Keskustelujen arkisto

> > The German Weekly hasn't changed the names of Osborne=20
> > and Taliaferro, as Don Rosa and=A0 Kriton pretend.=20
>=20
> Kriton didn't pretend anything.. he translated a story from
> a greek paper.
>=20
> > What we did change were the names of two funny-looking=20
> > fictional characters in a comic story that were presented=20
> > as the founders of the Junior Woodchucks in Duckburg.=20
>=20
> Well, well.. Aren't they? Really?
>=20
> > "These are Osborne and Taliaferro, who created the very first=20
> > JW-stories?"=20
>=20
> Now, *that* would be absurd...
>=20
> > Maybe he didn't because it would have done major damage to the
> story, as real
> > persons have nothing to do in a Duckburg comic story.
>=20
> I don't agree with you. Real persons and places *do* belong
> in a Duckburg comic story.
>=20
> Like British Guiana in "The Gilded Man" or Barks himself in
> a couple of his own stories...
>=20
> > "Booh! How could he? Poor old Osborne and Taliaferro!=20
> > They have truly deserved better than to be drawn with stupid dog's
> noses!"
>=20
> Well... I myself would feel very honored to be depicted
> in this way... And I think most disney-comic fans would.
> It's a very big honor...
>=20
> On the other hand, if someone in a country far, far away think I don't
> deserve
> this honor... well... I would be a little sad... It would feel like
> they
> didn't think I deserved it... no.. it would feel even worse... I would
> think
> they *really* did everything they could to take away that honor...
>=20
> Especially if they - like you suggest you did in Germany - on purpose!
>=20
> > The German translator went just one step further than Don Rosa by
> > giving these two funny fictional comic-characters names
> > that fit better than the ones Don has chosen.
>=20
> So.. If the translator just missed a reference.. Well, then I wouldn't
>=20
> fuzz about it.. It's only human and I know even the best translators=20
> and editors have missed such subtle things...
>=20
> But now when you say it's on purpose!!! Then I'm becoming angry!
>=20
> That is to deprive Taliaferro and Osborne of their (in my opinion)=20
> rightful honor and recognition!!!
>=20
>=20
> That is outright *MEAN*!
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Steamboat "The angry one" Willie
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20

Vidar Svendsen mentioned his interest recently in the topic
of religion in Duck stories, and gave us
http://home.sol.no/~vidasven/disney-comics/innledning.htm
http://home.sol.no/~vidasven/disney-comics/intro.htm
I've read rather briskly through this, Vidar, and find
it interesting and well done.

Perhaps you passed over the US #55 story, where, if I remember
correctly, Allah's name is specifically mentioned? The context
and content is something like "I commend you to Allah". Perhaps
this is the single instance in any Barks story where God or Allah
is referred to?

Nils Lid Hjort

Hi. The Bruce Hamilton Company/Another Rainbow/Gladstone have just finished
our main move from our longtime quarters at 212 S. Montezuma, Prescott, AZ,
86303, to 450 W. Goodwin St., Suite 100 (production, which is yours truly)
and 102C (order and accounting), same city, state and zip code. All phone
numbers, web and e-mail addresses, and our P.O. box number remain the same.

We're sooooo glad that's over!

Sorry, no word on our Disney comics license renewal yet. Please stay tuned.

On another matter, David King wrote:

>I did return "Prize of Pizarro": but I've now been told they
>didn't received it. So now I'm $20 Australian out of pocket with nothing to
>show for it. Caveat emptor.

David's patience is strained, which we can understand, but he is not "out
of pocket." We simply haven't received "Prize of Pizarro" yet, which no one
who is familiar with the brutal realities of international shipping would
find surprising. As with any customer, he will, in due course, get the book
he wants, or he will get his money back.

