Keskustelujen arkisto

Hi, list members,
I want to say one other thing about that (in)famous question
of Donald's "human-ness". So far, to my growing surprise,
nobody raised a point raised not seldom in other discussions:
he is living in what was called then, a "Duck universe". Over
there, the rules of nature and biology can be expected to be
quite different. As for me, this invalidates all the arguments
meant to give proof Donald's human in any way (except for
his character, of course).
Looking at some places, I have discovered that Donald
and his family members are called "eenden" (ducks,
small letter) quite a lot of times. Scrooge sometimes is
referred to as "de rijkste eend ter wereld" (the richest
duck in the world).
Greetings,

Henri Kunne

Thoughts while awaiting word, any word, on the US comics license:

Rene Magritte, the great French surrealist and my all-time favorite fine
artist (and who was not above doing work for the commercial market,
either), painted a picture of a pipe, and right on the canvas below the
image of the pipe he painted the statement that translates into English as
"this is not a pipe". I love that, 'cause he's soooo right.

A painting of a pipe is no more a pipe in fact than it is a sack of flour,
or a space shuttle. It is only a representation of a concept that conveys
to us the idea of a pipe. Its only meaning is the meaning we allow it to
assume, and Magritte, with his painting, challenges us to examine that
almost instinctive process, which is often considered the fundamental
quality that distinguishes us humans from the rest of the critters.

Donald seems to pose the same kind of challenge, but with a distinct fork
in its line of inquiry. Is Donald not-a-duck or not-a-human? A broader
question, but a more pertinent one is, I think, what does Donald actually
represent? And the answer I come up with is: nothing, because Donald does
not represent anything actual.

While both pipes and Disney ducks are products of human artifice, pipes
exist as concrete objects in both form and function. An inference drawn
from a painting of a pipe can be tested against an actual pipe, but no
inference drawn from Donald can be tested against any actual fusion of duck
and human. Such a fusion simply does not exist, therefore the inference
remains abstract and incapable of validation in real-world terms.

The statement "Donald is a duck" is merely short hand for "Donald is a
representation of a character concept in the form of a duck". Replacing the
word "duck" with the word "human" in the shorthand does not change the
reading of the longhand, because all that "duck" or "human" are in this
context are terms carrying meanings that can be read into the abstract idea
represented by Donald Duck.

To add to the fun, just because Donald represents an abstract doesn't
change the fact that he also represents a living creature, which is why
stuffed toys and bronze castings and PVC figures and animatronic puppets
and even costumes of Donald do not establish anything in terms of his
actuality. These are all mere artifice, and artifice based on artifice at
that. Follow that very far and you could say that the toys and statues and
costumes are even less real than the Donald you see on the comic book page.

That's how it is for any fictional character. As pure abstract concepts
they don't amount to much until creators impose strictures that define and
focus them into something dramatically interesting. Yet these strictures,
just like the aforesaid inferences, can never be validated by reality.
They're either accepted, or not, purely on their own representational terms.

Carl Barks seems to have viewed Donald as representationally human, but
hardly to have held to a rigid view of Donald as not-a-duck. Don Rosa does
hold to the rigid view of Donald as not-a-duck, but there's both reason and
love in that creative choice. Only Disney Enterprises and certain of its
adjuncts have seen fit to codify one particular viewpoint (and that with
less-than-perfect consistency) and require it where enforceable. In none of
these cases is anyone stepping beyond the perogatives of creativity and/or
ownership, but in none of these cases is anyone presenting the final word
on the matter, either.

Personally, without his duck-like qualities I don't think Donald would ever
have amounted to much. He certainly wouldn't have captured the imagination
of his legions of fans if he'd been conceived and rendered as conspicuously
human, or even as a dog-face. Yet in dramatic function he clearly is human,
and could not be Donald otherwise. He is duck and he is human, the two
inextricably entwined, and to try to separate or even deny either his
duckishness or his humanness would be to obliterate the character
altogether.

And that, as one classic 1970's TV cop once said, "is the name of that tune!"

Now I'll slip quietly back into the nullity of waiting, waiting, waiting...

Gary

****************************
"I took the liberty of updating your resume. I'm guessing you'll need it
soon" - the world's smartest garbage man
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gladstone *still* on the Web: http://www.brucehamilton.com/gladstone

RE:
-----
> Did they really make gerard as fat and round as Obelix is?

