Keskustelujen arkisto

DONALD D. MARKSTEIN:
<<Several years ago, I had a disagreement with a friend
over whether or not Gladstone Gander was known to the general
public -- I said he was; my friend said he wasn't. We settled
the matter by asking the next ten people we saw if they knew who
he was. I won.
Still, for the creators of an animated series based on
Disney Ducks not to know the character is shocking.>>

For QUACK PACK, I'm not so shocked, but when DUCKTALES messed up
GG's personality in "Dime Enough for Luck," it was very shocking
indeed! This was the ep in which Magica used Gladstone's luck to
bust into the money bin and steal Scrooge's old #1 dime. Since GG
had thereby "used his good luck for an evil purpose," his luck changed
to all BAD, and he and Scrooge were dogged by it in their efforts to
get old #1 back. Now, they got the luck part right (though the "evil
purpose" clause seemed tacked on for the purposes of this story), but
Gladstone's personality was definitely NOT right! He wasn't at all
arrogant and obnoxious -- at worst, he was a little conceited.

Most of us would probably agree that what makes GG so annoying is not his
luck -- it's the combination of his luck AND his attitude. Take away the
latter, and GG becomes just another character with a funny shtick. I
have always felt that DT made a serious goof in this misinterpretation of
Gladstone, a contrast with their generally excellent interpretations of
Barks' other made-for-comics characters.

TO OUR CANADIAN LIST MEMBERS:
There's been a bit of talk on this list of late regarding the images that
Canadians have of the USA and vice versa. I recalled that I've never gotten
a Canadian's opinion of the "Canadian Beagle Boys" that appeared in the DT
episode "Ducky Mountain High." Anyone remember these characters and/or have
an opinion about them?

-- Christopher E. Barat
(Email removed)
http://members/aol.com/cebarat/home.htm

Hello P.C. Barreto & anyone else interested,

I have now posted Part One of Mickey Mouse in "The Red Wasp
Mystery" to my webpage. Anyone interested can check it out at:

http://www.jps.net/xephyr/RedWasp/RedWasp_01.gif
http://www.jps.net/xephyr/RedWasp/RedWasp_02.gif
http://www.jps.net/xephyr/RedWasp/RedWasp_03.gif
http://www.jps.net/xephyr/RedWasp/RedWasp_04.gif
http://www.jps.net/xephyr/RedWasp/RedWasp_05.gif
http://www.jps.net/xephyr/RedWasp/RedWasp_06.gif
http://www.jps.net/xephyr/RedWasp/RedWasp_07.gif
http://www.jps.net/xephyr/RedWasp/RedWasp_08.gif
http://www.jps.net/xephyr/RedWasp/RedWasp_09.gif
http://www.jps.net/xephyr/RedWasp/RedWasp_10.gif

These URLs represent the first part of the 3 issue story
which is presented in 10 pages. I scanned them at a slightly
higher resolution and did as much Photoshop clean up as
I could to sharpen the images. The pages and the ink
are very "yellowed" in their hardcopy state, and after a
few attempts at scanning them at 72 dpi the text was too
difficult to read and the images were not that clear.
Unfortunately I cannot leave them up very long since they
are taking up too much space on the server. If anyone else
has more available server space an would like to post them
longer I'd be happy to scan them, post them and turn them
over to whoever can afford to do so. Let me know if this
is something someone would like to do at my personal
email address.

************POSSIBLE SPOILERS************

Since we began speaking of Disney Superheroes I hadn't
re-read this tale until now while I was scanning it. I didn't
realize it, but ths story features the first appearance of not
only the Red Wasp (who doesn't actually appear until until
part 3), but also the Hidden Headquarters in the cloud
above Duckburg, which is now, apparently used by ALL
of Duckburg's heroes.

***********END SPOILERS******************

I hope you enjoy the story. Part 2 will hopefully be posted
next weekend.

