(Wilmer Rivers & Don Rosa shredded apart my objections to the physics in
"The Universal Solvent")
This is more proof of the careful research that goes into Don's stories. I
was foolish to sugest that it might have been otherwise. I guess that
my suspicion that I might be getting forgetful in my old age (36) was
correct. (Kind of you both not to mention this!)
DON:
> I think you were reading too fast! But I'll figure that was because my story
> made you so excitable that you panicked... and I'll take that as a
You can bet you life I found the story exciting!
> compliment...? And yes, the Ducks escape at the beginning of part 3, and
> their means of escape is right there in front of your eyes in those scenes.
> Can you figure it out?
Well, they do have a jar of universal solvent handy, that can eat through
solid rock.
BTW, is that a street lamp on the platform?
BTW2, it looks like this the end of the hat that Scrooge bought in a rummage
sale in Glasgow. Scrooge will finally have to buy a new one!
DAVE RAWSON:
> Mmmmm... Wasn't it Winston Churchill who said "A preposition is a bad
> thing to end a sentence with."
Actually, I think it was he who said "This is the sort of thing up with which
we shall not put."
--
Kriton (e-mail: (Email removed))
(WWW: http://dias.cti.gr/~kyrimis
-----
"I shall be coming back."
-----
Author
Topic: 199611
(342 messages)
Kriton Kyrimis
Disney comics Digest V96 #251
Message 166 -
1996-11-15 at 10:41:57
Marco Barlotti
Zio Paperone #86
Message 167 -
1996-11-15 at 18:12:50
Just a quick overview of this month's "Zio Paperone".
"A cold Bargain" by Barks
"Treasury of Croesus" by Don Rosa (best Rosa story I've ever read!)
"Bottled Battlers" a JW story by Barks in Jippes' version
H 7418 by Jippes and Verhagen (who is he?)
Gyro Gearloose by Barks from U$ #14
More comments in a later posting. At a first glance, I spotted this horrible
misdeed by the Evil Translator: on page 22, first panel of the second row,
$crooge can't possibly be saying, as in the translation: <This is not
happening to me! It's a nightmare! DON ROSA can't be so evil!>.
I'm sure Don wouldn't have made this self-reference. Am I right? And what is
the exact balloon?
Marco
"A cold Bargain" by Barks
"Treasury of Croesus" by Don Rosa (best Rosa story I've ever read!)
"Bottled Battlers" a JW story by Barks in Jippes' version
H 7418 by Jippes and Verhagen (who is he?)
Gyro Gearloose by Barks from U$ #14
More comments in a later posting. At a first glance, I spotted this horrible
misdeed by the Evil Translator: on page 22, first panel of the second row,
$crooge can't possibly be saying, as in the translation: <This is not
happening to me! It's a nightmare! DON ROSA can't be so evil!>.
I'm sure Don wouldn't have made this self-reference. Am I right? And what is
the exact balloon?
Marco
Wilmer Rivers
a geology question
Message 168 -
1996-11-15 at 19:48:36
Christopher Burton [Welcome both to the List and to disney-comics
fandom, Christopher!] writes:
> This sparked a "what if" question in my mind. What if the earth, or
> some other planet for that matter, had only the crust to contain the
> molten core but no moon(s) exerting a gravitational pull? Would the
> crust then provide enough integrity to contain the molten core
>
This is in fact a very "hot" (so to speak) question right now in the
scintific community, because it may be exactly what has happened on
Venus! (Venus doesn't have a moon, but that may or may not have any-
thing to do with it.) What is important is what we have learned about
the surface of Venus from spacecraft: it's young. Unlike the earth,
which has some very old parts (like in northern Canada) and some very
young parts (like the ocean floors), all of Venus seems to be the same
young age. It is hypothesized that the whole crust may have sort of
turned over and been covered by magma from underneath. When that idea
was first proposed it was widely derided as crazy, but no one has been
able to come up with a more convincing explanation, so now its oppon-
ents are themselves on the defensive. Is that what happened - was the
surface of Venus completely wiped clean by lava? Whether this is
possible depends on just how thick the solid mantle is, and so far we
have been unable to determine that conclusively from the spacecraft's
gravity data. If the mantle is thick, Venus would be too much like the
earth for this to have happened, but if it's thin, then maybe the crust
did break open "like a soap bubble"!
Could this idea be used in a Disney comic? Sure! The Beagle Boys
steal a device - maybe a Universal Solvent, or a ray gun, but how about
some super-bacteria instead - that dissolves rock. They want to use
this device (stolen from Gyro's Lab) to melt the rock underneath
Scrooge's money bin and just slide it down Killmotor Hill to their own
hideout. But the Solvent gets away, or the ray gun goes beserk, or
the bacteria start reproducing way too fast (this is why I like the
"bug" idea!), and the device starts melting its way down into the
mantle and dissolving it. The earth will soon become another Venus
unless Donald and HD&L step in to rescue us from cosmic catastrophe,
as usual.
Congratulations on finding the **fun** part of the comics world,
here on the disney-comics list!
