closing
gag. I wouldn't have minded more activities for the Ducks there (if
Donald's bill could take it!).
BTW: Since Donald seemed to take his injuries in stride in
this story, they were not agonizing vis-a-vis your more realistic
style. I like this.
DD 60TH ANNIVERSARY ISSUE: This comic will be not part of the
regular DD or DDA series, but a special comic issued outside of the
usual lineup. My dialogue for Mau Heymans' story "A Plot Against
Donald" is now in, and same for Pedrocchi's "Secret on Mars" is well
on its way. All this and Rosa's story, too! But now back to
THE SECRET ON MARS: This is to be the official title of the
Pedrocchi story as it'll appear in English. I find this story to have
a VERY advanced version of Donald. The story starts deceptively like
a Taliaferro Sunday strip, but before it's over Donald has shown a
type of courage that is strongly reminiscent of the Vacation Parade #1
story. This is a GOOD, VERY Barks-like version of Donald, and I think
that it solidly establishes that the idea of a rounded Donald existed
long before Barks developed it (with no knowledge of Pedrocchi, you
can be sure).
I don't know if more Pedrocchi stories are to appear after
this, but unless many people write in asking for them, I believe no
plans are in the air. The art in this story varies from superb, in a
few very, very good panels, to quite crude. It seems hard for me to
imagine why it varies so much. In general I really like the style,
though; it shows enthusiasm even in the cruder moments.
Pedrocchi was a great pioneer of Italian comics. Maurice
Horn's _World Encyclopedia of Comics_ tells a lot about him, and it's
really interesting to read it... this is a very honored, accomplished
individual whose work Gladstone should take great pride in presenting.
HARRY: I believe it's "Except in Donald Duck's house -- which
is as usual!" I don't remember the first part of the quote, but I
think it's from WDC&S 64's new year's resolution story. This was
reprinted just last year, so maybe some of you have a copy handy.
What Van Horn story is this? One of those in our list? It'll be
interesting to see if the English version quotes Barks...
FULL NAMES OF CHARACTERS: Okay, then... if Goofy's real name
IS Dippy Dawg, then it doesn't follow that Mickey is going to be
Mortimer. Please remember... the character has to have actually HAD
the name in a finished product. By the time any films were in
production, Mickey had lost his earlier monicker.
Mickey = Michel Mouse (given in cartoon "Symphony Hour")
Donald = Donald Fauntleroy Duck
Goofy = Dippy "Goofy" Dawg
The latest Diamond Previews suggests that DDA #26 will have
"Terror of the River" backed by -- groan! -- Tony Strobl's "Donald in
Mathemagic Land." Given that the CBL Album of "Terror" will appear
merely ONE MONTH after this comic, I may actually skip the issue -- a
first for me. Meanwhile WDC&S #591 will feature at long last Van
Horn's "Magica's Missin' Magic", while US #286 will have "Master of
the Mississippi" by Don Rosa. Please note, Don... no cover "LO$"
special logo shown on that issue in Diamond's catalogue. Which brings
me to:
OFFICIAL TITLE OF LO$: I believe that it's only to be called
"The Life of Scrooge" in the U. S. Don, you probably forgot that
there was the Celestial Arts book titled, "Uncle Scrooge McDuck: His
Life and Times." This is just a reversal of your title, and Gladstone
presumably felt that their later book collections would be hopelessly
confused by dealers with the older book if they used the planned
title.
Although I have never asked John Clark ANYTHING about this
one, so I'm really just guessing. I may be wrong, and perhaps the
whole title IS being used.
At last I can say... that's all for now, folks.
Yours,
David Gerstein
Tryg Helseth
Name that tune...
Message 14 -
1994-01-04 at 05:08:24
On Mon, 03 Jan 1994 20:30:10 -0500, David A Gerstein wrote:
> TRYG: I love the quote from the "Beach Drakes" you end with,
>but you say, "I wish the all could...", and though my old recording of
>the Drakes is a little fuzzy since the time my 45 to "The Screaming
>Cowboy" brought my record shelf to the ground, I think the quote is,
>"I wish THEY all could be Calisota Ducks!"
DAVID: Thanks! I thought I had fixed that little typo already, and am
embarrassed to see that it still lingers on! I hope it is correct this
time. BTW, I wonder if the Drakes and the Screaming Cowboy ever did a
joint concert? I bet they could bring about an avalance of breakers... :)
Tryg Heseth <tryve at maroon.tc.umn.edu>
"I wish they all could be Calisota Ducks!" -The Beach Drakes
> TRYG: I love the quote from the "Beach Drakes" you end with,
>but you say, "I wish the all could...", and though my old recording of
>the Drakes is a little fuzzy since the time my 45 to "The Screaming
>Cowboy" brought my record shelf to the ground, I think the quote is,
>"I wish THEY all could be Calisota Ducks!"