Ciao for now,

Ciao

-Rich (xephyr)
http://www.jps.net/xephyr/rich/disney.html

--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V98 Issue #40
*****************************************

DAVE RAWSON:

<A couple of upcoming stories caught my eye. The first is THE
<GROUCH KINGS OF DUCKBURG [D96186] written by John Lustig and drawn
<by Branca....[which]...will be published in Egmont's Donald
<Duck Weekly #17. It's notable to me for two reasons, list-member
<John Lustig's lively dialog and Branca's uncharacteristic (to my
<eye) freneticism.
<
<John always turns a phrase better and more consistently than
<almost any Duck writer I know. There's a purposely inflated
<grandiloquence to the language that is musical when read aloud.
<
<So exaggerated, extended and lively is the art in this story that
<I would never recognize it as Branca's were it not for his credit.
<Not that Branca's work lacks life. Far from it. But this feels
<like a Van Horn story drawn by someone else. Gone even are the
<block-jawed, beautifully featured character faces that usually tip
<me to a Branca creation.
<
<Here there's hardly a panel where the characters are not in the
<throes of some uncontainable behavior. If John's still around, I
<have to ask, how much of what we're seeing is due to John's panel
<descriptions? How much to Branca experimenting with a different
<look (or at least one unfamiliar to me)?

Dave, thanks so much for the wonderful compliments! I was very happy with the
way GROUCH KINGS turned out. I got a quick glimpse of the GROUCH KINGS artwork
when we were all on tour in the Egmont offices this fall. I loved it. Daniel
Branca did an absolutely incredible job. I also had the thrill of meeting
Branca and--although he doesn't speak much English--he was able to tell me
that he really enjoyed the story. (That made the trip worthwhile right there!)

Even so, it wasn't until I got back home and photocopies of the art arrived
several weeks later that I finally got to take a good look at GROUCH KINGS and
had a chance to really study and admire the art.

I don't think the art is a complete departure in style for Branca. He's only
done one other of my stories and the art had much a similar quality of frantic
lunacy. The story was THE HI-TECH, LOW-DOWN BLUES (D92226, reprinted by
Gladstone as the back-up feature in Uncle Scrooge Adventures #40.)

Both stories involve almost non-stop, slap-stick action as well as some
characters--particularly Scrooge--who are obviously close to blowing some
emotional fuses.

I have to give the GROUCH KINGS the nod, though, when it comes to wonderfully
wacky art. Branca really out did himself.

As to whether my panel descriptions inspired him to this wackiness--well, I
don't know. I did describe the opening panel in detail and Branca did it
exactly as I wrote it. In some other places I gave him very little in the way
of description and Branca came up with some wonderful bits on his own. There
was also at least one panel--the half-page splash at the convention
center--that I described in a fair amount of detail and Branca decided to do a
somewhat different approach. Branca also added some very nice background gags
during the convention center scenes.

I'd go into this in more detail, but since most members of this list won't see
the story for several months, I'm afraid I might bore most people. What I will
do--and it's probably much more than you want--I'll send you a copy of the
script so you can judge for yourself.

Whatever the merits (or demerits) of my panel descriptions, I think the real
key here is all the action in the story. When I was at Egmont one of the
editors told me that Branca likes stories with lots of action. (He also
likes--if my miserable memory serves me right--Magica and/or stories with
weird critters. GROUCH KINGS has two of these three elements.)

I don't think anyone mentioned this to me, but I suspect that Branca also
likes zany characters who are struggling with strong, outrageously-comic
emotions.

Branca may very well have been doing a bit of experimenting in GROUCH KINGS.
Primarily, though, I think the story just contained a number of elements with
which he enjoys playing with when he gets a chance. (And when you're having
fun you usually do your best work.)

In any event, I was really pleased with the finished story and I'm lobbying
with John Clark to have Gladstone print it in the United States--hopefully
this year. I'm keeping my fingers crossed about this. We'll see...

Thanks again, Dave, for the kind words. It means even more to me coming from
another writer--especially from one who's work I've so often enjoyed.

----John

Kriton Kyrimis wrote in answer to Dave Rawson:
>
> DAVE RAWSON:
>
> > according to the 1996 National Science Board survey of scientific
> > literacy (which also provided the previous statistic), 27% of
> > adults in the United States still believe the Sun revolves around
> > the Earth!
>
> It's probably the same kind of people who do so because it says so in
> the bible. If only these people would take the bible as the allegory
> that it is, rather than take it literally, they'd be surprised to
> find how much modern science is in accordance with the bible--in fact,
> they're in total agreement!