Wilmer Rivers
fandom, Christopher!] writes:
> This sparked a "what if" question in my mind. What if the earth, or
> some other planet for that matter, had only the crust to contain the
> molten core but no moon(s) exerting a gravitational pull? Would the
> crust then provide enough integrity to contain the molten core
>
This is in fact a very "hot" (so to speak) question right now in the
scintific community, because it may be exactly what has happened on
Venus! (Venus doesn't have a moon, but that may or may not have any-
thing to do with it.) What is important is what we have learned about
the surface of Venus from spacecraft: it's young. Unlike the earth,
which has some very old parts (like in northern Canada) and some very
young parts (like the ocean floors), all of Venus seems to be the same
young age. It is hypothesized that the whole crust may have sort of
turned over and been covered by magma from underneath. When that idea
was first proposed it was widely derided as crazy, but no one has been
able to come up with a more convincing explanation, so now its oppon-
ents are themselves on the defensive. Is that what happened - was the
surface of Venus completely wiped clean by lava? Whether this is
possible depends on just how thick the solid mantle is, and so far we
have been unable to determine that conclusively from the spacecraft's
gravity data. If the mantle is thick, Venus would be too much like the
earth for this to have happened, but if it's thin, then maybe the crust
did break open "like a soap bubble"!
Could this idea be used in a Disney comic? Sure! The Beagle Boys
steal a device - maybe a Universal Solvent, or a ray gun, but how about
some super-bacteria instead - that dissolves rock. They want to use
this device (stolen from Gyro's Lab) to melt the rock underneath
Scrooge's money bin and just slide it down Killmotor Hill to their own
hideout. But the Solvent gets away, or the ray gun goes beserk, or
the bacteria start reproducing way too fast (this is why I like the
"bug" idea!), and the device starts melting its way down into the
mantle and dissolving it. The earth will soon become another Venus
unless Donald and HD&L step in to rescue us from cosmic catastrophe,
as usual.
Congratulations on finding the **fun** part of the comics world,
here on the disney-comics list!
Wilmer Rivers
Jacob Sparre Andersen
a geology question (non-Disney)
Message 169 -
1996-11-15 at 20:16:20
WILMER and CHRISTOPHER:
Christopher writes:
> This sparked a "what if" question in my mind. What if the earth, or
> some other planet for that matter, had only the crust to contain the
> molten core but no moon(s) exerting a gravitational pull? Would the
> crust then provide enough integrity to contain the molten core
What 'contains' the molten core - and all the rest of the planet - is the
gravitational pull from all the other parts of the planet.
Wilmer answers:
> This is in fact a very "hot" (so to speak) question right now in the
> scientific community, because it may be exactly what has happened on
> Venus! (Venus doesn't have a moon, but that may or may not have any-
> thing to do with it.) What is important is what we have learned about
> the surface of Venus from spacecraft: it's young. Unlike the earth,
> which has some very old parts (like in northern Canada) and some very
> young parts (like the ocean floors), all of Venus seems to be the same
> young age. It is hypothesized that the whole crust may have sort of
> turned over and been covered by magma from underneath.
A very probable explanation of the young surface of Venus is that the heat
production (from nuclear fission) inside the planet can't get out through
heat conduction and convection. To compensate for this problem, the planet
kind of turns "inside out" (correct English?).
To use this effect for a terror action, you would have to boost the nuclear
reactions in the core of the planet - or pump energy into the core. The last
of these two options might work with a laser/maser tuned to a transition in
solid iron under very high pressure (as space-based solar powered laser is
necessary for this job).
Greetings,
Jacob
PS: You probably guessed it: I'm a physicist!
--
Jacob Sparre Andersen http://www.nbi.dk/%7Esparre/
Center for Chaos and Turbulence Studies Phone: (+45) 39 65 53 51
The Niels Bohr Institute (+45) 35 32 53 05
--
"We need a plan to diverge from", Fesser
Christopher writes:
> This sparked a "what if" question in my mind. What if the earth, or
> some other planet for that matter, had only the crust to contain the
> molten core but no moon(s) exerting a gravitational pull? Would the
> crust then provide enough integrity to contain the molten core
What 'contains' the molten core - and all the rest of the planet - is the
gravitational pull from all the other parts of the planet.
Wilmer answers:
> This is in fact a very "hot" (so to speak) question right now in the
> scientific community, because it may be exactly what has happened on
> Venus! (Venus doesn't have a moon, but that may or may not have any-
> thing to do with it.) What is important is what we have learned about
> the surface of Venus from spacecraft: it's young. Unlike the earth,
> which has some very old parts (like in northern Canada) and some very
> young parts (like the ocean floors), all of Venus seems to be the same
> young age. It is hypothesized that the whole crust may have sort of
> turned over and been covered by magma from underneath.
A very probable explanation of the young surface of Venus is that the heat
production (from nuclear fission) inside the planet can't get out through
heat conduction and convection. To compensate for this problem, the planet
kind of turns "inside out" (correct English?).
To use this effect for a terror action, you would have to boost the nuclear
reactions in the core of the planet - or pump energy into the core. The last
of these two options might work with a laser/maser tuned to a transition in
solid iron under very high pressure (as space-based solar powered laser is
necessary for this job).
Greetings,
Jacob
PS: You probably guessed it: I'm a physicist!
--
Jacob Sparre Andersen http://www.nbi.dk/%7Esparre/
Center for Chaos and Turbulence Studies Phone: (+45) 39 65 53 51
The Niels Bohr Institute (+45) 35 32 53 05
--
"We need a plan to diverge from", Fesser
Christopher
Greetings & a geology question
Message 170 -
1996-11-15 at 21:43:03
Greetings from Ohio!
