Keskustelujen arkisto

I disappeared for a few days. List member Frank Stejano was visiting me here
over the weekend.

DAVE R.:
Well, I don't know what else to tell you, especially since I don't want to
be buried in more verbage. Yes, you are very polite and this is a silly
little matter, but it's one that I always thought was understood by all
readers of Donald Duck comic books, and I see it isn't. I think a large part
of the impact of these adventures is when the readers know that these are
not typical funny-animal comics like Warner Bros. or most any other Disney
comics. You see Byron saying what you want him to be saying, just as I'm
sure you think I am. He mentioned an actual meeting of editors discussing
what animals might be used in a Duck story -- he flatly said that there are
certain animals that cannot be used as "intelligent", and he gave a short
list of examples of animals which are simply animals in this Duck Universe.
He stated the general guideline that might be considered for utilizing an
intelligent-animal in a Duck comic, the number of such animals I've heard
him say is probably no more than 10, total. I am only slightly more
restrictive, and I'd put it at around 5 or 6.
I can only say that I don't recant a syllable I've said about any of this.
Why do I take this so seriously? Because Barks' Duck world is precious to me
and I hate to see it misunderstood. Bugs Bunny is a funny animal. Daffy Duck
is a funny animal. Chip and Dale are funny animals. Donald Duck is a human
being. The Duck universe is separate from any other Disney universe. Chip
and Dale do not exist in the Duck world because there chipmunks are simply
dumb animals. Pablo the penguin lived in an iglou in his Disney story, but
in a Duck comic penguins are penguins. The prehistorical "Donald Duck Finds
Pirate Gold" obviously doesn't count -- regardless of its use of the
intelligent Parrot. In Duck comics parrots are just parrots and that's that.
I can easilly see how people reading this discussion who aren't completely
familiar with these Duck stories would find this all rather puzzling. If a
Duck can be talking/intelligent in these comics, why not a turkey or a
sparrow or a vulture? Why not a mouse or a chipmunk or a cat? The short
answer is that that's just the way it is. That's the way it's always been.
If there are Egmont editors who want to change that, which I doubt, I'm glad
I don't work through them. The Duck universe was a world that placed Donald
as a human being into a world of real people, and was slightly nudged by the
Dell editors of the 40s into the use of black noses on the other humans and
pig-snouts on a rare few others. But those are not dogs or pigs, they are
people. I think any Duck story that showed cat-people or stork-people or any
of those other critters is simply wrong... if it was allowed I think it was
a mistake. Sorry. We'll simply have to agree to disagree, and leave it at
that. I guess I shouldn't worry as long as I'm allowed to use the characters
I think are correct... I'll worry about it when one of these editors who
allows rooster-people in a duck-comic tells me I must put a raccoon man into
my next story as a park-ranger since he thinks that idea would "work" for
the readers and for him. All I could tell him would be maybe so, but it
doesn't "work" for me because I know it's insane, and I couldn't do it.

MARCO:
The Italian translator's heart is in the right place, but I don't like to
see my name used in my own $crooge story like that. First, it would lead the
reader to think *I* included it in my script, which of course I wouldn't.
But more importantly, for $crooge to step out of the reality of the story to
say that he knows he's a comic book character who's adventures are being
written and drawn by a cartoonist would destroy the story's credibility. It
suddenly becomes all make-believe in that instant. I'm sorry to hear they
did that.

On Nov 18, 2:57pm, Harald Havas wrote:
> Subject: Evil Translators everywhere
> RE: EVIL TRANSLATORS
> If some of you feel that stuff - like the awful things discussed here
> - happens only because were talking about people dealing with
> "just some funny books" - you're wrong.
>
A while back, I was reading a couple of Edgar Rice Burroughs
(creator of Tarzan) novels translated into Dutch. Burroughs
is a writer that if you're over 16 you're probably too old
for him, so my excuse to reread his books was that I was
improving my reading knowledge of a foreign language. Anyway,
I came upon a scene in one of the Pellucidar series books in
which the hero from the modern world had a fight with a caveman,
and won because "I had one thing he didn't. Stilte." Silence?
That doesn't seem like a useful technique in a fistfight, unless
you sneak up on the opponent from behind. So I went back and
checked the original, which read, "I had one thing he didn't.
Science." That does make sense, because in American parlance,
"science" can refer to disciplined, trained, and skilled
fighting (boxing is sometimes called "the sweet science")
as opposed to outright brawling. Evidently the Dutch
translator simply misread "science" as "silence" (or worse,
had no idea what "science" meant in this context and assumed
it was a typo for a similar word).

--Dwight Decker

Harald wrote:

>BLACK and WHITE
>BTW: Donald is most surely not black. But Mickey is. Or, to be more
>exact: Mickey is a white actor portraying a black figure (as I've
>stated before here) - the hint is the gloves that point to times of
>vaudeville comedians and singers where whites put shoe-cream on
>their faces and put on gloves to act as blacks. Al Jolson was one of
>the last ones. Mickey (and several other cartoon-comedians) are based
>on this as kind of in-joke. The reason for this runs even deeper: the
>first cartoons where b/w, and showing cats, dogs and mice completely
>black - as they are NOT in nature! - as kind of painted comedians
>made "aus der Not eine Tugend" (a virtue out of necessity), and was
>one more laugh for early XX. century-audiences, who got the joke...

