Keskustelujen arkisto

David asked:
> Anyone have the Danish reprint series, so that we can know
> what the topic was of the Donald strip for 3-3-38, which was banned
> from reprint?

Donald is at a fair, where one can throw 3 balls for a dime to a clown
('hit the clown'). Donald throws a rock in stead of a ball, and gets
dozens of balls thrown at him.
The clown is not shown in the panels; just Donald.

--Harry.

Andrew Krieg:

>authentic war paint for a movie with Indians in it. Gyro makes the paint
>too authentic, and the Indians turn into screaming savages, spouting the
>most stereotypical Indian jargon you'll ever see. If this story could be
>reprinted, why can't we get "War of the Wendigo"?

Maybe it was viewed by a different censor or in a different light. With
the warpaint you perhaps could argue that the strange behavior of the
actors was due to a chemical reaction with the ingredients in the war-
paint--some form of neurotransmitter that is absorbed through the skin.

However, not having read WotW, I don't have a clue as to what was found
objectionable there...

Harry Fluks:

>David quoted ME (and not Mark Mayerson, Tryg!):

Sorry Harry. It wasn't clear who David was quoting, but I saw Mark's name
there and thought that was added by David quoting Mark... For me to have
correctly guessed the real author's name would have been a Fluke... :>

KDR Et All:

The discussion on Harry Gladstone and the Birthday Bugaboo has certainly
been an interesting one; it inpsired me to re-read the story; I did and I
found it to be a very strange mix. David mentioned a couple of parallels
between various Barks stories; I thouht I saw a few more when I read it
last night, but I've forgotten what they were already. (I have an
excellent memory; it is just very short.) Guess I'll just have to read it
again... :)

Tryg Helseth <trygve at maroon.tc.umn.edu> Minneapolis, MN, USA
or <tryg.helseth at tstation.mn.org>

"I wish they all could be Calisota Ducks!" -The Beach Drakes

I normally hesitate to make many comments about Disney stories I
don't like, as some people would regard any negatism like that from ME
with "Oh, well, who does he think HE is?" But at the thought there are
MORE abominations in the files like "A Goofy King Midas" or "Don't Call
Me Tut", I gotta open my yap. It would be difficult for me to imagine
how I could dislike this sort of stuff more. I think David's comments
are on the right track, but not harsh ENOUGH. Everything about these
stories is wrong for Disney comics -- it is more like the sort of thing
that belongs in a "zany" Warner Bros. comic or something. The art is
designed not for "storytelling" but for showing off an ability to use
up lots of space trying to dazzle readers with "artistic", useless and
confusing page lay-outs. This shows as much contempt for the subject
matter as do those "this is only a cartoon" remarks, as well as the
whole idea of using Disney characters as actors filling any roll the
writer wishes to amuse himself, rather than being real characters. And
I find the humor to be reminiscent of the junior borscht-belt stuff
you'd see in the worst years of MAD magazine... or on a really bad
LAUGH-IN copy. All in all, this sorta thing shows such a general
misunderstanding and lack of true interest in the characters that I'm
surprised Disney-Disney didn't use all this sort of thing up while they
were in charge. Yes, it not only smacks of GOOFY ADVENTURES, but of the
final issue of GA when Wolfman, Colan and them all used the Disney
characters as simply vehicles for a private gag tribute to themselves
and their past work; I'm sure they and Marvel fans thought that was
grand fun -- I thought it was insulting to the material. Peeee-you.
The art -- oh, the art was swell. I wish I could draw that well!
So... Oh, well, who does he think HE is, right?

Also, the reason that "War of the Wendigo" was rejected was that
the Disney editor at the time (so I hear) showed it to one big-shot who
okayed it; however, corporate politics being what they are, to protect
himself, this editor showed it to another big-shot who okayed it; but to
protect himself, he showed it to another big-shot who okayed it; but to
protect himself, he showed it to another big-shot who okayed it; but to
protect himself... etc., etc., until he found a big-shot who dismissed
it sight-unseen, like he gave a damn. This is how you do things in large
corporations filled with nasty back-biting. When the time comes,
Gladstone will slip it in with its monthly batch of stories for
approval, only one guy will look at it and it will probably sail
through. And then you'll see it wasn't worth the wait.
Barks' Injun stories get by because they are in those albums,
and because they are "not to be touched classics" since Indians don't
have the clout that Bombie the Zombie's relatives do, and because
nobody showed those stories to a succession of bureaucrats until one
was found who would ban them.