DAVID: Thanks! I thought I had fixed that little typo already, and am
embarrassed to see that it still lingers on! I hope it is correct this
time. BTW, I wonder if the Drakes and the Screaming Cowboy ever did a
joint concert? I bet they could bring about an avalance of breakers... :)
Tryg Heseth <tryve at maroon.tc.umn.edu>
"I wish they all could be Calisota Ducks!" -The Beach Drakes
Mattias Hallin
Don's Duck Family Tree
Message 15 -
1994-01-04 at 11:18:28
DON and PER:
as per promise: here goes! There is, to my mind, one snag in the
Duck Family Tree in your final draft, Don and as it is now published, namely
the respective places of "Aunt Fanny (Coot)" and her son, Gus Goose. As I read
the tree, Fanny is the daughter of Grandma Duck's brother, i.e. Grandma's
niece, and so Gus becomes her great-nephew. This makes Gus a not particularly
close relative of Donald - his second cousin, actually; and all this doesn't
quite tally with how things are presented in the original comics. In "Donald's
Grandma Duck" (VP 1), Grandma says Gus is her "nephew", while in Taliaferro's
"Donald's Cousin Gus", Gus is Donald's "cousin", and the letter to Donald is
signed "Aunt Fanny".
My original suggestion to you, Don, was to make Fanny the SISTER of Grandma,
and Gus the son of Fanny, who would then have been born "Coot" and married
"Goose" (as she is also in the published tree), and this is how it appeared, or
so I seem to remember, in the intermediate versions of the tree that you showed
me. If this was so, Fanny would be the aunt, not of Donald, but of his father -
but she'd be an aunt to his line of the family, at least, while Gus would be
cousin also to Donald's father, and thus first cousin once removed to Donald -
which is at least a closer kind of cousin than a second one. This is BTW
exactly how "Cousin Cuthbert Coot" is related to Donald in the tree: Cuthbert,
too, is the first cousin ofDonald's father. But from the way you've placed
Fanny, the only one she'd be aunt of is the possible children of Cuthbert Coot!
To me, it makes much more sense from all possible points of view to have Fanny
be Grandma's sister, and so on, instead of Grandma's niece, etc. Huccome you
changed it this way? I mean, there is no actual REASON from the point of how
things are presented in the original comics, is there?
I have some comments, too, about paternal/maternal uncles in the Swedish
translations,, but I'll get back to you n that issue... Ah has to work, you
know!!!
All my best
Mattias
as per promise: here goes! There is, to my mind, one snag in the
Duck Family Tree in your final draft, Don and as it is now published, namely
the respective places of "Aunt Fanny (Coot)" and her son, Gus Goose. As I read
the tree, Fanny is the daughter of Grandma Duck's brother, i.e. Grandma's
niece, and so Gus becomes her great-nephew. This makes Gus a not particularly
close relative of Donald - his second cousin, actually; and all this doesn't
quite tally with how things are presented in the original comics. In "Donald's
Grandma Duck" (VP 1), Grandma says Gus is her "nephew", while in Taliaferro's
"Donald's Cousin Gus", Gus is Donald's "cousin", and the letter to Donald is
signed "Aunt Fanny".
My original suggestion to you, Don, was to make Fanny the SISTER of Grandma,
and Gus the son of Fanny, who would then have been born "Coot" and married
"Goose" (as she is also in the published tree), and this is how it appeared, or
so I seem to remember, in the intermediate versions of the tree that you showed
me. If this was so, Fanny would be the aunt, not of Donald, but of his father -
but she'd be an aunt to his line of the family, at least, while Gus would be
cousin also to Donald's father, and thus first cousin once removed to Donald -
which is at least a closer kind of cousin than a second one. This is BTW
exactly how "Cousin Cuthbert Coot" is related to Donald in the tree: Cuthbert,
too, is the first cousin ofDonald's father. But from the way you've placed
Fanny, the only one she'd be aunt of is the possible children of Cuthbert Coot!
To me, it makes much more sense from all possible points of view to have Fanny
be Grandma's sister, and so on, instead of Grandma's niece, etc. Huccome you
changed it this way? I mean, there is no actual REASON from the point of how
things are presented in the original comics, is there?
I have some comments, too, about paternal/maternal uncles in the Swedish
translations,, but I'll get back to you n that issue... Ah has to work, you
know!!!
All my best
Mattias