Keskustelujen arkisto

Hi all

About music in the duck stories - you've been writing about "A little
something special" and "The Triple Distlefink" -
I once made a series of 4 columns for the school mag - two concerned
Barks duck stories with music and notes - 2 concerned Rosa duck stories
with music and notes. I myself expected the notes in a little something
special to be "after the ball is over", but I can't be sure.
You definetely have to check also following stories by Rosa:
The Black knight (he's humming all the time, while destroying things)
The Kalevala (some finish tunes are represented - and I couldn't be
happier that you americans will hopefully and eventually get to see
this story in print.)
The 3 cabelleroes ride again (notes from the cartoon have been pasted
in by the author)

I'll find more xamples later - and also later today i'll make my report
on my great trip to Norway this past week.

Send all complaints to:
A. C. Sivebaek
anders_sivebaek at nns.dk

>> So, Horace Horsecollar and Clarabelle Cow can date if
>> they want to, either in "innocent, friendly companionship,
>> or in a physical relationship which is a "sick, prurient form
>> of bestiality", but their physical union CANNOT result in
>> offspring.

Then how do you explain the fact that Gus Goose is Grandma Duck's nephew? Or
the fact that Diamond Dick, the jewel thief who impersonated Scottie
McTerrier, a dogface, in "The Old Castle's Secret", is related to the
McDucks?

Quack, Don

Today in Toons: Every day's an anniversary.
http://www.toonopedia.com/today.htm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Klein" <bi442 at lafn.org>
To: <dcml at stp.ling.uu.se>
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 8:02 PM
Subject: Birth of Ducks

