Keskustelujen arkisto

\begin{delurk}

CATO asked:
> I was told that there exist a story where Donald Duck list up a
> mathematic-theorem from the Banach-theory

and HARRY answered:

>I don't know what the Banach theory is, but this sounds like one of the
>unofficial Duck stories that were made for the Danish Mads Fo/k, a
>faculty magazine.
>The only other possibility I can think of is Donald skating an integral
>formula on ice (in the Lillehammer story). But that's not a Banach theory??

I don't know the story either, but it's not one of the Mads Foek-stories.
I vaguely recall the concept 'Banach space' from an analysis-course, but
that's all, I regret to admit. Rosa's Lillehammer story has an integral
formula as you say (although I believe, to his ever-lasting regret, Don
accidentally drew a minus sign instead of an equality).

Barks has used differential equations more than once, though.
'The Swamp of no Return' has a dog solving them; the story of cattle king
Scrooge has the kids preventing a train crash using them. And there's a
late ten-pager (about buying an island) in which we see the kids at school:
A sign on the wall spells 'dog' or 'cat' or something, and another has a
couple of differentation formulas! With that kind of educational priorities
it's no wonder that 'the science of Duckburg has progressed much further
than the rest of the world'.

Kristian
\end{delurk}

wrt Donald's birthday: A cartoon from the forties involving Donald's
birthday with his nephews shows THE DATE on a calendar as (March or
April, I forget which) 13.
wrt chemical compounds: WDCS 44 "The Mad Chemist" includes the first
ever reference to the use of "Carbene"(CH2) as an intermediary reactive
compound. This is noted in a publication entitled "THE SPIN STATES OF
CARBENE", published by two researchers at the California Institute of
Technology in 1963. This and subsequent related events are discussed in
WDCS 301. I don't know if this relates to your query.

Does anyone know what the Scrooge 50th Anniversary pocketbook contains ?
It's wrapped in plastic and the people at the store won't let me open it.
Is it just the uninteresting Italian stories that normally are in
pocketbooks, or is it(as it should be) classic Scrooge stories ?

Eirik Krogh Visted =20
-- intellektuell r=E5ne =20

"Skjebnen er hard! Halsen er bl=F8t ... et siste hugg og s=E5 er det m=F8rkt=
!" -
Iskalde Gr=F8ss #6/1994

http://home.sn.no/~evisted
=09

JONATHAN:
> Someday I also plan to bring you the first 7 GAZETTES,
> but that day may be far away!

Just in case you are asking yourself whether anybody cares: Yes, I
would like to read the other issues of the Gladstone Gazette. I'm
always interested in this kind of stuff and appreciate the work you
put into copying this for us.

Keep on duckin'!
Juergen Gebhardt

I wrote:
>I was told that there exist a story where Donald Duck list up a
>mathematic-theorem from the Banach-theory (after eating somting??). Do
>anyone know what story that was, and maybe where it was published (last
>time)?

Frank Wrote:
> Enlighten us first, please; perhaps someone can help then. So what
> IS the Banach theory or theorem? Most of us here are very likely not
> mathematicians.

I did not mention to much because I thought you would know if you did see
the story. I dont know what the theorem looks like because I dont know
which of them it was (theorm = a kind of statement). I did also not expect
anybody to understand the content of it, and I guess the intention is not
that the story-reader should. Probably it will look like a pile of
mathematic-logic junk (it might be a lot of text), but it will contain a
well defined beginning and a end that look like a conclusion (or it might
be as a statement). Perhaps it contains somthing about "constructing" or
"existing" space? (it even might mention the name "Banach").
The story was probably drawn between 1950 and 1970. As I told, I have not
seen this story myself, but if my reference remember right it exist, and
was once upon a time published as a official Duck story. (I won't exclude
the possibility that someone have messed up the translation, or that the
norwegian translation has got somting added... )
I dont know a better way to explain the content, since I have not seen
the story it's hard to describe it in non-mathematic terms.
This story would be of a special interest since a friend of me makes his
PhD in the area of Banach theory.