Although I subscribed to this list two or three weeks ago, I've
been lurking in the background & eavesdropping on your fascinating
conversations. While I have a few Duck & Mouse comics in my collection &
enjoy them very much, I've never been a regular collector of those
titles. That's about to change. You gurus converted yourself a disciple.
Don said, "The earth's mantle is most definitely solid rock. If
there were nothing above the molten core except the crust, the earth
would pop like a soap bubble due to the gravitational pull of the moon
and such!"
This sparked a "what if" question in my mind. What if the earth,
or some other planet for that matter, had only the crust to contain the
molten core but no moon(s) exerting a gravitational pull? Would the
crust then provide enough integrity to contain the molten core or would
it still be too weak to do so. I suspect that gravity from neighboring
celestial bodies (especially the sun) also comes into play here. It
probably makes a difference how far the planet/Earth is from the
star/sun. Then, again, one earthquake and the whole planet's probably a
goner, so maybe it's moot point. You budding (budded?) geologists have
any ideas? Kriton? Wilmer? And more to the point, could this be a good
Duck story? For example, some evildoer comes up with a way to liquify
the earth's mantle & hold Earth hostage unless Scrooge pays the ransom.
Christopher Burton ((Email removed))
Although I subscribed to this list two or three weeks ago, I've
been lurking in the background & eavesdropping on your fascinating
conversations. While I have a few Duck & Mouse comics in my collection &
enjoy them very much, I've never been a regular collector of those
titles. That's about to change. You gurus converted yourself a disciple.
Don said, "The earth's mantle is most definitely solid rock. If
there were nothing above the molten core except the crust, the earth
would pop like a soap bubble due to the gravitational pull of the moon
and such!"
This sparked a "what if" question in my mind. What if the earth,
or some other planet for that matter, had only the crust to contain the
molten core but no moon(s) exerting a gravitational pull? Would the
crust then provide enough integrity to contain the molten core or would
it still be too weak to do so. I suspect that gravity from neighboring
celestial bodies (especially the sun) also comes into play here. It
probably makes a difference how far the planet/Earth is from the
star/sun. Then, again, one earthquake and the whole planet's probably a
goner, so maybe it's moot point. You budding (budded?) geologists have
any ideas? Kriton? Wilmer? And more to the point, could this be a good
Duck story? For example, some evildoer comes up with a way to liquify
the earth's mantle & hold Earth hostage unless Scrooge pays the ransom.
Christopher Burton ((Email removed))
Harald Havas
Replies (mostly)
Message 171 -
1996-11-15 at 22:37:35
TODD
>The curious cream-colored cat who quietly crept to the crypt, crapped, and
>crept out.
"What's the muddle in the middle?
It's the puddle where the poodle did the piddle"
(Stephen Sondheim, "A Sunday in the Park with George")
WILMER
>This is because, as you correctly implied, an object which is dropped
into a shaft through the center of the earth is really in orbit around
the center, and so it will keep returning to the surface for that same
reason.<
Sorry, I just dont get this: why would an object, neglecting
friction, NOT be effected by the opposite gravity after passing the center?
It just doesn't seem right to me...
And pray tell, what is "ultramafic"?
CHARACTER CHANGES
Animation, US-Ducks - all good and well. But what do you all think of
the countless "incarnations" the Duck family had througout time and
myths in Italian stories: there are medeaval Donalds, Fantasy
Donalds, Ducks living in Bagdad etc. Are those also roled played by
"actor" Donald or what?
DANIEL
>I don't see the duck family as being one large pool of interspecies relations.
Rather I view them as one species with a bunch of different last names. This
species, I see as neither duck (although that's what I'll call it just becuase
it's custom) nor goose, nor gander or whatever. They're a nondescript species.
Humans in waterfowl clothing. Theyre not different species. They just have
different last names.<
Right, and they are bound to change with translation, e.g. Gus Goose=
Franz GANS, Gladstone Gander = Gustav GANS! (Gans meaning goose).
DWIGHT
>Since the pun behind the names of Chip & Dale is a furniture
style (Chippendale), do you think Frau Fuchs might have
considered Bieder & Meier as possible names? For that matter,
if Chippendale is at all known in Germany, Chip und Dale
might have been possible.<
Bieder & Meier? I LOVE it! But is has a sour taste in German, as
"something belonging to the Biedermaier-Zeit", means old-fashioned in
a bad sense, "Biederkeit" is honesty, uprightness but most in the
sense of single-mindedness, "bieder" means straight, simple and most
of all dull, and a "Biedermann" is somebody like the neighbours Don
loves to insult here ;-)
Chippendale as such is known, but was not (to children) in the 50ies.
Bieder & Meier ("Dull & Jones")... he, he - really!
JONATHAN
>Mac Moneysac? That's Flinheart Glomgold, right?
Well, I'm not sure... There is "Klaas Klever" as rival to $crooge,
black suit, glasses, black hat, very obnoxios! (Role model for
bureaucrats). And there is "Mac Moneysac" beard, "scottish look",
kilt and cane... YOU tell me who's who!