Gary

****************************
"Who Knows Whose Nose Sniffs the Rose I Chose" - old sourdough song title
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gladstone on the Web: http://www.brucehamilton.com

Joachim Stahl:
Aside from the fact that it was *not me* but your Greek publishing-comrades
who added that stanza into my original "WHADALOTTAJARGON" intro-text with
apparently some of their own opinion of what you'd done... I can't believe
you're still stewing about the thing and attacking me anew, this time with
Iranian logic. What's done is done, you might as well forget it.

Only today I finally recieved Uncle $crooge #316 and WDC&S #631.
No fault of Gladstone's though: a December cover date really
means that I get them in December, and at a "cheap" price of
more than $US 12 including p&p - each!

I hope the approximately 5,500 other subscribers appreciate my
dedication and generous support to the Gladstone cause.

Considering that only one (1-page) story was new to me, the
editorial bits are the most interesting, and I couldn't help
noticing that the text in U$ went:

'Our color illustration by Michael Nadorp illustrates
the conclusion of Romano Scarpa's "The Flying Scot" by
paying tribute to Carl Barks' drawing of a scene from
his story, "The Flying Dutchman", to which Scarpa's
tale, in turn, pays tribute.'

The cover is indeed, as the other illustrations in the book
nicely show, inspired by Barks' art, though this is only clear
from Donald's pose, hanging in the riggings. This would BTW
otherwise be a goof-up, since that ship doesn't have sails!
All other details, including the number of masts on the
flying ship, clearly refer to Scarpa's story.

But when the writer (presumably John Clark?) claims that Scarpa's
story is a tribute to Barks', he is clearly and undeniably in
err: Scarpa's story was published over the two issues of Italian
Topolino published November 10.th and 25.th 1957. But Barks' story
for Uncle $crooge #25 was delivered to his editors on April 20.th
1958. I.e. several months later.

If this was already explained on this list, I must excuse, but
I could only find a mail from Marco Barlotti with these words:

>Already with the "Flying Dutchman" Barks did a U$ story on a subject very
>close to another one by Scarpa (the "Flying Scotchman" - BTW surely better
>than the Barks story IMHO). I'm joking of course when I say <copying> - it's
>obvious that Barks at that time didn't know anything about Scarpa or
>Scarpa's work... But it would be interesting to learn that twice the great
>authors had the same idea...

The other story idea referred to BTW was connected with the building of
the Aswan dam, which some people thought Barks had made a story about too.
I believe this was due to a confusion between "Only A Poor Old Man" and
background details from "The Mummy's Ring"?

At the time no-one commented on the possible relation between the
stories, and I have not been able to find other contributions on
the subject in my archived digests, but there are a few issues missing
and they are in no way as searchable as the database which gave the
dates.

Personally I believe both writers were inspired by events of the
time, and without being an expert on the fifties, I'd venture to
guess that the launch of the first man-made earth satellite -
Sputnik - in 1957 created a massive interest in space exploration
and space ships. For instance two educational one-shots, OS 716
about space flight and OS 866 about a Mars rocket, both written
by Don Christensen and drawn by Tony Sgroi, were published in
late 1957. Barks of course already played with these ideas in
U$ 24, "The 24 Carat Moon" (delivered on January 20.th 1958.)

Maybe this connection is too far out, and Steffen Kronborg has
a long, interesting article devoted to Barks' story without
getting into this line of thought.

With members of this list in touch with both mr. Barks and mr.
Scarpa, it would be very interesting to hear if they recollect
where the idea came from.

Back to WDC&S #631: it was very very nice to see not just one, but
two stories with Mickey Mouse, and by two of today's best artists:
Cesar Ferioli and Marco Rota.

My memory may be getting frail, but I think I already asked, when
this stoy came out a couple of years ago in Europe, from where and
when Mickey knew the stealth-like aircraft, the "Bat"?

If you like Rota's art (and who doesn't?) I've made scans of Rota's
"The Incredible Shrinking Duck" from Egmont's UK English "Mickey &
Friends" magazine and placed them on my web site.

This would also give you an idea of how things might look if Egmont
had the licence for American Disney books: machine lettering and
nice but not excellent coloring. Also the translator is unknown,
and perhaps less dedicated than the several "dialogers" on this
list, who have been Americanizing stories for Gladstone.

