Keskustelujen arkisto

Hi!
In the Brazilian story in which Donald and Daisy married, they marry at Notre
Duck, that we can see on a panel. I will scan it soon.
I don't have the reference of the story now (not the time.. I have to do my
English homework for tomorrow!!), but you can find it, I hink in my Duck
family tree, in the presentation of Donald and Daisy's children:
http://goofy313g.free.fr/calisota_online/trees/myducktree.html
In the generation # I

My site will soon be updated with new characters on the Duck and Goof trees,
and also with a new section:panels by Barks copied by Don Rosa (even if it
has not been drawn by Don Rosa, I will place the cathedral here...)

Bye!

Gilles

Hi,

In a reprint of a Donald Duck album in the Netherlands, which printed Carl
Barks' WDC 50 "Ten Cent's Worth of Trouble", it is funny to see what they
did in changing the references to Dutch guilders into Euros, when you
compare it with the first edition of the same album, which came out in 1975.

The lettering in each balloon is kept the same, except for the balloons that
have references to guilders. On page 7, for instance, Donald is throwing a
dime in the air which is worth 8000 euro (8000 guilders in the old version).
Then someone catches it and says:

- 1975 version: "Thanks mate, I can sure use 8 bills!".
- 2001 version: "Thanks mate, I can sure use 16 bills!".

They changed the number of bills from 16 to 8, as the largest guilder bill
is now 1000, but the largest euro bill will be 500.

Kind regards,

Arthur de Wolf
DCW: http://www.wolfstad.com/dcw

Hi,

My wife and I had the pleasure of having dinner at the famous comic
restaurant in Rapallo, Italy, last week. It wasn't easy to find (long narrow
steep way up a mountain for several kilometers on a dead-end street), but
certainly worth the visit. I was very impressed by the MANY great drawings
on the walls. There were a LOT of Botarro ones, which looked great. I had
seen the Barks and Rosa ones in print before, but it was nice to see them
for real.

I never saw the owner with different colored shoes. There was someone else
walking around, with whom I talked for a little while. He showed me a photo
album of Barks' visit. I hope to go there again after a Lucca convention,
which I would very much like to attend once.

Kind regards,

Arthur de Wolf
DCW: http://www.wolfstad.com/dcw

Robert:
"I'll be brief for all you interested in positive discussions on Ducks.

I wrote a commentary on the website Suite 101 on how the entertainment
industry might change after this past week's events.

Here's the link
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/11/79756

You comments and passing along my thoughts would be appreciated."

Hello Robert,

I think you are making the same mistake that most would-be censors make:
you are equating comic book fictional violence with real world actual
violence: most people, yes, even most kids, know the difference and do
not need to be shielded by those who want to make us "more sensitive to
life." I grew up reading violent horror comics, watching violent
western TV shows and violent cartoon shows. A dozen American indians or
more died each week on Disney's own "Davey Crockett" tv show in the
1960s, for instance, or Jonny Quest would use a high-powered rifle to
take out several bad guys at a time. How many people of my generation
grew up to be killers? Probably the exact same number that have from
every generation, whether they were reading penny dreadfuls from the
1910s, pulps from the 20s, read comics from the 50s, or played violent
video games from the current generations. I have yet to read a
convincing study which shows otherwise. Dr. Frederick Wertham did not
save a single child from delinquency, and making entertainment more
"sensitive" is only going to make it more politically correct and
bland. The Disneyland theme park is currently in the process of
removing all of the pretend "guns" from its park. What will this
accomplish? Do the whining parents who have complained about armed
pirates and frontiersmen really believe that these pretend gun fights
are going to turn their children into violent criminals? The censors in
Disney comics are even more ridiculous: They removed a six-shooter from
a Don Rosa Uncle Scrooge story which took place in the old west! Try
this instead, have parents actually spend *time* with their kids, and
teach them the difference between right and wrong, fiction and reality.
It is not the responsibility of comics and other forms of entertainment
to educate us or make us "more sensitive to life." It is the
responsibility of comics to entertain us. If you personally don't find
fictional violence entertaining, then spend you dollars elsewhere, but
don't water down comics for the rest of us with an anti-violence crusade
that will change nothing.

John Garvin

DON:

> most importantly, the French changed
> the entire idea of the ending. Their version of the text in the final panel
> is *opposite* in meaning from my original...

Could you remind us of the original ending? When I read the story in
Picsou Magazine, the ending didn't make much sense to me. At the time
I thought it was because of my poor French, but apparently this is not
the only reason.

Kriton (e-mail: kyrimis at cti.gr)
(WWW: http://dias.cti.gr/~kyrimis)
-----
"After their second death, most people need some time to think things
over and consider the changes in their lives."
-----

> I'm referring to a Gottfredson/Walsh story, "Mickey Mouse
> and the 'Lectro Box"
> (YM 058), which saw in the original publication, in the
> very last panel,
> the three scientists left in their underpants by the effect
> of the Box...

