Keskustelujen arkisto

> Isn't Dumbella obviously a silly nickname for Della - the kind
> of thing Donald might have called her as a kid? Brothers and sisters
> have, after all, been throwing joking insults each other's way for
> centuries by now.

Excellent theory! And, knowing Donald, I can believe it!

> <The big Duck what-if discussion: Goldie inheirits U$'s fortune>
> Maybe Disney's strict code can't allow children
> to know what U$ finds so special in Goldie (in association to the
> way Goldie made a living by "entertaining" tired miners). :-)

I'll step forward to defend her honor again, although it's not an
impossibility. It just doesn't match my personal vision of the
character. If it were true, however, you can surely bet that Disney
wouldn't show it!If I remember my history right, however, often the
"madams" of such...dubious...establishments actually didn't,
uh...participate. They just managed the place. So if you go with Don
Rosa's view that Goldie owned the Blackjack, I have some evidence to
support this. Of course, that's a big assumption, and I don't want to
open *that* Pandora's Box again!

> Come to think of it, that makes him an ideal candidate to play
> Jacob Marley's ghost in the Disney version of "A Christmas Carol":
> Marley's ghost **does** wear a yoke, of sorts (or at least it would
> fit in well with the chains wrapped around him).

Absolutely! I hadn't thought of it that way, but very good point.I
can't complain much about the Mickey's Christmas Carol cartoon, because
it sparked the promotion from Hardee's (fast food restaurant) of stuffed
toys based on the show. I was only like 5 at the time, and I carried
that little stuffed Scrooge all over with me! I still have it, but it's
rather dirty and worn from all my affections!
It really irritated me when I went to Walt Disney World two years ago
(my second visit) and saw NO merchandise featuring Scrooge or other
comic book characters. There were the usual vacantly smiling Donald and
Daisy, but that was it. :-(

>re the DUCKTALES "Back to the Klondike":
<<...you'll notice that in the DuckTales version, Scrooge and Goldie
only worked together on the claim, not lived there. In Barks' tale, she
stayed there the whole month.>>
>Yes, but on TV, the viewer was invited to draw the conclusion that S&G
were
>living together at the same time that they were working together. Even
if you
>dispute this, there's all those "rest periods" between work shifts to
consider...

;-) True!

That's my $0.02 for the day. Ciao!

Katie Sullivan

Due to holidays and server trouble, I've only recently begun to catch
up with the digests from the last couple of months, and the phrase
"no news are good news" jumps to mind.

Don Rosa chased off "his own" list!? I'm upset, angry and very sorry.
I choose to believe that I'm speaking on behalf of the great majority
of subscribers, when characterizing the recent developments as a
mudslinging campaign against Don.

This is far from a new thing, as Don has previously been subject to
malicious slander, organized on a scale that resembles an American
electoral campaign. But it was my impression, that Don could shake
that off and avoid the paranoid breakdown I know I would have had,
mainly because of his late night sessions at the keyboard. Writing
to a group of people, who had the same knowledge and love of ducks
made it easier to get incompetent journalists, shameless bootlickers
and critics with hidden agendas off his mind. He was among friends.

Surely there was no lack of criticism: it's a regular sport to find
an inaccuracy in one of Don's stories, and in spite of his apparent
annoyance when faced with a blunder, it must at some level please
Don when a university professor of a particular subject dissects a
story to find a tiny factual error hidden at the bottom of page 17.

With respect to interpreting the characters, Don "knows" them, as
we all do, and don't/won't/can't change his conception, but readily
explains and discusses his views at the drop of a hat. But he never,
ever says he's right and you're wrong, because he must have realized
that how you percieve the ducks are as much a product of your own
attitudes and reading pensum as any 'official' psychological profile.
"It's just *my* view!" as he must have said a zillion times.

Don's ducks are of course different from Barks': IMHO Barks was
eminent at showing basic, human emotions that resonated with every
single person who read the stories, regardless of sex, creed or
color. That's what made Donald Duck an icon of western culture.
But where Barks' characters were often archetypical, Rosa ducks are
much more complex, and the stories investigate relations between
the characters - something Barks just settled for storytelling
purposes. I see Don Rosa's ducks as an added dimension to Barks',
the same and yet more.