Harald
--- (Harald Havas) (Email removed)
>The curious cream-colored cat who quietly crept to the crypt, crapped, and
>crept out.
"What's the muddle in the middle?
It's the puddle where the poodle did the piddle"
(Stephen Sondheim, "A Sunday in the Park with George")
WILMER
>This is because, as you correctly implied, an object which is dropped
into a shaft through the center of the earth is really in orbit around
the center, and so it will keep returning to the surface for that same
reason.<
Sorry, I just dont get this: why would an object, neglecting
friction, NOT be effected by the opposite gravity after passing the center?
It just doesn't seem right to me...
And pray tell, what is "ultramafic"?
CHARACTER CHANGES
Animation, US-Ducks - all good and well. But what do you all think of
the countless "incarnations" the Duck family had througout time and
myths in Italian stories: there are medeaval Donalds, Fantasy
Donalds, Ducks living in Bagdad etc. Are those also roled played by
"actor" Donald or what?
DANIEL
>I don't see the duck family as being one large pool of interspecies relations.
Rather I view them as one species with a bunch of different last names. This
species, I see as neither duck (although that's what I'll call it just becuase
it's custom) nor goose, nor gander or whatever. They're a nondescript species.
Humans in waterfowl clothing. Theyre not different species. They just have
different last names.<
Right, and they are bound to change with translation, e.g. Gus Goose=
Franz GANS, Gladstone Gander = Gustav GANS! (Gans meaning goose).
DWIGHT
>Since the pun behind the names of Chip & Dale is a furniture
style (Chippendale), do you think Frau Fuchs might have
considered Bieder & Meier as possible names? For that matter,
if Chippendale is at all known in Germany, Chip und Dale
might have been possible.<
Bieder & Meier? I LOVE it! But is has a sour taste in German, as
"something belonging to the Biedermaier-Zeit", means old-fashioned in
a bad sense, "Biederkeit" is honesty, uprightness but most in the
sense of single-mindedness, "bieder" means straight, simple and most
of all dull, and a "Biedermann" is somebody like the neighbours Don
loves to insult here ;-)
Chippendale as such is known, but was not (to children) in the 50ies.
Bieder & Meier ("Dull & Jones")... he, he - really!
JONATHAN
>Mac Moneysac? That's Flinheart Glomgold, right?
Well, I'm not sure... There is "Klaas Klever" as rival to $crooge,
black suit, glasses, black hat, very obnoxios! (Role model for
bureaucrats). And there is "Mac Moneysac" beard, "scottish look",
kilt and cane... YOU tell me who's who!
Harald
--- (Harald Havas) (Email removed)
Daniel C. Kenny
Digest
Message 172 -
1996-11-16 at 00:32:37
GARY
It really is a sad state of affairs about the Mickey strip. While I never
enjoyed Gottfredson's mouse comics as much as Barks' ducks, I will always be a
mouse fan. Besides the talent demonstrated in his stories, the Gottfredson
strip in many ways is a reflection of the 1930s itself. It's a look back into
a long forgotten era. It's unfortunate that the strip itself will soon become
forgotten if readership doesn't grow. But, ALL the way back in Series one,
wasn't the MM comic a good seller. I remember in one of the early issues
("Editor in Grief" or "The Captive Castaways") you in fact mentioned that it
was your BEST seller (thus allowing your world conquest, remember?). What
happened? Was it Disney's takeover that did the Mouse in? That would be
ironic.
Even if there's no hopes of seeing a Gottfredson library, could we see some of
the rarer gottfredson stories? So far, all the stories you've published in
WDC&S have appeared in "Mickey Mouse in Color". I don't know which ones are
acceptable today, but there are af ew I'm dying to see. "MM sails for treasure
Isalnd" or "The great orphanage Robbery" and especially "Mystery of the Hidden
River". The last one should draw fan interest because it has Pete in his first
non-pegleg appearance and Sylvester Shyster's long overdue return to the strip.
Being that Mickey and Pete had changed their appearance considerably by this
time, I wonder what shyster would look like. Really though, there's so much
Gottfredson out there and it would be a shame to reprint the same things over
and over again.
--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V96 Issue #252
******************************************
It really is a sad state of affairs about the Mickey strip. While I never
enjoyed Gottfredson's mouse comics as much as Barks' ducks, I will always be a
mouse fan. Besides the talent demonstrated in his stories, the Gottfredson
strip in many ways is a reflection of the 1930s itself. It's a look back into
a long forgotten era. It's unfortunate that the strip itself will soon become
forgotten if readership doesn't grow. But, ALL the way back in Series one,
wasn't the MM comic a good seller. I remember in one of the early issues
("Editor in Grief" or "The Captive Castaways") you in fact mentioned that it
was your BEST seller (thus allowing your world conquest, remember?). What
happened? Was it Disney's takeover that did the Mouse in? That would be
ironic.
Even if there's no hopes of seeing a Gottfredson library, could we see some of
the rarer gottfredson stories? So far, all the stories you've published in
WDC&S have appeared in "Mickey Mouse in Color". I don't know which ones are
acceptable today, but there are af ew I'm dying to see. "MM sails for treasure
Isalnd" or "The great orphanage Robbery" and especially "Mystery of the Hidden
River". The last one should draw fan interest because it has Pete in his first
non-pegleg appearance and Sylvester Shyster's long overdue return to the strip.