Cato

ANYONE:
Bill Watteron's impressive ( yet darn long) speech on comics
syncicates ( The Cheapening of Comics) can be found at :
www.teleport.com/~ennead/ampersand/watterson.html

the little symbol in front of the 'ennead' part should normally be
higher up, it's just I can't get it right. If you can't acces the
address, mail me or look up key words 'Bill Watteron' under Yahoo!
Enjoy...
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"Bogart's a helluva nice guy till 11:30 p.m.
After that he thinks he's Bogart"
- David Chasen.

My apologies in advance for the teeth-gnashing nature of the following
commentary, but it's either this or bang my head against the wall (and I
bruise easily).

Eirik Krogh recently stated in the Digest (in regards to the coloring on
Life of Scrooge, Gladstone version):

>I've read Don Rosa's comments about how he is unhappy with the fact that
>the young Scrooge's hair was colored brown in Lo$, since he always had
>imagined Ducks as having white hair from birth (whoever colored it
>evidentially ignored the existence & haircolor of Hewey, Dewey and Louie).
>However, since the Lo$ albums was *at least* the second printing of these
>stories in the US, why wasn't this coloring detail changed in the albums ?

Well, Eirik, pardon me for using your comments as an excuse to rant, but
I've got a few moments to spare and I'm feeling cranky. Comes from working
long hours for median wages at a job I love but that gets little respect
(except from my peers and some truly wonderful fans, many thanks to you).
The following remarks are directed not just towards Eirik but to all who
have made similar comments in the past and present.

First off, this is *really* old news, not to mention rather moot at this
point. I'm only responding to it because I've finally had it up to here
with this whole subject and felt it was high time I gave my opinion on it
once and for all. In the future, if you're going to bitch about something,
bitch about something new, okay?

Secondly, if you can read the stories in the comics and albums, you can
read the credits. All of them. The colorist for the US edition of LOS
was/is me, Susan Daigle-Leach. You can call me Sue, Susan, Mrs. G,
Production Manager From Hell or Empress of the Known Universe, but I don't
like being called "the colorist" or "whoever. " I'm a real, breathing-type
person and I like being treated like one. Thanks.

In regards to the comment on H, D & L and being ignorant:

I'm an artist. I've been drawing and painting since the Stone Age (i.e.,
1963). To that effect, I have my own artistic viewpoints, same as Don or
anyone else. I've also had the mostly pleasurable experience and privelege
of working with the Disney ducks over the past ten years, and seeing how
they've been presented by Western, Dell, Whitman, Gold Key, Disney, Egmont,
et. al. Additionally, I read quite a few of the duck comics growing up, so
I'm anything but "ignorant" when it comes to these characters.

(If the opinion of a mere colorist/production manager doesn't sway you,
bear in mind that Art Director Gary Leach and Editor John Calrk have even
more familiararity and experience with these characters and they had no
problem whatsoever with Scrooge's hair color being other than white.)

As to the nephews, (and it's "Huey", not "Hewey," by the way) what has
their hair color have to do with Scrooge's? Because they're young
white-feathered ducks? Does every caucasian person you know have the same
color hair? Barks himself has portrayed Gladstone Gander with brown hair.
Many of the female ducks are given red, blond, or brown hair, if the art is
drawn to indicate a true hairdo, as opposed to just the requisite feather
tufts. Maybe they're wearing wigs. Or maybe, just maybe, the same
comic-universe rule that says ducks can talk and humans have wet black
noses also allows that white ducks can have colored hair. That's how I see
it, and as far as I can tell I'm as entitled to my opinion as any other
person.