> And so, we have our answer: As Barks had Scrooge mentioning that he would
turn
> back into an egg halfway across the "Fountain of Youth Pond", we can
assume
> that the Ducks came out of eggs (not live births (as mammals). I seem to
> remember the Donald Duck book by Marcia Blitz also shows Donald coming out
of
> an egg, as does Marco Rota's story of Donald's life. I have seen many
other
> official Disney media productions showing that Donald hatched from an egg.
I
> have never seen EVEN ONE reference to the Ducks being born live, or being
> mammals. They have been referred to as "persons" and "people", but I
don't
> believe they have been referred to as "humans". Therefore, I think it is
more
> reasonable to assume that they share characteristics with humans (such as
high
> intelligence, ability to reason, abstract thinking, understanding of
abstract
> concepts, awareness of passage of time/history, etc.), but not the
physical
> traits. if the 2-dimensional portrayals of them in films and on paper
drawings
> is reasonably accurate, they are neither animals nor humans from our
planet.
> They must exist in a "parallel world", and be lifeforms that have
developed
> from filling similar niches in the ecosystems of their world, to some of
those
> filled in our world by animals and humans. The varying conditions that
formed
> their bodies were later no longer factors in their evolution, but it is
clear
> that for all of the species of our intelligent characters, natural
selection
> later stopped being a factor (just as it has for most humans on our
Earth), as
> thvarious civilisations rose on the parallel Disney planet. The difference
> between that world and our Earth is that on the parallel world, many, many
> different species have evolved into bi-pedal walking, and into intelligent
> beings; developing civilisations, science and thus removing their species
from
> the chain of natural selection. Even the weak can now live to breeding
age. On
> Earth, it is only humans who have done that. Mickey, Minnie, Mortimer and
the
> other mice are of one species, the "Ducks" are another, dog-like "people"
are
> another, and so on. The large ears of the mice could have come about as a
means
> to regulate heat in a terribly hot desert enviornment. By the time
civilisation
> developed, all the genomes for small ears had been weeded out of the
> population. But now, as most of the "mice" now lived in cooler areas, or
> hadthe benefits of air conditioning (or other benefits of civilisation),
the
> heat is no longer a factor in their development. By the same token, as
natural
> selection no longer operates on that population, they will not lose any of
the
> traits they've had since that time. If a new mutation pops up in the
breeding
> population, it cannot take hold, because the changing environment cannot
be
> better adapted to by one trait or another, as the population now uses only
uses
> scientific knowledge of society to adapt, rather than physical traits of
> individuals. The German Donaldist theory of the Ducks and Mice being
future
> post "nuclear holocaust" mutant forms of current Earth lifeforms (Ernst
Horst?)
> is another reasonable posibility. That assumes that "humans" died out,
and
> fowl and mammals mutated into more intelligent species, who developed
> civilisations. It is interesting that so very many differentiated species
could
> develop from lifeforms of lower and middle levels of intelligence; to
species
> with high level intelligence (that of our humans), at a similar rate-and
then
> all join together to form a single planet civilisation or society. Any
> Zoologist or biologist would find this to be highly unlikely.
>
> It is also extremely unlikely that the Mice, Ducks, Dogs, Pigs, etc. are
just
> different "races" in the same species. They are far too different in
physical
> characteristics to have developed that way. They came from VERY, VERY
different
> conditions, and are likely MILLIONS of years apart from the time when they
> could have interbreeded. So, Horace Horsecollar and Clarabelle Cow can
date if
> they want to, either in "innocent, friendly companionship, or in a
physical
> relationship which is a "sick, prurient form of bestiality", but their
physical
> union CANNOT result in offspring. Daisy being aroused by Deltoid Biceppa,
is
> the equivalent of the farm boy misusing the sheep. Donald should not be
> jealous, he should be worried about the condition of his girlfriend's
psyche.
> The same should be true of Daisy, when Donald loses his heart to all those
"dog
> people". Because of the need for procreation to continue the species,
there is
> a natural instinctive attractiveness to members of the same species. It is
> conceivable that, if several (effectively)unrelated species mutate enough
to
> become intelligent, and by some biological miracle (VERY, VERY unlikely),
reach
> a similar level of intelligence at nearly the same geological age; that
they
> could potentially participate in the same society. The odds of such an
> ocurrence are actually billions to one. But, for the sake of argument
(and
> interesting fictional stories), let us accept that it is, at least
"possible".
> If such were to occur, the members of this society could be colleagues,
friends
> and companions,- but biologically, they could not mate, -and should not
> physically be attracted to eachother!
>
> Don't take me wrongly. I have not brought up this topic for prurient
reasons,
> or to start an X-rated discussion. I merely want to point out that there
is
> aminimum "threshold of believeability" that is necessary to provide
enjoyment
> of the stories in the "Duck universe". It is much easier to go below that
level
> for the scientist than for the layman "fantasy fans" whose taste can be
> described as "anything goes". Relating back to the original point; I can
> believe that in this "Parallel Universe", that the Ducks can be
intelligent
> beings, who developed physically as "ducklike beings" due to wet
conditions,
> and an original diet of seeds and insects. I can believe that, even though
they
> have developed into intelligent beings, that they still hatch from eggs.
The
> fact that Barks tells me that Scrooge says he, himself did come from an
egg,
> proves that for me. There is no indication that Scrooge was joking, in
that
> statement. As we have NO EVIDENCE of live biths (like humans), I cannot
believe
> that the Ducks did not hatch from eggs. Barks' comments that "he always
> thought of the Ducks as humans" was referring to their characters (not
their
> physical characteristics). They are intelligent beings, who have developed
to a
> similar level of intelligence to that of humans on our Earth, and have
> developed a similar level of civilisation and planet-wide society.
Therefore,
> they perform similar actions. but, they have come from highly different
> environments, and thus, have developed in a quite different manner. Thus,
> physical comparisons to those of Earth lifeforms cannot be extrapolated.
>
> The amounts of knowledge of the laws of nature we are willing to suspend,
> separate the "pure fantasy fan" and "fairy tale fan" from the "fantasy
fiction
> fan", "science fiction fan", and finally, from the "stodgy, stuffed shirt,
> scientist".
>
> Rob Klein
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using the LA Free-Net - LA's best kept secret.
> http://www.lafn.org/
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cord Wiljes" <cord at wiljes.de>
To: <dcml at stp.ling.uu.se>
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 7:15 PM
Subject: AW: Birth of Ducks

> Donald D. Markstein wrote:
>
> > Then how do you explain the fact that Gus Goose is Grandma
> > Duck's nephew? Or
> > the fact that Diamond Dick, the jewel thief who impersonated Scottie
> > McTerrier, a dogface, in "The Old Castle's Secret", is related to the
> > McDucks?
>
> Adopted? Cloned? Transmogrified?
>

I agree with that possibility. In fact, we have never seen the actual "child
making rituals" that they use.