Being that Mickey and Pete had changed their appearance considerably by this
time, I wonder what shyster would look like. Really though, there's so much
Gottfredson out there and it would be a shame to reprint the same things over
and over again.
--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V96 Issue #252
******************************************
Markoff
Scrooge's rivals
Message 173 -
1996-11-16 at 00:39:06
HARALD:
>Well, I'm not sure... There is "Klaas Klever" as rival to $crooge,
>black suit, glasses, black hat, very obnoxios! (Role model for
>bureaucrats). And there is "Mac Moneysac" beard, "scottish look",
>kilt and cane... YOU tell me who's who!
Come to think of it, Per has "find the names" pages on his website.
Right now I'll go to:
http://www.update.uu.se/user-cgi/starback/names?Flintheart+Glomgold
Yep, Mac Moneysac is Flintheart Glomgold.
Klaas Klever is probably John D. Rockerduck, who made an appearance as a kid
in "Lo$ 4" (The Raider/King of the Copper Hill). His names page is something
like:
http://www.update.uu.se/user-cgi/starback/names?Rockerduck
but I can't seem to get onto that right now, although I'm pretty sure that's
him.
--Jonathan Markoff
<(Email removed)>
>Well, I'm not sure... There is "Klaas Klever" as rival to $crooge,
>black suit, glasses, black hat, very obnoxios! (Role model for
>bureaucrats). And there is "Mac Moneysac" beard, "scottish look",
>kilt and cane... YOU tell me who's who!
Come to think of it, Per has "find the names" pages on his website.
Right now I'll go to:
http://www.update.uu.se/user-cgi/starback/names?Flintheart+Glomgold
Yep, Mac Moneysac is Flintheart Glomgold.
Klaas Klever is probably John D. Rockerduck, who made an appearance as a kid
in "Lo$ 4" (The Raider/King of the Copper Hill). His names page is something
like:
http://www.update.uu.se/user-cgi/starback/names?Rockerduck
but I can't seem to get onto that right now, although I'm pretty sure that's
him.
--Jonathan Markoff
<(Email removed)>
Marco Barlotti
Do translators use dictionaries?
Message 174 -
1996-11-16 at 00:48:40
I've made an experiment. I've taken
(1) Barks' script for "Bottled Battlers"
(2) the Italian translation of Strobl's version on TL 827
(3) the Italian translation of Jippes' version on "Zio Paperone" #86
to see what the translator did.
The translations are different, and the second one is clearly based on both
the original version AND the first translation. The gag on "unleaded fuel"
on page 5, in fact, was missing in the 1971 version (when unleaded gasoline
was unknown in Italy) but is now present; so they DID look at the original
script. But they kept a silly meaningless babbling on the first panel of
page 9, in the same words of the 1971 translation.
Original text: <The mathematical formula is x equals bottle neck, g equals
girth of ducks -.. never mind!>.
This of course has sense, because the man is wondering HOW the ducks got
into the bottle, so he's trying to relate the bottle's neck to the ducks' girth!
Translation of the translation: <According to Goofagora's formula,
x : (bottle neck) = g : (presence of ducks) !
Uhmmm...>
This does NOT make sense! My hypothesis is that the translator never ever
looks into the dictionary the meaning of words... so he/she had no idea of
what "girth" means (clearly never having talked about women's dresses... nor
having worked in graph theory!).
I'll just quote, to confirm this conjecture, one of the horrible misdeeds in
Zio Paperone's translation of Don's War of Wendigo. On page 20, panel 2,
<creeping> shadows was translated with <crackling> shadows. Now, I ask you,
HOW in the world can shadows crackle? But look at the words: <crepitanti>
(the Italian word for "crackling") resembles a lot <creeping>. So: the
(very, very) Evil Translator did NOT look in the dictionary but rather
translated "by ear"!
(More to come on the Evil Translator's misdeed in "War of the Wendigo"... in
next postings!)
Marco
(1) Barks' script for "Bottled Battlers"
(2) the Italian translation of Strobl's version on TL 827
(3) the Italian translation of Jippes' version on "Zio Paperone" #86
to see what the translator did.
The translations are different, and the second one is clearly based on both
the original version AND the first translation. The gag on "unleaded fuel"
on page 5, in fact, was missing in the 1971 version (when unleaded gasoline
was unknown in Italy) but is now present; so they DID look at the original
script. But they kept a silly meaningless babbling on the first panel of
page 9, in the same words of the 1971 translation.
Original text: <The mathematical formula is x equals bottle neck, g equals
girth of ducks -.. never mind!>.
This of course has sense, because the man is wondering HOW the ducks got
into the bottle, so he's trying to relate the bottle's neck to the ducks' girth!
Translation of the translation: <According to Goofagora's formula,
x : (bottle neck) = g : (presence of ducks) !
Uhmmm...>
This does NOT make sense! My hypothesis is that the translator never ever
looks into the dictionary the meaning of words... so he/she had no idea of
what "girth" means (clearly never having talked about women's dresses... nor
having worked in graph theory!).
I'll just quote, to confirm this conjecture, one of the horrible misdeeds in
Zio Paperone's translation of Don's War of Wendigo. On page 20, panel 2,
<creeping> shadows was translated with <crackling> shadows. Now, I ask you,
HOW in the world can shadows crackle? But look at the words: <crepitanti>
(the Italian word for "crackling") resembles a lot <creeping>. So: the
(very, very) Evil Translator did NOT look in the dictionary but rather
translated "by ear"!