When people chastize Don for misinterpreting the characters and even
iconoclasm, it's Political Correctness in absurdum: anyone is entitled
to have his own views on how a fictional character would behave.
Readers familiar with more than one school of Disney comics (Italian
and Brazilian come to mind) knows that there's a wide range of views,
and some of them just happen to coincide with the editors'.
Giving you a chance to read it or skip it, love it or leave it.

If people are unable to ignore Don's work, it's simply a testimony to
the quality of his stories: I've read and forgot thousands of silly
stories, but that's just not possible with Don's - at least for me.
So go ahead and blame him for being too good at his job!?

Speaking of PC: Doesn't that actually mean that you are prohibited
from expressing yourself in a manner which might upset, hurt or degrade
a group of people? I'd prefer something called CC (Civil Correctness)
which protects individuals from harassment. But that would probably
put a lot of lawyers out of work. :-)

In Denmark we have a relaxed attitude to irony and even sarcasm
("Well, f*ck you if you can't take a joke!"), and it gives us an
edge, when trying to tell if someone's just making a little joke
at your expense, or they *really* hate your guts.

Not that the recent mails had any signs of subtlety: Daniel van
Eijmeren is IMHO acting like a spoilt child, who didn't get the
attention he craved for. So he's hurt, not offended, as he claims.
And insists that it's Don's feelings he's commenting.

But when Daniel van Eijmeren has become his old self and given a
(public!) apology - or a note from his psychiatrist - I can forgive
him, and will treat him as nicely as is usual on this list.

(A guy recently looked quite surprised at me, when I asked if he really
meant to say that you should never excuse what you've said on the Net,
but he must hang out on the wrong newsgroups/mls.)

Daniel van Eijmeren's provocative and harsh postings were obviously
directly reponsible for Don deciding to leave this refuge of his.
(I would have used the word 'asylum', but I've previously had trouble
with modern American use of Latin/Greek words.)
But surely there has been a trend of 'Rosa-bashing' recently such
as the infamous Geoffrey Blum scripts (not that I've had the chance
to see those myself.)
Most surprisingly, the same people who have previously hailed Don Rosa
as a God's gift to disneykind are now thrashing him. Not his stories,
mind you, but Keno Don Rosa himself, "mr. High-and-Mighty".
Don has mentioned how surprised he was to be treated like a rock'n'roll
star on his tours, and now he knows the other side of that medal:
the public makes stars, then breaks them, when novelty wears off.

I'm sure loads of mails have by now said many of the same things as
this one since Don's departure in digest #19, but I had to get this
off my chest. Even if I only met Don personally once, I must have
read thousands of pages of his stream-of-consciouness style prose,
and feel like I know him very well: he's one h*lluva nice guy, who
doesn't know how to say no: that's why he is being exploited by
people who use him as a prestige xerox machine (hi Gladstone!),
an in-house instant-classic-generator and on-call-side-show
(hello Egmont!) and of course all the people, who just want a
scribble and a signed e-mail (hello... me?).
(Oops, don't knock Gladstone, they're an endangered species! ;-)

Don, I could tell from your subdued resignation note how reluctant
you were to leave your friends on the list, but I think you were
right in your decision not to fight this battle: some times you
just can't win and this looks like one of them. I bet right now
you wish you were just another anonymous Disney creator and
had time and peace to concentrate on just doing your stories.

I hope, nay, *trust* to see you back on the list sooner or later,
but for once let it be your decision and no-one else's if and when.

Now, who are we gonna hit at next? Say, there's this Dave Rawson guy,
who had the nerve to promote a handful of his stories recently.
Maybe simply ignoring the h*ll out of him is too kind:

Dave, I re-read the oldest of your stories I know of (D 92005, with
Pat McGreal about Ali Baba) and looking past the Italian style art by
Alessandro Coppola (why do the characters always have to *run*?), it
read a lot like a Barks story. I liked it, but thread carefully: you
never know who the fundamentalists will drumhead court-martial next...