In regards to the Great Scrooge Hair Scandal itself, here's the scoop:

When I started coloring the first chapter of LOS, I noticed the young
Scrooge was drawn with a topknot of shaggy hair. Ah! I thought. Here's an
opportunity! Don drew him with hair, so let's give him some youthful hair
color to go with his youthful persona. Now, Don usually includes specific
color notes when he wants something a particular color (or no color), such
as the coins in Scrooge's bin and the McDuck tartan. There was no color
instruction for Scrooge's hair (as in "leave it white"), so I made it light
brown. I was still coloring it brown two issues later when Chapter One hit
the stands and I got a call from Don. First, he complimented me on the
overall job. Next, he politely but completely reamed me out six ways from
Sunday for not assuming, as he had, that all male ducks had white hair from
cradle to grave. But Don, I said, I didn't assume that. If you had
indicated as such, I would have left the little tyke snowy-capped from
beginning to end. Therefore, I used my own judgement. (Or words to that
effect. This was several years ago).
By the time Chapter One was off press and giving Don such a shock, we had
completed Chapter Three. My original intention, as I told Don, was to have
Scrooge go white as the years passed, with his familiar snowy feathers in
place well before the end of the series. But to appease Don, I promised him
I would find a way to get Scrooge white-headed as soon as it fit into the
story. Happily, in Chapter 4, Don had fortuitously drawn a panel in which
Scrooge inadvertently sticks his finger in a live light socket and gets
royally zapped. Pow! That was my cue to turn his hair as white as the rest
of him, and so I did.

Now, as for why we didn't change it for the albums, there's a one-word
answer: Economics. Starting with Chapter Two, we had our color separator
dupe each story in the series at album-size, knowing we would eventually
release the series in album format. This saved us thousands of dollars, and
in our business, that can mean the difference between losing money and
actually making a little something to plow back into the company. We didn't
dupe the first chapter, so, yes, we could have made his hair white in that
segment -- but since we duped all the other chapters, including the
remaining brown-hair appearances, there was no point. We did go in and
change some errors in various chapters, but as that was only a few pages,
it was much less expensive than redoing the entire series.

Aside: If I could have redone any story, I would have loved to redo "The
Master of the Mississippi." I was forced by lack of time to take some
shortcuts in coloring that I regret I could not correct for the album. My
name goes on this stuff after all, as my kind peers who put me up for the
Eisner recognized. (And even though I didn't win, yes, it was an honor just
to be nominated. It really was.)

One final observation and then I'm done:

The little details that make Don's stories a delight to read also makes
them sheer hell to color, a fact Don admits upfront. By all rights, to be
truly enjoyed in their splendor these stories should be printed at
broadsheet size, with a six-month lead time on each one for it to be done
right. But we don't have that luxury, and Don knows the limitations of the
comic format as well as anyone, so y'all figure it out.

And speaking of figures, our going rate for color guides is 20 bucks a
page, freelance. (That's before you take out the 35 to 45 percent in
taxes). Even with that low a rate we get complaints from our accounting
dept about costs. If I do the color in house (which is rare, since I've got
a hundred other details to take care of in an average day), I get paid my
salary, which is about 11 bucks an hour (before taxes). I can do a Barks
page, color and mark up, in about 45 minutes. Some Rosa pages take two
hours if I do it right. One of the reasons I do most of the Rosa stories is
because I'm embarrassed to ask a freelancer to do it for our low page rate.
And at this point I want to offer my eternal gratitude to Scott Rockwell, a
true pro, for taking the Rosa stories I either don't have the time or
energy to do. (Scott says the words "insanely detailed" always come to mind
when he works on a Rosa story, and I concur.) Scott, I'd give you a raise
in a heartbeat if I had the power, buddy.

Now I'm done. And, boy, do I feel better. Thank you.

---Susan Daigle-Leach, Production Manager and Chief Ranter, Gladstone.

Gary

****************************
"I've got blistahs on my fingahs!" - Ringo Starr
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gladstone on the Web: http://www.hamlco.com/bhc/
---------------------------------------------------------------------

This discussion has been left up in the air for some time, and I'm surprised
noone replied to it before. In Digest V97 #79 (April 17, 1997), FREDRIK
SANDSTROM wrote in reply to RICH MORRISEY:

FREDRIK>Anyway, to me, of course Mickey lives in the same universe as Donald.
>My personal interpretation is that they were all good friends in their
>youth - we can see that in the cartoons - but later when they got older
>they didn't see each other as often as they did before. When Donald
>got Huey, Dewey and Louie to take care of he didn't have time to hang
>around with his old buddies as he did in the cartoons "Boat Builders",
>"Mickey's Trailer", "Lonesome Ghosts" etc. (in fact I don't think HDL
>ever met Mickey or Goofy in a cartoon)

RICH:>>(all right, I can see not counting the cartoons)

FREDRIK>I'm afraid I can't. Since when is the cartoon Donald not the same
>Donald as the comic Donald?