(More to come on the Evil Translator's misdeed in "War of the Wendigo"... in
next postings!)
Marco
Gary Leach
Disney comics Digest V96 #252
Message 175 -
1996-11-16 at 01:54:58
DANIEL:
>But, ALL the way back in Series one,
>wasn't the MM comic a good seller. I remember in one of the early issues
>
>("Editor in Grief" or "The Captive Castaways") you in fact mentioned that it
>was your BEST seller (thus allowing your world conquest, remember?). What
>happened? Was it Disney's takeover that did the Mouse in? That would be
>ironic.
The first issue or so of Mickey did sell pretty well, but unlike the duck
books and Comics and Stories, which maintained a fairly steady readership,
Mickey proceeded to plummet in sales with subsequent issues. In strictly
economic terms, we should have pulled the title months before Disney took
over the license. And, as history as shown, though Disney strove valiantly
to make Mickey happen in the comics market, it was a futile effort.
The whys of this are still, in many ways, mystifying. One could point
fingers at Disney's often perceived mismanagement of their number one
property over the past several decades, but that doesn't really address the
appalling lack of interest the Disney comics market exhibits toward Mickey
without apparently even giving him a chance.
Gary
****************************
"Frogs? I don't get it."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Gladstone on the Web: http://www.hamlco.com/bhc/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
>But, ALL the way back in Series one,
>wasn't the MM comic a good seller. I remember in one of the early issues
>
>("Editor in Grief" or "The Captive Castaways") you in fact mentioned that it
>was your BEST seller (thus allowing your world conquest, remember?). What
>happened? Was it Disney's takeover that did the Mouse in? That would be
>ironic.
The first issue or so of Mickey did sell pretty well, but unlike the duck
books and Comics and Stories, which maintained a fairly steady readership,
Mickey proceeded to plummet in sales with subsequent issues. In strictly
economic terms, we should have pulled the title months before Disney took
over the license. And, as history as shown, though Disney strove valiantly
to make Mickey happen in the comics market, it was a futile effort.
The whys of this are still, in many ways, mystifying. One could point
fingers at Disney's often perceived mismanagement of their number one
property over the past several decades, but that doesn't really address the
appalling lack of interest the Disney comics market exhibits toward Mickey
without apparently even giving him a chance.
Gary
****************************
"Frogs? I don't get it."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Gladstone on the Web: http://www.hamlco.com/bhc/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Kriton Kyrimis
Disney comics Digest V96 #252
Message 176 -
1996-11-16 at 02:12:01
MARCO:
> misdeed by the Evil Translator: on page 22, first panel of the second row,
> $crooge can't possibly be saying, as in the translation: <This is not
> happening to me! It's a nightmare! DON ROSA can't be so evil!>.
> I'm sure Don wouldn't have made this self-reference. Am I right? And what is
> the exact balloon?
You're right. The original balloon said: "No! There must be some mistake!
This can't be happening to *me*!
(If we want to pick nits, by saying that a person is not so evil, we mean
that that person *is* evil to some degree! Given that I would not think
that this particular adjective applies to Don, I agree with your assessment
that it is the translator who is evil!)
HARALD:
> Well, I'm not sure... There is "Klaas Klever" as rival to $crooge,
> black suit, glasses, black hat, very obnoxios! (Role model for
Sounds like John D. Rockeruck.
> bureaucrats). And there is "Mac Moneysac" beard, "scottish look",
> kilt and cane... YOU tell me who's who!
This has to be Flintheardt Glomgold.
(In Greek comics, Rockerduck's last name is spelled something like "Rompax",
which could be pronounced as either Rombax (which doesnt' make any sense) or
"raw/roe bucks/backs" (which only makes sense in English). I have no idea
which of the two is "correct". Is a similar name used in any other country?
Glomgold's Greek name translates into "Hard-heart Goldbean", though I'm
sure it was translated quite differently in DuckTales.)
--
Kriton (e-mail: (Email removed))
(WWW: http://dias.cti.gr/~kyrimis
-----
"The end result had to be what we abstract theoreticians call `kerbang'."
-----
> misdeed by the Evil Translator: on page 22, first panel of the second row,
> $crooge can't possibly be saying, as in the translation: <This is not
> happening to me! It's a nightmare! DON ROSA can't be so evil!>.
> I'm sure Don wouldn't have made this self-reference. Am I right? And what is
> the exact balloon?
You're right. The original balloon said: "No! There must be some mistake!
This can't be happening to *me*!
(If we want to pick nits, by saying that a person is not so evil, we mean
that that person *is* evil to some degree! Given that I would not think
that this particular adjective applies to Don, I agree with your assessment
that it is the translator who is evil!)
HARALD:
> Well, I'm not sure... There is "Klaas Klever" as rival to $crooge,
> black suit, glasses, black hat, very obnoxios! (Role model for
Sounds like John D. Rockeruck.
> bureaucrats). And there is "Mac Moneysac" beard, "scottish look",
> kilt and cane... YOU tell me who's who!
This has to be Flintheardt Glomgold.