DON:

Some good news! -- Stefan told me today that our joint efforts regarding
GottLL, a while back, actually made a (the) difference: thanks to a) the
Swedish editor of GottLL; and b) Byron Erickson, the Swedish publication will
use the revised version -- or, rather, the part of the revision that includes
Marco Polo -- COMPLETE with the changed-about art.

Ain't that nice, though -- a sympathetic editor, that actually goes to more
trouble than necessary/required by the bosses, just to do the best job
possible! Well, well...

...and speaking of Stefan Dios...

SPOILER WARNING!!! AWOOGAH!! AWOOGAH!! SPOILER WARNING!!! AWOOGAH!! AWOOGAH!!

...is that tall Junior Woodchuck in Lo$ #10 an INTENTIONAL caricature of
Stefan, or does he just happen to be the spitting image of him? And is he
supposed to be a Gearloose? Gyro's father-to-be, perhaps? Or is that
yet-to-be-revealed?

Anyway -- Lo$ #10... what do I think? Well, surprise, surprise: I really like
it! A few critical remarks perhaps/of course, and I might as well start with
them:

a) that splash-panel, with the dread-noughts -- yeah, you're right to be a bit
disappointed with yourself on that one. Considering the obvious amount of work
and attention to detail you've put into that panel, and how it is indeed
somewhat the high tide of the story, that kinda miss/mess with something as
fairly straightforward and easy as perspective is a bit of a letdown. Not a
disaster, of course, but not quite cricket, either. Bjorn-Are are right,
though, in that it is a nice climactic point in the story -- well it's an
obvious buildup, of course, but the IMPACT is still enough to manage to
surprise the reader by it's sheer magnitude.

b) I still don't see WHY $crooge MUST build his moneybin as early as this. Sure
-- you make it plausible enough throughout the series that he will eventually
build it, that it somehow epitomizes his dreams; but I don't think you've made
it so much a logical must to take place at this time of his career, that it
overrides all the circumstantial evidence in Barks' comics, that THE money-bin
isn't built until around 1950 or so. Well, I don't feel we need to argue more
about this -- we both know what each think about this -- and I'll GLADLY grant
you that if one DOES decide to interpret Barks as you have done -- then the
gradual build-up towards the finished money-bin, throughout the Lo$ really is a
BEAUT!!!

c) The way you draw the female ducks, or rather their dresses -- I'm not sure
at the moment (I'm gonna go home and check it, though) -- doesn't Barks usually
draw their tail-feathers sticking out through a cut-out in the back of the
dress? Or am I wrong? The way you sort of emphasize their tailfeathers
BENEATH the dresses sometimes makes 'em look a bit awkward.

So -- what do I LIKE about it, then? Well, it's a good story, by itself, to
start with -- I mean, apart from how it fits within the framework of Lo$ --
with good gags, a tight and well-paced story-line and several lovely little
by-plots/running gags (the Hortensia/Quackmore love-story, f'rinstance: that's
great; and the way $crooge keep calling the woodchucks by most bird-names in
ornithology, and every-one (including the Beagle Boys) always correcting him).

Also, it seems plausible to me (although for obvious reasons I'm not in a
position to judge this for myself) that it is a perfectly readable story, even
if you don't recognize a single Barks reference, or if you've never heard of
Teddy Roosevelt, or the charge at San Juan Hill (you couldn't resist that'n,
eh?). Because all this, that ADDS a lot of interest and depth to those who ARE
in-the-know, certainly, is not necessary to get the outlines of the plot -- and
it is still funny to have the fort under siege by the President of the USA,
even if you never even assume that he's a historical person. The comparison
made to Uderzo/Goscinny's "Asterix" that someone made the other day is quite
relevant -- since "Asterix" is a comic which works just like that: it's
chock-full of current and/or historical political and cultural references
that you must probably be a well-educated Frenchman to understand, but at the
same time it's a great funny-story for the ten-yearold kid who wants a bit of
escapist entertainment. Something that works at many levels, and therefore holds
interest for many different readers.