Well, the answer to that is, plenty of times! "Lonesome Ghosts" and
"Mickey's Trailer" may not seem like any complication, but you also have to
deal with cartoons like "Mickey Christmas Carol," which shows Donald living
in England in 1843, and "The Prince and the Pauper," which shows Donald
living in England in 1547! If nothing else, this would indicate that Donald
is a British native, and was born around 1520, making him 435 years old at
the time of Barks' stories! I think Don Rosa has expressed it best various
messages to the list over the years: Disney does not see Donald or Mickey as
"characters;" but instead as "actors" to play any role in the latest
convenient movie gimmick or as celebrities to endorse the latest convenient
product. Even when the characters seem to be just themselves in the cartoon,
there are often things that we know don't ring true the Barks comics or even
other cartoons. As DANIEL KENNY stated in Digest V96 #250 (November 13,
1996), addressing RICH MORRISEY:

>You're right. I did goof when I said that Disney would never show older
>characters. But I was aware of the cases you mentioned before I sent my
>message. I just chose to ignore them and I'll explain why. Disney did show
>older ducks, but only as a plot device. Basically, the only
>reason HD&L are 6 or 7 years older in "lucky Number" is so they can drive a
>car (come to think of it, Barks let them drive a car in "Sherriff of Bullet
>Valley" at their normal age). That's it. Nothing personal has changed
>their lives. Donald is still the same exact Donald. He hasn't changed
>physically. In other >words, Disney was not telling us "whatever happened
>to.." They were just telling a story that required the boys to be older.
>The next cartoon, the boys are young again.
>As for the Bootle Beetle cartoon, and the Spike the Bee one, which you
>didn't mention, Donald's age is only a tongue in cheek plot device to
>initiate a flashback. The Disney animators never intended this to be
>Donald's future. In fact they never intended Donald or the kids to have a
>future! To them, Donald and the other characters are frozen in time
>("unchanging through the decades", eh?) If Donald's future depened on what
>Bootle Beetle or Spike the bee said, we'd truly have to believe that he did
>spend his whole life according to their flashbacks. On the other hand, Don
>Rosa WAS showing us what he perceived as a definite future for the ducks.

Or as Don Rosa said in that exact same Digest:

>If Donald grew old and gray in that Bootle Beetle cartoon, it was simply
>make-up. If he was married to Daisy in another cartoon, it was obviously
>just a script they were acting out. [.....] It's that the comics are
>about characters while the cartoons feature "actors" that I've always
>infinitely preferred the comics' depiction of the Duck and even that Mouse.

Then comes the mother of all Duck cartoon/comics conflictions: CHRISTOPHER
BARAT wrote in Digest V97 #91 (May 3, 1997):

>1. Donald was not "drafted" into the Navy. He volunteered, telling Uncle
>Scrooge in part 1 of the "Treasure of the Golden Suns" serial that he was
>joining up because he "wanted to see the world!" (After all those Barks
>treasure-hunts, yet...)

[.......]

>4. Everyone seems to be concerned about why Donald left HD&L in Scrooge's
>care at the start of "DuckTales". An even more pressing question is, when
>exactly did Donald get back to Duckburg and restore the status quo? In an
>early-90's Disney Comics UNCLE SCROOGE story, "Coffee, Louie, or Me?", Donald
>makes several references to HAVING BEEN in the Navy, so it can be surmised
>(as it originally was by my good friend and fellow Duck fan Joe Torcivia)
>that this is the first unequivocally post-"DuckTales" Duck story. But no
>explanation is forthcoming in the story as to when Donald returned. "Quack
>Pack" certainly doesn't discuss this matter, though it does use Donald's
>former seaman status as the springboard for one of its episodes, "All Hands
>on Duck".