Ole Reichstein Nielsen <(Email removed) OR (Email removed)>

"For me, the only thing I can say is: Keep up
doing your stories like you want to do them."
-- Daniel van Eijmeren in his first posting to the list.

Hi, I wrote this days ago, but have been having some serious problems with
my internet-connection (involving *argh* formatting the harddisk among
other things), so I haven't been able send it before now.

JANNE:

>
>Tarjei Kidd Olsen agreed on:
>>I think Don's characters are **better** than Barks' characters.
>
>Oh no, no...! Here goes my opinion:
>
>As I read stories by Don or Carl, I can't help comparing them. IMHO Don is
>the greatest Duck artist still working, but I'm afraid his stories are
>nothing
>like what Barks has done. In Don's work I find irritating the flatness and
>straighforwardness of Duck's personalities; Ducks lack personality, and
>Don uses too exaggarating facial expressions to give the readers hint of
>what's going on in Donald's head, for example. Don's ducks lack personality
>and humanity, as compared to Barks' ducks: they have dynamic and rich
>personalities.
>

I don't think they lack personality. If anything, the BARKS ducks lacked it
more than Dons' do! Rosa is deliberately giving the ducks varied
personalities, picking up on Barks' hintings at a potentially more varied
spectrum of emotions and expressions. Or, at least, that's MY humble
opinion ;-)

>I guess there is no point in arguing one's sense of humor, but I often
>find Don's gags-at-the-bottom-of-the-panel storytelling somewhat disrupting
>to story's general touch and feel.

Well, those little details are *one* of my favourite aspects of his visual
work.

>gags to serious or emotionally touching scenes without ruining the general
>feeling of, for example, sadness. For me, Don's stories are not
>ensyclopedic
>and epic ;-) in a way Barks' stories are. Just read, say, DD in Old
>California...
>how glorious, how beautiful!
>

I agree that 'Old California' was glorious, but in my books LO$ is even
MORE glorious with it's multiple chapters, detailed background and complex
branches (as one ML-member said; a 'Tolkien Style')...

>with characters, feel what they feel. Don's ducks are more distant and
>they lack warmth...

!!!!!!!

-- |Tarjei - Kidd - Olsen|
-- e-mail: (Email removed)
-- Website: http://home.sol.no/~kidd/index.html
-- Panacea: http://home.sol.no/~kjahanse/panacea/index.html

DANIEL:

>my personal view on the "Life of Scrooge" is that it's Scrooge's *own*
>version. This would be what Scrooge tells the nephews if they would ask
>him! Since he can't contradict all the stories he told (bragged?) before,
>he had to include them or else the nephews would notice it.
[...]
>Maybe it would be nice to make a story of the nephews going to Grandma,
>asking what *her* version on his life-story is? Grandma is in a way as
>as old and as strong as Scrooge (possibly she even brags in her own way).
>Maybe she could even tell her more down-to-earth version in Scrooge's
>presence? I think that would be fun! :-)

I totally agree ON THIS. From Pirandello to Kurosawa, who knows what truth is?
This should be exploited IMHO.

Marco

Henning Reichstein wrote:

> Don Rosa chased off "his own" list!? I'm upset, angry and very sorry.
> I choose to believe that I'm speaking on behalf of the great majority
> of subscribers, when characterizing the recent developments as a
> mudslinging campaign against Don.

So, here we go again, don't we; Don Rosa's "own list". Where
are you heading, Henning? That is just a part of the objection
that I had in the first place (probably Daniel as well). This is *not*
Don Rosa's mailling list, and Don have already stated that he
did not like it to be that way nor influence anyone one his
opinions.

> Writing
> to a group of people, who had the same knowledge and love of ducks
> made it easier to get incompetent journalists, shameless bootlickers
> and critics with hidden agendas off his mind. He was among friends.

Sure, but wouldn't it be possible to be a friend and still comment and
critisise peoples work? At least that's I was told during high-school
and
university.

> When people chastize Don for misinterpreting the characters and even
> iconoclasm, it's Political Correctness in absurdum: anyone is entitle=
d
>
> to have his own views on how a fictional character would behave.