BUT --- of course it IS those deeper references, Barks and historical, that
really makes Lo$ interesting, at least to me. I think it's plain wonderful, the
way you connect Barks' use of the Beagle Boys with how you've used them
previously in the Lo$, and sort of ties it all together here: how you start off
with Barks character Blackheart Beagle, in "Master of the Mississippi", and
then use the "Grandpa Beagle" (That'd be Blackheart hisself, right?) "section
26" from "The Money Well" to make $crooge's first real riches and the Beagle
Boys' attempts to get at'em something equally old -- in short, to make the
Beagle Boys' obsession with $crooge's money more'n just an obsession, but an
honored family tradition! Thats terrific!

The Barks references are indeed legion -- and too many to enumerate here; but
apart from them I really like your use of Teddy Roosevelt! Both story-wise (his
and $crooge's pitched-battle-turning-into-mutual-recognition is lovely) and
historically. It's neat, too, the way you planted this effect already in (was
it?) #4.

Another thing I'd like to mention, is how I -- as always -- appreciate your
very conscious, but seemingly effortless, use of "the camera", where positions,
angles and compositions are at top level. This goes a long way to explain the
smooth flow of the story. Sure, your draughtsmanship is not at the same top
level -- nor have you ever said anything else -- but the thorough work you put
into the compositions, at all levels -- panel, page and story -- go a long way
to making up for any lack of inking dexterity, I think.

All in all: "Great stuff! Great stuff!".

Oh, and BTW: Stefan has, unconsciously, managed to get a four-letter word into
his translation! He has used a word that in regular Swedish is perfectly
innocent, but that in certain dialects (I think in particular the
dialect used by the Swedish-speaking minority in Finland) is a rude word, that
translates approx. as "screw".

So, in certain usages of Swedish, Stefan has Hortensia telling Quackmore to "go
screw the parsnips!". Oh, dearie me...

Well, all my best!

Mattias

!=============================================================================!
!* Mattias Hallin ** <Mattias.Hallin at Jurenh.lu.se> ** Phone: +46 46-14 84 43 *!
!* Trollebergsvagen 24 B ***** Work: Lund University, Box 117, S-221 00 Lund *!
!* S-222 29 Lund, SWEDEN **************************** Phone: +46 46-10 71 37 *!
!=============================================================================!
!******************** "Hello, all you happy tax-payers!" *********************!
!=============================================================================!

A couple of days ago, Don wrote:
> So, say you think my work sux eggs... and tell me that my job
>depends on how popular Barks made the Ducks all over the world... but
>please don't say that I depend on anybody but ME for the effort I put
>into these stories!

Since I'm afraid that that refers to a message sent by me, I feel that
I must reply to it.

Don; I think this is yet another example of how words sometimes don't
come out as intended in writing as described by Mattias some time ago.
I also have to express myself in a foreign language, making things
even more probable to come out in another way than intended.

Thus, I never meant to say that your work is depending on anyone else
than you. I never meant to say that you are using Barks work to make
it easier for yourself. And I certainly never meant to say that your
work "sux eggs", or anything else for that matter.

I realize that there is an exceptional difference between your work
and that of most of Egmont's other creators: Like them, you base your
work on that of Barks, but unlike them, you try (and mostly succeed)
to make something new and exciting out of it.

But then again, take the Lo$. I'm not saying that perhaps it should
never have been done. Nor do I say that you haven't done a great job
on it. On the contrary; noone could have done it better. But, as you
have said yourself a number of times, it's basically nothing more than
a number of loose facts collected from three decades of one man's
work. That you have still managed to tie all the loose ends together
and even make a readable story out of it is nothing short of
exceptional!

Lo$ is, of course, the most obvious example, but the same goes for
most of the follow-ups, like "Return to Plain Awful". I will still
claim that that kind of story "impairs" your writing since there are
so many facts that have to be taken into consideration (and you would
obviously never consciously go against any of them). The stories that
have a more "healthy" amount of Barks references are (in my opinion)
much better. For instance, I love "Son of the Sun" and "The Crocodile
Collector". The one exception to this rule is "Return to Xanadu"
which I hold to be your best work.

If you still think I'm far out, Don, please tell me so, that I may
perhaps be able to read your stories in a new light the next time.