But you can't keep good art down, and the English book was in album
format. A nice touch especially for Rota's and Rosa's tiny details.

Enjoy - and if Gladstone have intentions of (and power to) publishing
the story in the future: consider yourselves *SPOILED*:

http://www.geocities.com/soho/museum/4289/index.html

Ole 'RoC' Reichstein Nielsen <(Email removed)>

OLE wrote:

> The other story idea referred to BTW was connected with the building of
> the Aswan dam, which some people thought Barks had made a story about too.
> I believe this was due to a confusion between "Only A Poor Old Man" and
> background details from "The Mummy's Ring"?

No, no. Barks *did* have the idea for an Aswan story. He talked
about it in letters to fans. But he dropped the idea because the story
would come too close after another desert story.
I'm sure Daniel van Eijmeren's site ("A Guidebook to the Carl
Barks Universe") can tell you all about it.
(I don't have the URL here at the moment...)

BTW, did Gladstone really call the cover artist MICHAEL Nadorp?
(His name is MICHEL.)

--Harry.

I want everyone to know that the current issue of Gladstone's Uncle Scrooge
(#317) has a story which is wrongly credited to me.

Well, OK--I did write the original story, but the script that Gladstone
printed is not mine. Someone--and I don't know if I'll ever know for sure
who--has butchered the dialogue, removed most of the jokes, destroyed the
pacing and greatly harmed the internal logic of the story. I absolutely hate
this version of the story and it makes me sick to see my name attached to it.

I originally sold this story to Egmont seven years ago and I know it went
though the editing process there with a few very minor and reasonable changes.
I know this because I've got a copy of the edited script here on my desk. And
it's very, very different from what Gladstone printed.

Lest anyone think I'm talking out of turn here, I should point out that
Gladstone editor John Clark suggested that I post an explanation of this mix
up. Normally, Gladstone gets it's scripts directly from Egmont. In this case,
though, John thinks he probably got the script from Disney. Where did Disney
get this bastardized version of my script? I can't be sure, but I suspect it
came from Great Britain.

I don't know if the British company that had the license seven years ago is
even still publishing Disney comics. I don't think it is, but if it is I hope
its cleaned up its act. Several years ago someone sent me copies of some
British comics that contained some of my stories. I was shocked at some of the
changes. Most of them didn't make sense. Some of the dialogue was still
mine--and yet it wasn't. It was as if someone had deliberately gone through
and tried to make everything in the story as mindlessly dull as possible. It
wasn't just my scripts either. From what I hear it was pretty much standard
practise for this publisher to sabotage all the stories it printed.

It appeared to me that the editors were trying to "dummy down" all of the
stories--making sure that even the youngest child would understand what was
happening. I don't agree with that approach, but I can understand it. But a
lot of the changes were just arbitrary, pointless and misguided.

That is very much what seems to have happened in the story "Memories" that
Gladstone published. (My title, by the way, was "Thanks for the Memories.")

Unfortunately, I don't have this script (or any of my other early stories) on
disk. So I'll have to retype the script in order to show everyone the
differences between what I wrote and what Gladstone has printed. I don't have
the time to do that right now. Heck, I don't even have the time to write this
message. I will, however, try to write up something in the future so that
people can see what I'm talking about.

I've been a professional writer most of my life and I've never before felt it
necessary to publicly complain about how one of my stories has been edited or
changed. The story that Gladstone printed, however, is so different from what
I wrote that I simply refuse to consider it my story. It is painful to see my
name attached to it.

John Clark tells me that when he first read the script (the bastardized script
from Disney not my script) his first reaction was that "this is pretty lousy
for a John Lustig story." Indeed, it was so lousy that John started to
rewrite it himself, but gave up when he realized it would take him too long.
So he just ran it as is.

Gad! With Gladstone's license so uncertain, it's quite possible this will be
the last of my Disney stories ever printed in the U.S. What a way to go out!

--John Lustig