(In Greek comics, Rockerduck's last name is spelled something like "Rompax",
which could be pronounced as either Rombax (which doesnt' make any sense) or
"raw/roe bucks/backs" (which only makes sense in English). I have no idea
which of the two is "correct". Is a similar name used in any other country?
Glomgold's Greek name translates into "Hard-heart Goldbean", though I'm
sure it was translated quite differently in DuckTales.)
--
Kriton (e-mail: (Email removed))
(WWW: http://dias.cti.gr/~kyrimis
-----
"The end result had to be what we abstract theoreticians call `kerbang'."
-----
Cathy J Belliveau
Geology Questions Answered
Message 177 -
1996-11-16 at 02:16:00
CHRIS:
I'm not a geologist... actually I'm a high school student, but I wasn't
sleeping in science class so I can definitely answer your question. The
mantle is made of two parts: loose rock fragments and the solid rock
below. No, the earth would not exist if the mantle were molten, however
the mantle is the heat and movement would break up the crust. Even
before that though, gravity would "rip apart" the earth. Yes, there is
gravity inflicted upon the earth from bodies such as the sun, but that
gravitational force is not great enough to hold the earth together. It
would not even take an earthquake, because any movement of the earth
would crack the crust, and the earth's contents (both on the inside and
the outside) are constantly moving. However, since we are talking
comics, isn't that sort of thing is irrelevant? I do agree that this
idea would make an excellent comic! Infact I'm surprised no one else
thought of it.
GARY:
I am from the tv generation, but absolutely love comics. You stated that
you believe doing the Mickey strip in black and white would be seen as a
blatant rip-off. Well, I feel that the B&W comics are much more
realistic. Color comics leave less to the imagination. I truly believe
that comic books done in black and white are much more valuable and
enthralling than those done in color! I would see absolutely no problem
with paying "$6.95" for black and white comics. In addition, if comics
were in black and white they would be cheaper, because a lot of the cost
is in the colored ink!
MARKOFF, WILMER, and anyone else:
What's the big deal about whether or not penguins could be in a duck
comic. Penguins are a bird... last time I checked so are ducks. If the
creator is imaginitive virtually any creature be fit into a duck comic.
Comics are abstract reality; only the designer can say what can and can
not fit in his/her comic, and they have the right to change their mind at
any time. I can not say that you can't have a dog in reality, because it
might not fit with your atmosphere. Consequently, you can not say that
duck comics can or cannot have penguins or ferrets or beavers or... you
get the idea. I hope I don't sound too preachy, but a comic is not real!
Laura Belliveau
--Consciousness: That annoying time in between naps--
I'm not a geologist... actually I'm a high school student, but I wasn't
sleeping in science class so I can definitely answer your question. The
mantle is made of two parts: loose rock fragments and the solid rock
below. No, the earth would not exist if the mantle were molten, however
the mantle is the heat and movement would break up the crust. Even
before that though, gravity would "rip apart" the earth. Yes, there is
gravity inflicted upon the earth from bodies such as the sun, but that
gravitational force is not great enough to hold the earth together. It
would not even take an earthquake, because any movement of the earth
would crack the crust, and the earth's contents (both on the inside and
the outside) are constantly moving. However, since we are talking
comics, isn't that sort of thing is irrelevant? I do agree that this
idea would make an excellent comic! Infact I'm surprised no one else
thought of it.
GARY:
I am from the tv generation, but absolutely love comics. You stated that
you believe doing the Mickey strip in black and white would be seen as a
blatant rip-off. Well, I feel that the B&W comics are much more
realistic. Color comics leave less to the imagination. I truly believe
that comic books done in black and white are much more valuable and
enthralling than those done in color! I would see absolutely no problem
with paying "$6.95" for black and white comics. In addition, if comics
were in black and white they would be cheaper, because a lot of the cost
is in the colored ink!
MARKOFF, WILMER, and anyone else:
What's the big deal about whether or not penguins could be in a duck
comic. Penguins are a bird... last time I checked so are ducks. If the
creator is imaginitive virtually any creature be fit into a duck comic.
Comics are abstract reality; only the designer can say what can and can
not fit in his/her comic, and they have the right to change their mind at
any time. I can not say that you can't have a dog in reality, because it
might not fit with your atmosphere. Consequently, you can not say that
duck comics can or cannot have penguins or ferrets or beavers or... you
get the idea. I hope I don't sound too preachy, but a comic is not real!
Laura Belliveau
--Consciousness: That annoying time in between naps--
Shaun M. Knowler
Kriton's BTW2
Message 178 -
1996-11-16 at 03:13:41
KRITON:
First of all...$crooge's (original) top hat was not bought at a scottish
rummage sale, his broadcloth coat was. Second, in my point of view, he
left that hat underground with the Terries and Fermies in "Land Beneath
the Ground". But that's just my opinion.
-$haun
First of all...$crooge's (original) top hat was not bought at a scottish
rummage sale, his broadcloth coat was. Second, in my point of view, he
left that hat underground with the Terries and Fermies in "Land Beneath
the Ground". But that's just my opinion.
-$haun
SRoweCanoe
Funny Animals
Message 179 -
1996-11-16 at 05:20:48
I must confess to have not been paying attention, and all of a sudden
I'm stopped in my tracks by Don Rosa stating that Duck comics are not funny
animal comics. that there is some formula used, where certain animals are
excluded from duck comics, which keeps them from being funny animal comics.