On a slightly related matter, Mattias writes, on the subject of Lo$
10: "it seems plausible to me ... that it is a perfectly readable
story, even if you don't recognize a single Barks reference". Well, I
showed Lo$ 9 to a couple of friends, none of whom had enough knowledge
of Barks to recognize the references, and all but one though it was
quite a masterpiece. My sister, who reads a lot of Disney comics, even
said it was great, but "quite unlike all the other stories about the
past life of $crooge". I have really tried to explain about Barks and
the impact he's had on Disney comics, but for some reason, she refuses
to understand...

/F

FREDRIK:
Perhaps I failed to remember that you are one of us writing in a
"foreign" language, and stuck too closely to the exact wording you used.
You didn't say you didn't like my stuff -- I was saying that THAT sort
of comment would be one that I wouldn't mind. Your comment was that my
work "depended" on Barks' stories for their success, as if even if they
ARE good, I owe it to Barks. If that's not what you meant by "depend"...
okay.

Just because you mention chapter 9, I see that when they reprint
that at Gladstone, I need to write into my accompanying text some sort
of explanation to prevent some readers misunderstanding that story's
climax. I have gottn a few comments from overseas that they were
offended by my attempts to "turn $crooge into another American
super-hero", which would be the most repugnant idea I can imagine. In
the first 9 chapters I try to show $crooge becoming a figure of
legendary bravery, cunning and strength -- to show what the world's
greatest Duck was like at the PEAK of his life, which would have been
when he struck gold in the Yukon. I show him having the strength of
several Ducks his size -- or the strength of the biggest dog/man. BUT...
my text accompanying the scene in chapter 9 - part 3 when $crooge tears
up Soapy Slick's riverboat was meant to say that I was showing the
LEGEND of that day, NOT the fact. I didn't mean that $crooge was
ACTUALLY doing the things shown in that sequence... but, as always, I
never know what the translators do to me text that might sabotage my
true intent.

But whatever the outcome of readers' approval of the Lo$, and
regardless of the fact that I did enjoy the hard work it entailed, the
fact is (as I think I've said) I had no choice but to undertake it.
Disney-Disney had been ordered to do it by their marketing devision and
asked me for advice on how to begin. When I mentioned this fact to the
Egmont people, they decided that, in the light of what they were doing
with the characters, Disney-Disney shouldn't be allowed to touch that
series and that I should do it first and suggest to Disney-Disney that
if they let it go they could reprint the Egmont version for free. Maybe
somebody at Disney tricked me into doing just what they HOPED I'd do
(since they knew I refused to do any work for them)... I'll never know.

"And you know, (says Don) when I look at Fulton I ALSO think of Stefan...
but he wasn't meant to look like Stefan. Yet you realize WHY he reminds
us of Stefan, right? It's that tall, thin form wearing a raccoon cap as
Stefan does at comic shows and such (or all the time, for all I know)."

DON:

There's more to it than that: what REALLY makes it look like Stefan is the
total effect of a) the tall thin form; b) the raccoon cap; c) the black,
stripey hair; d) the lack of chin; and e) the prominent beak (in Stefan's
personal case, nose).

In the Swedish translation you don't particularly realize that this is Gyro's
father, nor even that it's a Gearloose -- but maybe that'll be inferrable once
tGottLL is published here, too.

And about the female dresses -- well, I see your points; both regarding the
"need" for long dresses to give a period feel to them, and also, as you say,
that it does make your female ducks a bit awkward at times. I checked how Barks
portrays Daisy and Grandma, and he has them wearing short dresses, but with
frills (wether clothes or feathers one must guess) around their legs. It
occured to me, however, that Glittering Goldie does wear long dresses, so I'll
check that out, too, to see how Barks solved the problem (which I don't think
of as a major one).

And, yeah -- I second your motion to table our argument about moneybinbuilding.

All in favor say "Aye"... AYE!

Motion carried!

All my best

Mattias

!==============================================================================!
!* Mattias Hallin ** <Mattias.Hallin at Jurenh.lu.se> ** Phone: +46 46-14 84 43 **!
!* Trollebergsvagen 24 B ***** Work: Lund University, Box 117, S-221 00 Lund **!
!* S-222 29 Lund, SWEDEN **************************** Phone: +46 46-10 71 37 **!
!==============================================================================!
!********************* "Hello, all you happy tax-payers!" *********************!
!==============================================================================!