I think David Gerstein can tell us all about this. I if recall correctly
what he told me, the *original* print in the newspapers was censored
(trousers added to the professors). Then, for the reprint in the WDC comic
book, they *added* one professor, and didn't give him trousers (while
leaving the censored artwork for the other professors). They had to add some
art anyway, since the panel in WDC was wider than the original newspaper
panel.

The 1990s reprint is exactly like the first WDC reprint.

(Also, thanks to this reprint, we saw that story in Holland for the first
time a few years later.)

--Harry.

The disconnect between last Tuesday's monstrous dose of reality and the
self-righteous drivel and outright deceptions being peddled by public
figures and TV commentators is startling, depressing. The voices licensed to
follow the event seem to have joined together in a campaign to infantilize
the public. Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a "cowardly"
attack on "civilization" or "liberty" or "humanity" or "the free world" but
an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a
consequence of specific American alliances and actions? How many citizens
are aware of the ongoing American bombing of Iraq? And if the word
"cowardly" is to be used, it might be more aptly applied to those who kill
from beyond the range of retaliation, high in the sky, than to those willing
to die themselves in order to kill others. In the matter of courage (a
morally neutral virtue): whatever may be said of the perpetrators of
Tuesday's slaughter, they were not cowards.

Our leaders are bent on convincing us that everything is O.K. America is not
afraid. Our spirit is unbroken, although this was a day that will live in
infamy and America is now at war. But everything is not O.K. And this was
not Pearl Harbor. We have a robotic President who assures us that America
still stands tall. A wide spectrum of public figures, in and out of office,
who are strongly opposed to the policies being pursued abroad by this
Administration apparently feel free to say nothing more than that they stand
united behind President Bush. A lot of thinking needs to be done, and
perhaps is being done in Washington and elsewhere, about the ineptitude of
American intelligence and counter-intelligence, about options available to
American foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, and about what
constitutes a smart program of military defense. But the public is not being
asked to bear much of the burden of reality. The unanimously applauded,
self-congratulatory bromides of a Soviet Party Congress seemed contemptible.
The unanimity of the sanctimonious, reality-concealing rhetoric spouted by
American officials and media commentators in recent days seems, well,
unworthy of a mature democracy.

Those in public office have let us know that they consider their task to be
a manipulative one: confidence-building and grief management. Politics, the
politics of a democracy?which entails disagreement, which promotes
candor?has been replaced by psychotherapy. Let's by all means grieve
together. But let's not be stupid together. A few shreds of historical
awareness might help us understand what has just happened, and what may
continue to happen. "Our country is strong," we are told again and again. I
for one don't find this entirely consoling. Who doubts that America is
strong? But that's not all America has to be.

_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/

JOHN GARVIN WROTE:

> The Disneyland theme park is currently in the process of
> removing all of the pretend "guns" from its park. What will this
> accomplish? Do the whining parents who have complained about armed
> pirates and frontiersmen really believe that these pretend gun fights
> are going to turn their children into violent criminals? The censors in
> Disney comics are even more ridiculous: They removed a six-shooter from
> a Don Rosa Uncle Scrooge story which took place in the old west!

Before Disney or anyone trying to "protect" us performs such a "service", I
would like them to offer any documentation that shows exposure of children
to guns in a historical context turns them into bad kids bent on killing
their neighbors.

Yes, I will agree that we don't need Donald's nephews dressing up like Rambo
imitating Keanu Reeves in THE MATRIX, but how does showing an outlaw holding
a pistol encourage violence? If we teach our children that the Pirates of
the Caribbean managed to take over an entire town by pointing their fingers
at the citizens, how is that serving them?

Your reference to the removal of guns in Disneyland may only mean those that
the kids can interact with directly, such as the air guns mounted in Tom
Sawyer's Fort, rather than the firearms held by animatronic "actors." If
so, I have an easier solution. I don't let my kids play with them.

I don't own a gun. I've never owned a gun. I will never own a gun. I used
to hunt with my father's rifle when I was a child because it was an
inexpensive source of meat for our poor farming family. When hunting became
more expensive than visiting the grocery, we never shot another animal. But
it is not my business, or anyone else's, to pretend nobody in history ever
used a gun.

Can what we see on the screen or in comics have an effect on our kids'
attitudes? Most certainly. One of my sons seemed to enjoy Popeye always
beating Bluto to a pulp, and I didn't like my 5-year-old boy running around
punching people in imitation of what he saw on TV. I fixed that. He did
not get to watch Popeye for a couple of years. And I love Popeye. Once
Forrest reached the age that he could understand that you cannot use
cartoons as an example for how you deal with people, that problem went away.

My one example does not provide a basis for how all kids should be raised.
It doesn't even apply to how I had to discipline my other 3 children. But
one feature of discipline is constant -- the parents need to be there, know
what their kids are doing, and take action when necessary. That's not a
guarantee that the kids will grow up perfect (mine didn't, though they're
all doing fine now), but pretending that violence doesn't exist hasn't been
working either.