Why is it less believable that they use some kind of more or less
scientific "cloning" or "genetic engineering" process to produce offspring,
than to believe they all evolved at the same time from the current farm
animals (at the present in different evolutionary stages, moreover)? Why is
it not possible that the same process that created their ancestors initially
from the farm animals can be reproduced to create new individuals, as their
usual means of reproduction?

Also, I must complain against the view that "interspecies relationships" are
akin to bestiality or worse. We are concerned here with actions between
consenting intelligent adults (though the last part is somewhat debatable,
as we see on the thread relating to the ducks age). In that, romantic
relationships between them are no more "unnatural" than those presented in
lots of science-fiction books (starting with "The Lovers" by Philip Jose
Farmer)... The fact that their relation can not create directly new beings
is irrelevant even if true. Today in our reality lots of couples cannot have
children without external intervention, and that doesn't make their
relationship any less real.

P.

.

> Then how do you explain the fact that Gus Goose is Grandma Duck's nephew? Or
> the fact that Diamond Dick, the jewel thief who impersonated Scottie
> McTerrier, a dogface, in "The Old Castle's Secret", is related to the
> McDucks?

Just because Gus Goose has the last name "Goose", and Grandma Duck has "Duck"
does not prove to me that they are from different species. I have the family
name "Klein", but I am not small as men go. Surnames in this parallel world do
not necessarily mean that those beings are members of, or their families
originated from that particular species.

Scottie McTerrier (who looked significantly like a Terrier dog), had married a
female being whose mother's grandfather had been a McDuck. It is clear from his
looks, that he, himself, could not have produced progeny with Daisy, for
example. I do, however, need to give in on the point of marriage. In this
parallel world, members of the different intelligent species, apparently can
marry. I assume that they can adopt children of any species. Perhaps the
mothers can accept sperm for donors of their own species to have children of at
least ONE of the married couple. I admit that if we assume that the science in
this parallel "Disney or 'Ducks' World" is much advanced of our own, we could
believe that they have found a way to splice genes of the different species
marriage partner into a fetus that was conceived originally by a female and
male of the same species to create an infertal "half breed". If this process
were to continue over thousands of generations moving towards one parent's
species or the other, the "cross breed" would eventually have enough similar
traits to be able to breed with that one original species (or, possibly another
cross bred individual, but only one who had traits very close to that same
original species).

This parallel world then is similar to that of many science fiction tales which
describe a universe with many intelligent species, who live together in a
society (often as equals). But... if they look so very different, a scientist
couldn't really believe that they can interbreed. As mankind has ventured into
space, we have found that the same physical laws that apply to Earth apply to
the entire Universe. "Magic" is in the eye of the beholder. We have no
evidence to lead us to imagine that someday we will "discover" a way to
interbreed, other than the way I described above.

Now the discussion is getting very interesting to me. Again, I must state that
I am not trying to be a killjoy, or tell other Disney fans what they should
believe. I must repeat what I stated in my last message: There is room for
all fans of all levels of immagination, and/or suspension of current scientific
knowledge. I must admit, that what the World's scientists considered "truth" a
few thousand years ago, is considered superstition and drivel now. that leads
us to the safe bet that what we think is "truth" now, will be "proven"
incorrect, in the future. We could assume that the parallel world is in the
distant future or a parallel world that has advanced much beyond our
civilisation. But if THAT is the situation, it is too hard for me to accept
that so very many of the trappings of the latter half of the Twentieth and the
very early Twenty-first Centuries here on our Earth, still remain in vogue, at
the same time as those few, distant future scientific advances. It seems to
me, that if science advanced so greatly in the area of genetics, the results of
research in many other areas would show up in daily life. Perhaps the society
in the "Disney Universe" is VERY, VERY nostalgic for that 50 to 75 year period
in their early history; even to the point of affecting almost every aspect of
their lives.

These are the issues I think about regarding the way I perceive the World
of "The Ducks", "The Mice", etc. I understand how such thinking might take all
the fun out of being a fan. It removes the "magical feeling". I guess I am
very atypical of Disney fans.

