Keskustelujen arkisto

This is of course a recurring theme, and deserves to remain one.
That the Ducks exist at all, that they have been born, that the
Spirit of Life has been blown into them in their two-dimensional
universe by caring creators, sufficient to make us wish to live with
them or at least visit them, is clearly the Magnum Mysterium et
Admirabile Sacramentum here, for which the current (and recurrent)
discussion is yet another proof.
"Beatus Barkso, cuius cerebellum meruerunt
portare Donaldum Duckum, Alleluia!"
(this should preferably be sung 4-part to the music of Poulenc, though
alternatives might be discussed).

Regarding the technical discussion itself, which I consider to be of only
mild interest, I wish to point out another easy Barksian reference of
some relevance: The (quite artistic) sign given by the Pygmy Indians
(Uncle Scrooge #18, 1957, pages 6-7) consisting of an arrow pointing
to ... an egg (freshly laid, as Donald discovers). According to the JW's
Guide Book, this Indian sign means "go back where you came from!".

I suppose the Peeweegahs procreate more or less in the human
fashion, but they clearly suspect of their unwelcome duck visitors
that they, the Ducks, come from eggs. We detect no sense of surprise
either in the JW's matter-of-fact explanation or in the straight-faced
reactions of the Ducks here (well, they were admittedly stressed & frightened),
no ironic throw-back along the lines of "hah! they should've let the arrow
point to an _uterus_!", and neither do Donald or Scrooge utter phrases
like "why didn't they instead use a rendition of _Ciconia Ciconia_, also known
as `the stork'?" We must infer from this that at the very least, the Ducks
are very accustomed to be considered as Egg Reproduction People,
by outsiders.

I might have redesigned my sentences here in appropriate Kalevalean
runometric rhythms to better convey my opinion, but the egg defence
rests its case.

Nils Lid Hjort

Hi all!

Here at DCML I have often been criticized for presenting my interpretings
and opinions as facts. Most of that criticism is well deserved I guess.
However I have a growing feeling that I am being treated different from
other people who is acting the same way. I therefore find it necessary to
give an example where another person IMO is acting the same way as I often
do. I am *not* saying that this is in any way typical for this person, and
nothing here is intended for offending anyone.

Recently Cord Wiljes wrote:
> And since we already have a DELLa Duck I also
> propose:... Egmont McDuck: Scrooges twin,
> hatched from the same egg...

Here Mr. Wiljes IMO presents a certain point of view (the view of Marco Rota
and others) as a *fact*, not as a *theory* nor as a personal
*interpretation* or an *opinion*. Even so, nobody here has criticized Mr.
Wiljes for this way of arguing, while my name has been mentioned several
times during the following debate ? as if some people have more right to be
"categorical" in their arguing than others.

Sigvald :-)

Lunnan & Hjort <brit.lunnan at chello.no> wrote:

> I wish to point out another easy Barksian
> reference of some relevance: The (quite
> artistic) sign given by the Pygmy Indians
> (Uncle Scrooge #18, 1957, pages 6-7) consisting
> of an arrow pointing to ... an egg (freshly
> laid, as Donald discovers). According to the
> JW's Guide Book, this Indian sign means "go
> back where you came from".

I remember this, *but* I have always read it as
a sign from the Pygmy Indians they they should go back to their own country,
back to Calisota and Duckburg. This asumption is based upon the following
considerations:

a) We have to assume that that specific Indian sign is a universal one -
also valid as a sign to humans. AFAIK there is nowhere in that story stated
that it was a sign meant for Ducks only.

b) The sign would IMO only be meaningful if it means that $crooge & Co
should leave the country of the Pygmy Indians and return to Duckburg.

Sigvald :-)

Olaf Solstrand <olaf at andebyonline.com> wrote:

> Third - time. You claim that Barks wasn't
> writing modern stories, but 50s stories.

Sorry, sorry, sorry!!!
That was actually just meant as funny a little joke. Obiously Barks both did
"modern stories" and "50s stories" at the same time - since it was by then
he did most of his greatest stories.

If anyone here think that my joke wasn't much funny, I do apologize!

Sigvald :-)

We've hashed over these same topics and statements several times before. I
will add my same comments again.

(1)The Barks and Rosa "Duck Universes" are not meant to be "gospel" and to
disallow anything that might in any way be considered by fanatics (real word
for "fans" contraction)to contradict those gospel facts. There have been many
other creators (including myself)who would like to have the creative freedom to
invent new characters and situations that might be appropriate for enjoyment of
a large range of readers of various ages and walks of life.

2)Neither Barks nor any other artist ever showed a "Duckburg/Calisota duck"
being born live. Marco Rota, Tony Strobl, and a few other artists showed
Donald, and some other "Duckpeople" hatching from eggs. Furthermore, I believe
Barks' dialogue having the Ducks mention that "if they swam across
the "Fountain of Youth" lake, they'd return to their place in their egg, before
getting half way across." was meant to be taken as a joke based on the real
situation. The funniest jokes to mankind are often based on reality (often
based on real misfortune). Yes, it was said with irony, but I believe it also
referred to a well-understood fact.