Precisely. Except that it seems as if you are adressing
"political correctness" on Don's work. Isn't it that Don's work
is political correctness at this very moment, isn't it that Don
told the true story about Scrooge?

> Giving you a chance to read it or skip it, love it or leave it.

Righto! As could you do for the critics, couldn't you?

> In Denmark we have a relaxed attitude to irony and even sarcasm
> ("Well, f*ck you if you can't take a joke!"), and it gives us an
> edge, when trying to tell if someone's just making a little joke
> at your expense, or they *really* hate your guts.

So, why, as a Dane, are you so reluctant to take
critisicm. Why not just admit, that you didn't get the
point??? ;-)

> But when Daniel van Eijmeren has become his old self and given a
> (public!) apology - or a note from his psychiatrist list.

...what a sad statement. There would absolutely be no
reason in any regards to give *any* apology...IMO...

S=F8ren

In Digest # 26, ETA BETA responded to my earlier "Lydia" post:

>Now, I seem to detect quite a bit of professional pride in your remark...

Well... maybe I'll have to admit to that, but I sure hope I didn't sound
condescending or something. If so, it might be because I'm used to hearing
people in general complaining about "bad translations" whenever they notice
something in the subtitles of a TV show or a movie, for example, of which
they happen to understand the original meaning. (Or think they do.) Sure,
bad translations do exist, but more often than not, these people never
bother to ponder the question I posed: "What did they want the translator to
do"? In your case, I thought you were complaining about something that
sounded to me like the perfectly natural, and maybe the only possible, thing
to do as a translator. I even did it myself in the exact same spot. So I
couldn't help asking the question - no offense intended. Of course I didn't
know the Battisti song that was used in this case. It may have been totally
out of place. I guess I was more interested in making a general point than
in quibbling over specific cases.

Thanks for explaining your reasoning. However, I'm not convinced that "the
magic footnote tool" would be the best solution, at least not in the regular
Swedish weekly mag where this story was published. If I'm to put in a
footnote whenever there is a Rosa gag that I can't translate, the reading
will be bothersome indeed! Such things are perfect to note in big,
ultra-serious works like the Lo$ book, where the author (and translator) can
explain and analyze to their hearts' delight in prefaces and commentaries.
But the idea, of course, is right. I have been known to use footnotes on
rare, special occasions, mostly in hand-lettered albums. Perhaps footnotes
happen to suit the Italian comic book style better overall?

Which brings us to another reason I brought this up: It's very interesting
to note what differences there might be in the way scripts and translations
of Disney comics are handled in different countries. We already know from
the discussions on this list that there are several contradictory traditions
for the stories' content (characters, family ties, home towns and whatever).
I'm sure every country has many other traditions of its own regarding other
things, like use of language: slang, unusual or difficult words, foreign
languages, special words, and so on; not to mention the very appearance of
the comics: magazine formats, computer-set texts, hand-lettering... and
footnotes!

I often run into problems of how to handle the scripts. I never considered
myself a "translator" in that I'd have to stick to the original no matter
what. On the contrary, I used to feel that my greatest responsibility was
towards the Ducks (and other characters) and the way they traditionally are
presented in Swedish. So, if I felt that a story clashed with my perception
of the characters, or if I figured I could put in an extra joke or
something, I just reworded the balloons to my liking. I never knew how the
original writers reacted to this. I rarely know who they were, and I'll
admit I often didn't care. But it may have happened that I spoiled the
writer's intention, even though I preferred to believe I could improve on
the stories! By the way, I believe that Gladstone in their early days
handled most of the scripts from Egmont (then Gutenberghus) much the same
way to an even greater extent, sometimes almost rewriting the whole story -
adding, deleting, and enlarging balloons and text boxes, which was something
I never could do. So maybe I wasn't alone in this reasoning.