Rob
Klein

---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using the LA Free-Net - LA's best kept secret.
http://www.lafn.org/

So we think of the Disney ducks as human. But I'm
puzzled that Barks drew the ducks in Tralla La as more
human than the Duckburg ducks. They are taller, have
no tail feathers or duck legs with webbed feet, and
most significantly, they have human hands with
5 fingers instead of 4 on most cartoon characters.
They only have duck faces. Barks drew their bodies
similar to Gyro, without any suggestion of a duck or
chicken shape. I have no idea (does anyone) why Barks
wanted to distinguish the residents of Tralla La this way,
but in many panels it is clear they have 5 fingers.
Best wishes,
Larry Giver.

Hilsen/Yours
Anders Christian Siveb=E6k
Donaldist
Your personal tour of Norway was interesting to a person whose
greatgrandparents emigrated from Stavanger. Komler sounds familiar.
Have you had either of these desserts--Lefse and Kringle? I still have
Grandma Teal's recipes for both, just haven't got a wood burning cast
iron stove or oven, which seemed to make them taste better, especially
the Lefse.
Please tell Sigvald #4 that I do museum work too, I'm curator at a
small history museum. I spent most of today searching ebay for old
orange crate advertising labels from this area, some are very beautful.
That kind of fanciful art was also a place where the details of Reality
was not a binding factor. I am so glad we have someone reporting on
their ducktravels, as I am considerably worried, after your long and no
doubt unended procreation dissection, that quite a few messagers are
Not Getting Out Enough! get a grip, take a trip.

Rob Klein, it's Kohlrabi, and I wondered that too about Komler.

Larry Givers observation is intriguing-- are Just Plain Awfulians
closer to human. I always thought Carl Barks simply meant them to be
socially and, therefore also visually "squares"-- a la the
beatnick-led slang of the time. Which brings the subject back to
music-- does anyone have any info. that there was a Real World song
that begins "Oh the World Owes Me a Living..." How about a tune for
"Mophead Molly is Off Her Trolley?"
M. O'Benar

Okay, a number of observations:

First, let's get this outta the way since it's off-topic. What Norwegians
call "k?lrabi", we call the very same. Only since we don't have those nutty
'?' dealies, we spell it kohlrabi. It's a sortuva cabbage-turnip... a
medium-sized white root-ball with long tendrils... looking like the 1957
Sputnik with its trailing antennae. Anyway, any questions concerning this
sort of thing you can send my way. My wife and I are avid gardeners and
cooks. And students and makers of wines. And cookbook collectors. And... but
enough of that -- I'm making myself hungry.

from J?rn Egil Opdahl (jol at spray.no)
Subject: Re: About how the Ducks in Duckburg was born
>>>I can't understand this obsession on "how old are they", "when do they
die",
or "how were they born"? By doing that you take away the magic ! I lost
Santa Claus, I lost Jesus by
starting to ask for those answers. Darn if I will loose Donald and Unca
$crooge by starting to ponder on that.