I have no axe to grind as to whether Mickey is black or white (or
white playing black, etc.). I just want to point out two things.
Lots of white characters of the time (Mutt and Jeff for example)
wore white gloves.

The other thing is that Mickey started as an animation character
at a time when characters were painted black or white and rarely gray.
Felix the cat had a black body and hands, and as a result Felix
had to act with his hands away from his body or you couldn't see them.
They disappeared. One reason for Mickey's white gloves was to allow
his hands to be visible in front of his black body and give the animators
more freedom as to how they staged things.
___________________________________________________________________
Mark Mayerson Catapult Productions
(Email removed) Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Check out the Monster By Mistake website at http://www.MonsterByMistake.com
Now with quicktime movies!!

KRITON
>I think that the answer is quite simple: Ducks had Carl Barks, while Mickey
didn't. Not that Gottfredson and the other Mickey artists were not brilliant,
but Barks hit on the right formula: most people can identify with Donald
(he has a family life, ambitions we can share with him, and works to make his
employer richer for 30 cents an hour). On the other hand, few people can
identify with someone like Mickey, who has an exotic adventure on every
alternate Tuesday, and excels in most human activities. (How many people do
you know that have travelled the world, can pilot an airplane, are former
members of the US secret service, have published their own newspaper, are
regularly consulted by the police, and have saved the world on more than one
occasion?)<

You're right but there's one more thing: Gottfredson's work was for
newspapers and forgotten as soon as the paper was thrown away. Barks'
stories were for comic books one could keep and collect. And he was
reprinted several times. Further Gottfredson's mouse was great in the
30ies and 40ies. When comic books became big, the current mouse was a
boring character, and G's story were redone in a very toned down
version.
About "Mickey-Super-Hero" there are enough other adventure characters
who survived these impossibilities (Tintin for one).

BLACK and WHITE
BTW: Donald is most surely not black. But Mickey is. Or, to be more
exact: Mickey is a white actor portraying a black figure (as I've
stated before here) - the hint is the gloves that point to times of
vaudeville comedians and singers where whites put shoe-cream on
their faces and put on gloves to act as blacks. Al Jolson was one of
the last ones. Mickey (and several other cartoon-comedians) are based
on this as kind of in-joke. The reason for this runs even deeper: the
first cartoons where b/w, and showing cats, dogs and mice completely
black - as they are NOT in nature! - as kind of painted comedians
made "aus der Not eine Tugend" (a virtue out of necessity), and was
one more laugh for early XX. century-audiences, who got the joke...

UNIVERSAL SOLVENT
Water has been mentioned. I'd add air (oxygen to be more specific),
which dissolves nearly everything - just think of rust = "burnt"
metal.

ROCKERDUCK vs. GLOMGOLD
Okay, Glomgold is South African, but looks distinctively scottish?
And Rockerduck is US citizen and has been translated with "Klaas
Klever" (soundig Dutch) in German?
Where's the logic? Who screwed up? Donaldists, you listening?

Harald
--- (Harald Havas) (Email removed)

Marco wrote:
> The database is not complete because Frank (blame on him!) has not
> implemented yet for Italian stories the feature which lists the appearing
> characters.

And Don wrote:
> List member Frank Stajano was visiting me here over the weekend.

So that explains why Frank isn't working on the database. Well, who would,
if he had the choice between visiting Don Rosa, and programming?

--Harry.

Rich Morrissey:
" Well, "Mickey's Christmas Carol" worked, at least with regard to the main
character (despite the title, not Mickey but Scrooge McDuck as Ebenezer
Scrooge), since Barks himself admitted his character was named and partly
based on Dickens'. But Donald was largely wasted (if inevitable) as
Ebenezer's nephew, and Mickey was never as meek as Bob Cratchit. "The Prince
and the Pauper" was probably better adapted with Mickey Mouse, not in the
movie that used the name, but in Gottfredson's "The Monarch of Medioka.""

I won't disagree with you that some of this kind of stories are good, but
most of these that I've read are Italian ones. And I am not a great fan of
much of the italian duck's, though some are good, but many of these types of
stories are not good. They have a plain stoyline which tries to squeze the
characters into the existing story with often bar luck. But of course there
are acceptances.

~Christer - "There he goes - trying to get out of his share of work!"

I just received my copy of WDC&S #606, and I immediately thumbed through
the last part of "The Universal Solvent". Not to spoil things too much,
I have to say that I was completely wrong when I suggested earlier that
Don might have skimped on his reasearch, as he has more than thoroughly
researched the issue of what lies beneath the ground. (Hint!)

I'm impressed.

As a side note, a fellow Greek fan told me that this story is based on one
of Don's earlier Pertwillaby stories, predicting accurately the resolution
of the cliffhanger at the end of Part 2.

I understand that the Pertwillaby stories were conceived as Duck stories,
so I suppose all of them will eventually appear as such. Are there any
other Pertillaby-based duck stories, apart from "Son of the Sun" and
"The Universal Solvent"?

Finally, are the Pertwillaby stories still available at anything resembling
a reasonable price?
--
Kriton (e-mail: (Email removed))
(WWW: http://dias.cti.gr/~kyrimis
-----
"Never play with asteroids--they're what Murphy's law's all about!"
-----