Now it's different. The Egmont stories I translate every week come from many
dedicated and excellent writers, who know and care about the characters just
as much as I do, if not more. Furthermore, in more and more countries they
are finally credited by name, so it's obvious who writes what, not just to a
little group of fans. And many of the writers have their own, easily
identified personal style. Sometimes the difference is huge! So I have an
obligation towards the writers, whom I know to care about the characters and
put a lot of work into their dialogue, to keep their tone and spirit intact.
But I still have an obligation towards the Swedish tradition. In other
words, is Donald Duck supposed to talk like Carl Barks, Don Rosa, or William
Van Horn? I think he's supposed to talk like Donald Duck. I try to balance
the writing and preserve as much as I can of the development in styles as
well as the tradition - but in the end, I guess the Swedish Donald Duck ends
up talking exactly like Stefan Dios. Oh, well...

I have no distinct point to make, other than discussing a few different
angles within the translating job. Somebody might be interested, and I'm
sure the other readers already have skipped this post. So this is all for now...

Stefan Dios
Malmo, Sweden

--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V98 Issue #27
*****************************************

Fellow Quacks:

SPOILER*SPOILER*SPOILER*SPOILER*SPOILER*

Here follows Geoffrey Blum's editorial on Rosa's "A Little Something
Special" as it appeared in TAUSMD #2--part of the editorial's contents
created some stir a month ago, so it might be better if people criticize the
critique as a whole, rather than simply taking sentences out of context:

<<There's no question Carl Barks was prolific. I haven't counted his stories
myself, but 500 is the number generally cited. Each one is a gem, and the
few that aren't are nicely cut and polished. Is it any wonder we've been
packing them into the Gladstone comics? But a treasure, even of this size,
will stretch just so far. This month we break stride with a Christmas
offering of stories that haven't been seen before, not on this side of the
Duck-pond.

What can I say about Don Rosa's extravaganza in *The Adventurous Uncle
Scrooge McDuck* 2? If I criticize just one sweat bead, there will be legions
of loyal fans howling for my head. If I praise too much, you'll think I have
my keyboard in my cheek. Perhaps the word on which we can all agree is
energy. Though heavy with motion lines and superfine texturing, Rosa's
drawings leap off the page, and his plots race. Pick up any dozen of the
Danish-produced duck tales, and you may have a hard time sorting out
artists. Daniel Branca's work is recognizable, so's that of Vicar, but
Egmont's editors strive for homogeneity, and to a great extent they achieve
it. I've even heard stories of William Van Horn being sent back to his
drawing board with a model sheet. Only Rosa, like Barks in his heyday, is
given free rein. That's because there's no reining in the wild surge of his
vision.

Since Rosa has labored to establish a timeline for the comics and an
ancestry for Scrooge, it's appropriate that he should host McDuck's Golden
Jubille. It was in December 1947 that Scrooge first waddled onto the pages
of the Dell comics in "Christmas On Bear Mountain" (*Donald Duck* FC 178),
and here we are fifty years later approaching the same holiday. Now by
Rosa's reckoning, Scrooge came to Duckburg and built his money bin in 1902
(see Chapter 10 of his *Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck*). Since Rosa's
"present-day" stories all take place in 1952, the year he regards as Barks'
golden age, the coincidence of half-centuries works nicely. But his title "A
Little Something Special" is an understatement. This story is a celebration
to end all celebrations.

In 29 pages Rosa crams in Scrooge and his nephews, Daisy, Gyro, Gladstone,
Grandma, Magica de Spell, Flintheart Glomgold, the Beagle Boys, the Mayor of
Duckburg, and all the townspeople. Led by a mysterious sponsor, these
characters crowd into bleachers at the foot of Killmotor Hill for a ceremony
honoring the World's Richest Duck. There are banners, speeches, even a
contest to guess the perfect present for the miser who has everything.
Scrooge, of course, wants nothing to do with this pomp and circumstance, but
he's dragged kicking and screaming to the seat of honor while dirty doings
get underway at the money bin. More than that I can't reveal without
spoiling the twists and hairpin turns of Rosa's plot.