That's a rather blanket assumption on your part. How do you justify
making such a statement, especially in light of the fact that the Bible
does not say that the Sun orbits the Earth? It doesn't even suggest
it. The simple truth of the matter is that the people you refer to
are obviously ignorant, but they are not, necessarily fundamentalist,
Bible reading Christians.

Where in the world did you get the idea that such a thing was "probably
so"?

- "Blasted kids must think I'm a whelcher!"
S. McDuck (US3 - OS 495)

Carey Furlong; Huntington Beach, California;
(Email removed); (Email removed)

KRITON KYRIMIS:

>It's probably the same kind of people who do so because it says so in
>the bible. If only these people would take the bible as the allegory
>that it is, rather than take it literally, they'd be surprised to
>find how much modern science is in accordance with the bible--in fact,
>they're in total agreement!

UH OH! The old biblical nerve has been struck. There are millions
(including me) who understand much of the Bible to be allegorical or
figurative, and much of it to be literal history. I agree that, while the
Bible is not a science textbook, where it touches on science it is
remarkably accurate. I'm curious, though, why you refer to the Scriptures
as saying the sun revolves around the earth. I've never found that in the
Bible, though it does talk about the sun rising and setting the same way we
do today. If you're talking about God "making the sun stand still" so
Joshua would have extra daylight for his battle with the Canaanites, most
would agree that refraction or an optical illusion could have caused that
phenomena.

It doesn't have anything to do with ducks, and if you or anyone else prefer
to discuss this privately, that's fine. It does open up for discussion a
principle feature of Disney comics in general though -- the lack of most any
reference to religion, though religious celebrations such as Christmas often
play a large part in the stories. Any comments?

Mikael Anderson wrote:
>I'm writing a school project on Disney comics and I'm in desperate need
of information of following disney-comics creators: [..]

A good place to start could be our Disney comics website:

http://www.update.uu.se/~starback/disney-comics/creators/

--Harry.

DUCK CHAUVINISTS PLEASE SKIP THIS SECTION
This the month WDC&S #623 is scheduled to go on sale in
North America, containing the first of the Bucky Bug stories I
rant on about incessantly. It's the 10th Bucky script I've sold
(starting in 1990), but the first to actually appear in print.
(I'm currently working on the 15th -- sixth and last of the
current series -- and hope to send it off Tuesday or Wednesday.)
Tho it's sheerest fantasy to expect anyone to shell out
that kind of money for a three-page story, I'd be pleased if
those of you who are getting WDC&S for all the other great stuff
it carries would take a look at my Bucky Bug dialog.

STEFAN DIOS --
Once again, I agree with your approach to translation.
The average reader, who in this case is (presumably) fairly
young, isn't interested in where the story came from, or
precisely what the original wording may have meant -- he only
wants to enjoy the story. Anything that comes between him and
the story (e.g., footnotes) is a detriment. For the few minutes
that the story takes to read, he is, in a sense, inside it -- he
has made the "willing suspension of disbelief" necessary to
enjoy a work of fiction. A footnote is a real-world artifact,
something that forcibly reminds him of the unreality of the
story. He may not articulate it in these terms, but he'll feel
let down and less involved -- altogether less satisfied. Let the
story flow smoothly, and give him as little as possible to
distract him from it.
Footnotes are for people who want to intellectualize
about a story. No footnotes are for people who just want to
enjoy it. In a mass-market publication, you have to go with the
numbers. And your first duty must ALWAYS be to the readers.
Translating units of currency is indeed a poser. I think
my approach to it would be to leave them as-is, when dealing
with specific real-world places, at least if the currency is
well known. Contrasting yen with bolivars may actually be a
story point. When a non-specific or non-real-world place is
involved, of course, you'd want to use the terms the reader is
most comfortable with. But exactly when to do what is a judgment
call, and you've got to call it yourself.
A few months ago, I provoked outrage among some folks
here, when I mentioned that I'm writing American dialog for
Dutch Bucky Bug stories, without even SEEING the original
wording. (I'm working from bare art with empty balloons.) How
can I possibly do justice to the original story without even
reading it? Well -- I DO have to follow the art, so how far from
the story can I stray? And the point is not to create an exact
duplicate in another language, but to entertain the reader.
Those who are sticklers for the original should read it in Dutch.

Quack, Don