Pardon me for sleeping, but "whaa...???"
No offense, Don, but this is nonsense. I know that you never really
cared for funny animal comics,except for Barks stories. But Donald Duck is a
funny animal, as is Mickey Mouse, Uncle Scrooge, and every other person in
the comic. And yes, I say person; because that's what funny animals are,
people. Scamp (as much as I love Al Hubbard art) is not a funny animal, he's
an animal that is funny. So is Pluto. And Bo. Lassie is a serious animal,
but Goofy is a funny animal.
There's nothing wrong with funny animals. It's a genre just like
super-hero comics, romance comics, and horror comics. There are good
super-hero comics and there are bad super-hero comics. There are some (in my
view) greats who worked on funny animal comics, Ken Hultgren, Hubie Karp,
Sheldon Mayer, Walt Kelly, Carl Barks, and dare I say, Don Rosa. There
should be no shame in standing with those greats.
One of the interesting things about funny animals is that it can appeal
to many people in different situations. They can cross some racial and
cultural barriers, which funny humans can not. Is Donald Duck black? could
be. But, is Donald Duck not a funny animal? couldn't be; and I'm sorry
that Don feels that way.
Steven Rowe
I'm stopped in my tracks by Don Rosa stating that Duck comics are not funny
animal comics. that there is some formula used, where certain animals are
excluded from duck comics, which keeps them from being funny animal comics.
Pardon me for sleeping, but "whaa...???"
No offense, Don, but this is nonsense. I know that you never really
cared for funny animal comics,except for Barks stories. But Donald Duck is a
funny animal, as is Mickey Mouse, Uncle Scrooge, and every other person in
the comic. And yes, I say person; because that's what funny animals are,
people. Scamp (as much as I love Al Hubbard art) is not a funny animal, he's
an animal that is funny. So is Pluto. And Bo. Lassie is a serious animal,
but Goofy is a funny animal.
There's nothing wrong with funny animals. It's a genre just like
super-hero comics, romance comics, and horror comics. There are good
super-hero comics and there are bad super-hero comics. There are some (in my
view) greats who worked on funny animal comics, Ken Hultgren, Hubie Karp,
Sheldon Mayer, Walt Kelly, Carl Barks, and dare I say, Don Rosa. There
should be no shame in standing with those greats.
One of the interesting things about funny animals is that it can appeal
to many people in different situations. They can cross some racial and
cultural barriers, which funny humans can not. Is Donald Duck black? could
be. But, is Donald Duck not a funny animal? couldn't be; and I'm sorry
that Don feels that way.
Steven Rowe
Harald Havas
A matter of some gravity
Message 180 -
1996-11-16 at 15:21:09
JACOB (li'l bit off-topic)
As a phisicist from Scandinavia, maybe you heard about something I
know only from Web-gossip: some Finnish scientists are supposed to
have found (by chance while working on super-conductors) a way to
reduce gravity in objects positioned above their gear.
The gravity loss is just 2% now, but if investigated further - that way
lies antigravity! It maybe a hoax (I can dig out my electronic
"evidence"), but maybe you heard?
JONATHAN
>Klaas Klever is probably John D. Rockerduck, who made an appearance as a kid
>in "Lo$ 4" (The Raider/King of the Copper Hill).
Yep, that's him, I looked it up in the German version, and the boy
was indeed called Klaas. (The German translators did an incredible
job on LO$ - tracing all the right Fuchs-names of minor characters...)
Now, is Rockerduck the one with the South-African connection as
discussed recently here? If so, "Klaas", a tipical Dutch name (to
German ears), is a very clever (sic!) translation.
I dimly remember a Rockerduck-nephew and three grand-nephews
in one (Italian?) story. They were not obnoxious, but quite normal and
friendly, if I'm not mistaken...
Is Rockerduck a Barks invention BTW? (I *really* have to catch up with
my Library-reading, or I'll loose my ML-licence...)
Harald
--- (Harald Havas) (Email removed)
As a phisicist from Scandinavia, maybe you heard about something I
know only from Web-gossip: some Finnish scientists are supposed to
have found (by chance while working on super-conductors) a way to
reduce gravity in objects positioned above their gear.
The gravity loss is just 2% now, but if investigated further - that way
lies antigravity! It maybe a hoax (I can dig out my electronic
"evidence"), but maybe you heard?
JONATHAN
>Klaas Klever is probably John D. Rockerduck, who made an appearance as a kid
>in "Lo$ 4" (The Raider/King of the Copper Hill).
Yep, that's him, I looked it up in the German version, and the boy
was indeed called Klaas. (The German translators did an incredible
job on LO$ - tracing all the right Fuchs-names of minor characters...)
Now, is Rockerduck the one with the South-African connection as
discussed recently here? If so, "Klaas", a tipical Dutch name (to
German ears), is a very clever (sic!) translation.
I dimly remember a Rockerduck-nephew and three grand-nephews
in one (Italian?) story. They were not obnoxious, but quite normal and
friendly, if I'm not mistaken...
Is Rockerduck a Barks invention BTW? (I *really* have to catch up with
my Library-reading, or I'll loose my ML-licence...)
Harald
--- (Harald Havas) (Email removed)