But I can tell you that the comic ends on a steamy beak-to-beak kiss between
Scrooge and Glittering Goldie. Having disposed of magic spells, bin-chewing
machines, and a chase through the sewers of Duckburg, Rosa indulges the vein
of sentiment that runs beneath all his tales and throws in this moment as a
tribute to Scrooge's old flame. It's a mere coda to the adventure, over in
half a page, but it is intense and typifies what I'd call the non-Barks
element in Rosa's work. Melding in a shriek from *Mad Magazine*, a whiff of
the EC horror tales, and countless references to classic American films, he
has expanded his chosen genre in ways none of us would have tought possible
ten years ago, producing Disney comics that are like no other Disney comics.
Indeed, Rosa has introduced so many provocative touches that I was hoping to
be able to flag this kiss for you as a first--but there is a precedent.

In one early Barks ten pager (WDC&S 33) lifeguard Donald saves a bathing
beauty from a shark and is rewarded with a resounding smooch on the lips. To
my knowledge it's the only kiss of its kind in the classic stories: the rest
of the time Donald has to make do with affectionate pecks on the cheek or
forehead (*DD* FC 328, *WDC&S* 308). When he asks for something more, he
gets a plumber's helper rammed over his beak (*DD* FC 367). Standards at
Western Publishing were prudish, and Barks was in fact censored on the shark
story for making his lady duck too buxom. "I had to spend more hours in the
publisher's office flattening out all those bosoms," he once recalled. It's
surprising that a passionate kiss got by his editors.

The osculation in Rosa's comic is doubly passionate, with Scrooge sweating
bullets, his glasses fogging, and the moment prolonged, Kurtzmanlike, across
three panels. Moreover, he sets the stage for this climax by having Donald
perform the same favor for Daisy midway through the story. But that kiss,
like the celebrated one in *Xena*, isn't everything is seems.>>

Blums's editorial continues and ends with a few words on the three Egmont
Xmas stories appearing in US & DD 2.

*MY BRIEF COMMENTS*: First off, I must say that I've enjoyed reading Blum's
pieces on Barks' stories in the past 10 years. I even corresponded with him
for a brief time. And this very fascination and specialization of Geoffrey
Blum with Barks' work, is what I believe to be his blind spot in evaluating
anything else that hasn't come from Barks' pen. And later on, commenting on
Egmont's three Xmas stories (a passage I haven't copied above), he says "I
can't help wondering what Barks would have done with the same material". The
fixation on Barks is evident; only, this time he's NOT commenting on a Barks
story, and hence he should leave Barks out! However, given Barks' stature in
the Duck universe, I can see how difficult a task that is.

Look at the introduction to the above article, for example. He sets the
stage by setting the *absolute* standard: Barks' Ducks. The reader is
pre-disposed to expect sub-par material from all the rest.

His comment on "legions of (Rosa's) fans howling for (his) head" if he dare
criticize their idol is in some ways perplexing. Where does this belief come
from? Is it from rumors he had heard about said Rosa fans? How did he
establish such a belief?

But even more interesting is his judgement on Egmont's Duck production: he
writes that Egmont's editors strive for "homogeneity". Is that true? (is Mr.
Byron Erickson listening?). Gosh, isn't the term "homogeneity" a polite way
of saying "assembly line" output? Wasn't it Jonathan Markoff who had said
something like this a while ago to receive the (understandable) ire of Mr.
Erickson? And is Blum's grapevine information on William Van Horn's returned
artwork true?

It's not difficult to see that Blum's "accolades" on Rosa's "A Little
Something Special" are continually qualified: his end-of-the story smooch is
not a first, the kiss sequence is "Kurtzmanlike", and a his overall style
derivative of Mad Magazine, EC horror tales, and classic films. Yes, the
influences are there, and the artist never refused them, but the way Mr.
Blum weaves his entire article might lead the reader to infer that this Rosa
guy has no originality at all.

Mr. Geoffrey Blum seems to be captive of his own Barksian biases and
preconceptions. It's human and understandable after working for so many
years on churning out articles on Barks' monumental work. However, if
Gladstone wishes to present us with articles on Rosa's Ducks free of any
Barks-biasedness suspicion, they should probably look for a "fresh" Rosa
scholar.

Archontis