Yes! Have a look at http://www.asterix.tm.fr/lefilm/img/photo12.jpg

> "I'm not found, I'm just well
> upholstered" (as he says in a danish cartoon)

I suspect you mean "fat", not "found". In any case, in the Greek
version
he says "I'm not fat; I have a low chest"!
_____

In the USA Obelix says "I'm not fat, just well-covered", which
never made any sense to me. I think the word "upholstered" works much
better.

Hello, everybody -

Just a short note to comment on the latest digest, Vol 1 #80, which
I just received, and which gave me half an hour of very entertaining
reading... best "issue" of the year, so far... :-)

Special thanks to Don for his "fictional" (sigh!) piece, and Gary,
for finally clearing things up, and showing us that Donald really
is a pipe... :-) (JKOC, Magritte's my fave, too, I have the "Empire
of Lights" and a coupla others on my own walls... :-)

And Oliv's own surreal piece was very appropriate... I loved it :-)

Also, I quite appreciated the Obelix excursion... we should have more
of these little OTs, imho... (and it's "low chest" in Italy as well)

ARIE

>> >>(I'm a Capra fan, too)..
>> >>I don't see any silver lining in this cloud...
>> Ma'af, man, but you DO need a bit of advice...
>No-no-no, saya yang seharusnya minta maaf. Maafin yah?

Of course, don't worry, it wasn't such a big incident :-)

[drugs references]
Don't wan't to give you a wrong idea about that, BTW, an expression like
"you must be takin' something" is commonly used, nowadays, but mostly
in circles of friends and relatives, you don't say that to just anybody,
that's all... :-)

>> "Put it in your pipe and smoke it!"
>Well, errr, this.....errr...i don't know the meaning of this one.

And I don't know if I can really explain... as is the case with most
jokes, they lose their "strength" when explained... :-)

However, I meant that for a double purpose, first to crack a joke myself
with reference to drugs, where a pipe is often used, then, to show you
again the importance of idiomatics and/or figures of speech...

The above phrase doesn't actually mean anything, it's just a "formula"
with which one might end up an argument, friendly or not, as the winning
side, after exposing the "adversary" to a lot of evidence in favour of
his opinions. It's just like "so there!", only better :-)

In this particular case, you would have to chop up the dictionaries,
those of American Cinema and idiomatics, and smoke those in your pipe...
but make sure your pipe is really a pipe... you never know... ;-)

(Kids, don't try this at home... :-)

Cheers

Eta Beta

My comic book store gives out a flier every month listing new books being
released in the near future. This month's flier includes the listing:

Disney's Classic Mickey Vol. 1 Hardcover ($18.99)

Does anyone know what this book is? If it's, say, Gottfredson reprints, I
definitely want to reserve a copy, but not if it's something I won't like...
Thanks for your help...

-- Danny

Archontis wrote:

> >I would say the "regular" Disney comic book is "Le journal de
> >Mickey", which is a weekly, like "Topolino" in Italy, "Micky Maus" in
> >Germany, "Anders And" in Denmark or "Donald Duck" in Norway.
> >(I wonder though what is the regular comic-book in Greece).
>
> >From your examples above it seems that you equate "regular" with
> >weekly

In the message I quoted, we talked about "the regular Disney
publication". There are of course several regular Disney publications in
most countries, so I (mistakenly?) thought "the regular publication" was
"the main publication of a particular country".
I assumed weeklies could be considered the "main" Disney publications
anyway (historically, they often were launched first, in the late 40s or
beginning of the 50s).
But I had never heard of the Greek "Miky Maous". Is it a pocket book
like "Topolino"?

Francois
http://www2.ec-lille.fr/~willot/index.uk.html

Eta Beta wrote:
> Also, I quite appreciated the Obelix excursion... we should have more
> of these little OTs, imho... (and it's "low chest" in Italy as well)

Please not! I'm really not an Asterix hater, but many a mailing list has
been ruined by off-topic invasions. List moderator, do your stuff!
(Of course, it it's an ironic joke, I've said nothing, but I've seen
strange things happen.)
Greetings,
Henri Kunne