3) I believe also that The Duck's World is a parallel world to Earth. it is in
another dimension, where the laws of our Universe do not apply (exactly the way
they do in our science). Some things work the same, others are similar, but
different in degree, still others are based on a totally different history
and/or physics.

4) I am CONVINCED Carl Barks' famous sketched family tree, was NOT used by him
as a technical resource data base for his referral in creating many future
stories (after making it). I talked with him at length several times between
1966 and 1973, about his stories, main characters, secondary characters,
Duckburg, Calisota, where his ideas came from, etc. etc. He mentioned time
after time, that he NEVER had a DEFINED self-made database or plan of the
geography and history of the Ducks, Duckburg, Calisota, etc. He said that he
only had a very general idea about the Duckburg/Calisota geography, and make-up
of the Duck Family in the back of his mind. He invented new characters as he
needed them for individual stories. He CHANGED the geography of Duckburg to
suit his needs in particular stories. After he had built up a large body of
stories, Barks became aware that he had better be aware of what he had created
previously, to avoid contradicting his past stories (even though he had no idea
that a whole generation of readers had continued to read his stories already
for more than 10 years). He thought about the duck family, and hastily
scratched out his "family tree". He told me that he DID NOT refer to his family
tree, religiously when he wrote future stories. He only had a "vague idea" of
the familial relationships of all but the main "core" characters. When I told
him that he had made very few contradictions in all his work, he was
flabbergasted. He had thought there would have been much more, as he said he
used characters and geography as needed for each story, and rarely, IF EVER,
went back into his previous stories to research what he had done, to avoid
contradiction. He did it all from memory. In "Race To The South Seas"
Gladstone was not even related to Uncle Scrooge by blood. The latter was
Gladstone's mother's brother's brother-in-law. In other stories, he mentioned
that Gladstone was Donald's cousin. Sometimes he thought of Donald's sister as
Dumbella, sometimes as Della, and on the family tree as "Thelma". As for many
of the names of characters he put on his family tree, whom he never used in a
story, he probably NEVER THOUGHT OF THEM AGAIN!!! How can one consider Barks'
hastily produced family tree as gospel, when he never really used it?
Shouldn't what appeared in the comic books take precedence?

Rob Klein

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

> whether the Ducks in Duckburg are birds or people
> can read through this posting:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=EruoJM.8B9%40iglou.
com>

Somehow, I never got the understanding from any of the
previous posts that anyone disagrees with you that the
Disney Ducks are to be thought of as "people" and not
just "funny animals." Donald and Mickey and Goofy are
definitely not in the same evolutionary ladder with
Pluto and Figaro, what are animals. However, Disney
does have some characters that seem to walk a tight
line between animal and person such as the Big Bad Wolf,
Brer Bear & company, and, depending on how they are
presented, the same goes for Chip'n Dale. In anycase,
the Ducks, along with the Mouses, the Gearlooses, the
Goofs and the Petes, et al, are all generally considered
"people" in the Disney universes and no one here seems
to be disputing that notion at all. But being "people"
and being "human" are two entirely different issues.

While the Ducks and indeed "people" they most definitely
are not "humans." While there have been depictions of
"humans" in the Duck universe (most notably, for me, is
Witch Hazel, Mad Madam Mim and the Red Fly), generally,
the notion of "real" humans in the Duck or Mouse
universes doesn't typically occur.

Rich Bellacera

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

There's an 60's GREAT Ludwig Von Drake's special (which name I don't know by
sure) were Donald are analysed by Lud, triyng to discover what's the origin
of Donald bad genius. So Donald explain that his birthday was an huge
experience.

It's very funny, we see an duck egg and seconds later a small little Donald
brake the egg with his first furious Donald-Duck-Quack Atack (first outside
the egg, I presume)!!!

I certaily LOVE this version!!! Much more than the cute Marco Rota's little
Donald breaking his egg (an incredible story too)! This furious birthday
resumes wath is REALLY Donald Duck to me! :o)

Fernando!

> Yes, Marco Rota's "My life in an Egg Shell" is a nice story which
> represented, and my still represent Marco Rota's view on the
Duck-universe.
> However we can say for sure that it does not represnt Barks' view on the
> Duck universe as the two has a contradictory view on the relations between
> the central characters Grandma Duck and Uncle $crooge Mc Duck

Has -- or had?

Well, this siblinghood was the standard in Europe then - of course Rota
would be influenced from that. And, as I believe that none of Barks' stories
stated that they were NOT siblings, how could Rota know Barks was
contradictory to this?

From Egg To Duck sure was NOT the first story saying they were siblings --
it was common knowledge. We grew up with great Italian stories telling us
about the past of Scrooge and Grandma. Everybody knew that they were
siblings, so why should they NOT be in the story of Donald's life?

Yes, my guess is that Rota had NO idea about what Barks thought of this. And
as the barksist Rota is, I feel sure that his POV changed when he found out
that Barks felt the opposite way. (does anyone here know Rota and is able to
find out?)

Before Don Rosa (and Byron Erickson) came along, Scrooge and Grandma WERE
siblings in Europe. And frankly, I see nothing wrong in that. Our great old
Barks stories took no harm from this, as none of them were saying the
opposite -- and most of these stories were GREAT stories, too.

Olaf the Blue