J?rn then goes on to say some *very* nice things about my work -- so nice
that I might drop his message into my "Very Flattering Messages" save-file!
So when I disagree with him, it's in the most gracious terms.
But as we say, "one man's meat is another man's poison" (no, I'm not a
poison gourmet also). Though overanalyzing clearly spoils some people's
enjoyment of their interests or hobbies, for others of us (and I am in that
forefront!) overanalysis is what makes it *more* fun. I'm actually surprised
that a fan who dislikes overanalysis would like my purposely overly-serious,
overly complex story-telling -- usually that's the only criticism people
have for me (which feels good as I consider it a compliment).
Anyway, even though I enjoy the long discussions as Bob Klein's, I prefer my
own attitude to these matters of character species or timelines, since (in
this rare case) my view takes the ultra-simple approach:
These characters are not hatched from eggs, they don't have any trouble with
inter-species marriage or procreation, they don't have problems with their
differing physical appearances..... because they are all caricatures of
normal humans. It's as simple as that. And $crooge can have made his fortune
in the Yukon and still be alive as an octogenarian in "current" stories
because, simply, the "current" stories are not happening in the present. No
problems with fairy tale creatures or frozen space-time continuums or
immortal beings... it's simply the same as reading an authentically done
story about Nero Wolf or Philip Marlowe whose era was the 1930's-50's... or
Sherlock Holmes whose stories take place in Victorian times. One approach is
that you simply set the stories in their appropriate time, as with virtually
all Holmes stories and with the Nero Wolf series on A&E. But another
approach is to set the stories in the "future" of those characters... such
as was done when Universal Pictures had Sherlock fight Nazis in WWII (in
movies made in those years) and as with Philip Marlowe in 1973's "The Long
Goodbye" that had him interacting with LA hippies rather than Hollywood
flappers or bobby-soxers. Some people would never accept a Sherlock who did
not work for Queen Victoria or a Marlowe who might not run into Garbo on
Sunset Boulevard... but others dislike "period pieces" and can't relate to a
story unless it's taking place in their own time and world with which they
are familiar. I think that good stories can be told in either fashion,
though I know the style I prefer which seems truer to the characters as I
know them. But how do the viewers of the Universal Holmes films explain his
presence in 1945? Is he 90 years old? Is he living in a fairy tale world? Or
did those classic Victorian adventures which made him famous just never take
place?! I can't tolerate any of those attitudes when it's infinitely simpler
to have any new Holmes or Wolf or Marlowe adventure take place in the past,
or decide (for myself alone) that my BarksDuck stories are taking place in
some unspecified 1950's year.
Anyway, all views are valid if it's what makes you happy. But anytime you
are reading one of my particular BarksDuck stories, know that you are
reading a story of *human beings* set in the 1950's.

As for what people interpret Barks as saying or implying about his
characters, we can even decide for ourselves as to what he means for us. His
answers to these questions changed a bit from time to time or interviewer to
interviewer (and "filter" to "filter", if you take my meaning). He made
jokes about "eggs", not because he regarded these characters as birds (since
he has clearly said on other occasions that they were people), but simply
because the remark about the egg was *funny* at the time. I don't think
Donald really has feathers, but sometimes I'll show an errant feather being
slapped off his butt simply *because it's funny*. And Barks drew different
"Ducks" in different ways (as with the Trala la Ducks) because he didn't
really want to be drawing the adventures of funny animals .. he really
wanted to be doing comedy/adventure strips like "Captain Easy" or "Ally Oop"
with human characters, and I believe that's how he viewed his works, but his
job was to tell stories of Disney's Donald Duck. We know that he was shoved
by his editors back from the edge he'd reached with "Dangerous Disguise"
where Donald was in the real world with *authentic* humans. But thereafter
you could still see the human qualities creeping back into his
character-caricatures, as with the Trala La folks and their duck heads on
completely human bodies, or the Duckburg "dogs" who eventually became humans
with black noses, or the Duckburg characters of later stories who had
duckbills and *human ears* (something that really creeps me out!). Anyway,
all I'm saying is that I can interpret Barks' works and words to fit my own
view of his Universe. The view that makes me happy. And so can you. So go
for it.

I prefere it fresh in a mixed sallad.
/Michael

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Rosenberg" <dortmunder at mad.scientist.com>
To: <dcml at stp.ling.uu.se>
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 4:40 AM
Subject: kohlrabi (English spelling)

> Rob Klein wrote:
>
> >could Kaalrabi be a type of stuffed cabbage?
>
> [kohl-RAH-bee ] This vegetable is a member of the turnip family and, for
that reason,
> is also called cabbage turnip. Like the turnip, both its purple-tinged,
white bulblike
> stem and its greens are edible. The kohlrabi bulb tastes like a mild,
sweet turnip. It's
> available from midspring to midfall. Those under 3 inches in diameter are
the most
> tender. Choose a kohlrabi that is heavy for its size with firm, deeply
colored green
> leaves. Avoid any with soft spots on the bulb or signs of yellowing on
leaf tips. Store
> tightly wrapped up to 4 days in the refrigerator. Kohlrabi's best steamed,
but can also
> be added to soups and stews as well as used in STIR-FRY. It's rich in
potassium and
> vitamin C.
>
> "Time flies like an arrow, cabbage flies like kohlrabi."
>
> --
> __________________________________________________________
> Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
> http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://stp.ling.uu.se/mailman/listinfo/dcml
>