Don Rosa and me, of course, have eliminated this problem completely:
DuckTales simply never happened! Ignoring me and Don's mindless devotion to
Barks's universe only (although he is more intense than me in that quest),
there are more reasons why than you can shake a stick at! The theory of
Chris, Joe, etc., is that DuckTales takes place "after" the Barks stories,
but if this is true, then that means the Ducks had certain adventures ("Back
to the Klondike," "The Lemming With the Locket," etc.) in Barks stories,
then, AFTER that, in DuckTales, had the SAME adventures, with slight
variations, and didn't remember the first times! Example: in Barks' "Back to
the Klondike," Scrooge was reacquainted with Glittering Goldie for the first
time since 1898, described in vivid flashback that event in the past. AFTER
Barks, in DuckTales, Scrooge met Goldie for the first(!) time since 1898,
and described in vivid flashback the exact same in event in the past, and it
happened in the past differently than the first time it happened in the
past! (I'm beginning to sound like Don describing his time-machine stories!)
Other problems in this theory are: Huey, Dewey, and Louie starred in all
those Barks adventures alongside Scrooge, yet in the first DuckTales episode
(AFTER Barks) it is established that Scrooge and HDL have previously never
met, except for brief occasions that resulted in no good impressions. And
then there are the Beagle Boys, who have apparently experienced some
unexplained mass mutation which caused them to morph into all different
sizes, while Flintheart Glomgold has not only had a change of appearance,
but a change of nationality as well!

Back to FREDRIK SANDSTROM in April 1997, replying to Don Rosa's declaration
that Mickey is fictional in the Duck universe:

>As you know by now I disagree with this. I think there is no need for
>this solution - it contradicts facts that I want to regard as canon
>(cartoons and Taliaferro (Clarabelle appeared together with Donald in
>at least one Taliaferro strip, remember? :) )). It probably even
>contradicts some Barks facts, although I can't point anything out
>right now...

Clarabelle in fact appeared in many Donald strips by Taliaferro in 1936 and
1937. So did Horace, Goofy, Pluto, Morty & Ferdie, quite frequently! But
that (as in the case of Floyd Gottfredson's Donald, is a wholely different
duck from Barks' Donald, right, Don?

BTW, the Taliaferro Donald is not a "juvenile," as many people believe. HIGH
NELSON (who is not on-line, at least as far as I know) provides concrete
evidence of this in the letter column of DONALD DUCK 284:

"Would police throw a child into a patrol wagon after arresting him? The
duck was usually shown alone at home, and a police officer even throws him
into jail for spanking a child!"

As for remembering any Rosa ideas that Mickey is fictional to the Duck world
that contradict Barks, I can't either...but I CAN point out one that
supports Don's theory! In the first panel of "The Smugsnorkle Squattie" (WDC
70, and just recently reprinted in DD 301) Donald is reading WALT DISNEY'S
COMICS AND STORIES with Mickey Mouse on the cover! (Well, actually it just
says "Walt Disney's Comics," but even in the real world the title has often
been printed incomplete.) I think there are more examples of this in Barks
stories, and I only wish I'd written them down. (Donald also reads WDC&S in
"Wispy Willie," WDC 159, but the cover features some strange unidentifiable
character.) As for Barksian evidence that Mickey DOES exist in the Duck
universe, the only one I can think of is in "Sales Resistance" (WDC 83)
where Donald thinks "Mickey" is coming to visit. But note that he does NOT
say "Mickey MOUSE." He could be talking about Mickey Moose, for all we know.
BTW, there's another intriguing reference in Barks stories to "non-Duck
Disney characters"--in "So Far and No Safari" (US 61), Donald remarks that
some African tribesmen must be celebrating their new-found wealth at "the
local Disneyland."

BTW, there's one angle that I'm surprised noone's pointed out so far: Donald
lives in 1955, whereas Mickey lives in, what, 1935? So if these dates are
correct, and Donald is the same age in his stories that Mickey is in his,
and if "now" is 1955, even if Mickey does exist in Donald's universe, he'd
be old and gray by now!

--Jonathan Markoff

"Comics about a TALKING MONKEY?? Aw! That's KID STUFF!"
--Don Rosa, "Super Snooper Strikes Again"