Keskustelujen arkisto

My copy of WDC164 is exactly the same - it has blank inside covers. Maybe they're all like that?

Nils from Norway

<Perhaps we can start another thread though about "Unlikely Favorites". By that term I mean personal favorites that we love, but are not often mentioned as among the best or most famous of Disney stories.>

Hey, this is fun! I nominate "High Aims" (D97510, story by Gorm Transgaard, art by Vicar).

Donald's guardian angel gives him the ability to fly. Seeking fame and fortune, he zooms around the streets of Duckburg shouting: "Hey, look at me everybody!" But in these days of movie special effects no one is impressed. "I wonder what they're advertising," says a man in the street. And a jaded TV producer comments: "You don't think the viewers will believe you can REALLY fly, do you?" Only when his antics end in disaster (as we knew they would) does the public take notice of him.

A very clever and funny story. I hope the new line of American Disney comics will print it. My favorite line is Donald's comment in the last panel: "If this story has a moral, I don't want to hear it."

Nils from Norway

One recurring theme here is that of "are Disney comics
presented as being only for kids?". In Norway, Egmont
produce some quite exquisite hardcover books, consisting
of full years' runs, completto & in extenso, qua facsimile.
We have come as far as ... 1956?, I think, starting with
1948-1949 in Volume 1, 1950 as Volume 2, etc. *These*
are serious books bought by (tens of thousands of rich enough)
adults, certainly, and are presented and "styled" for this
segment of buyers. They even have a "learned" type preface,
written by suitable "serious grown-ups", one for each book.

The reason for mentioning this now is that I read
through the latest of these recently, with a decent
preface by Helge R?nning, professor of "media and communication".
And the number of typos & mistakes (small, admittedly)
was depressively high. In the ten or so pages for Professor
R?nning's essay there were more mistakes (typos, lay-out
mistakes, ugly word-breaks, wrong lengths of hyphens, all
these violently important details on which our civilisation
rests(!)) than in an average 400-page novel. Which shows that
Egmont doesn't care enough. They even (horror!) wrote
" Bark's " somewhere. Not everyone has a talent for
being seriously bothered by such things ... but most
would count the correct writing of "Barks" among
the minimum requirements for book editors of Disney comics.

Shame; shocking; tsk tsk; public exposure; laughing stocks;
write their parents; let the heads roll.

Apart from firing those at Egmont who are responsible
for not correcting these mistakes in these expensive
high-profile books we should also _discuss_ these
essays (or aspects thereof) here at the DCML. A little
bit difficult, of course, since these are only published
in Norwegian. (Are there similar editions in Denmark
and Sweden? I believe so. Please educate us.)

But these prefaces are "(high-quality) DCML's" in miniature.
They are written by people who have a serious interest
in Disney Comics, who (presumably) can write, who enjoy
a minimum amount of "fame" (since Egmont asks them),
and they have complete freedom when writing their
ten page essay. (A good exercise, actually; recommended
for anyone here.) They can also choose whatever they wish
to illustrate their opinions, or reflections. Some essays
have touched American politics and aspects of "cultural
imperialism", some tell about personal memories related
to reading Ducks when young, and some reflect on culture
and art more broadly, etc.

Nils Lid Hjort

My mermaid-"hint" for the second quote is too unclear and
too confusing. So, I've added an extra hint to that one.

- - -

"Well, back into the barrel with the FLEAS!"
(Hint: "Gaaah! There's a year's crop of SOOT in that pipe!")

- - -

"Ouch! More automation!"
(Hints: "Handle with care" / "A-a MERMAID - Awk!" /
"Somehow we never learn the beat of rock and roll, sahib!")

- - -

In private, someone guessed "A letter to Santa" and "Hall of the
Mermaid Queen". Both these guesses are wrong.

--- Dani?l

Thanks for the replies Stefan & David.

> Funny... within Egmont itself we say Ferdie- though I'm not sure we
always have.

Hmmm. Well, the book from which this all comes is an Egmont ECN product
which even specifies Peter Schlecht as vital to its publication. I just
found it curious that when they did use English they sometimes spelled
things a little differently, such as "Ferdy" rather than "Ferdie" as I've
always seen.

>Coach Julian = just Coach
>Mitchell (a cow-boy) = just Mitch [it's not short for anything]
>Haskle (a dognose boy) = Huskie [like a "husky" dog... strange name
change!]
The other characters are as you named them.

Ahhh. I see. Well, just to clarify things, the names I applied were my
"assumptions" based on the Chinese Pinyin names since the English names
(with the exception of Morty & Ferdy) were not listed in the book. Once I
translated the names from Chinese to Pinyin I had the difficulty of trying
to figure out exactly WHAT the English name was suppose to be. For
instance, my name, "Rich" is translated to "Li Cha" (pronounced "Lee-Chah")
in Chinese.

The names in Pinyin are actually:

Jiao Lian (which does mean "Coach" in Chinese, but I wasn't sure if that
was suppose to be his name or his title so I guessed both, hence "Coach
Julian")
by Shirt Number:
#1 Si Lai (Sly)
#2 Pai Te (Pat)
#3 Mi Chi (which I overguessed as "Mitchell", thanks "Mitch" makes more
sense)
#4 Ha Si Qi (Husky, which I had a difficult time with, so "Haskle" wasjust
a bad guess. Thanks for clarifying. His picture intrigued me the most
since he displays some mystery in his appearance)
#5 Kai Wen (Kevin)
#6 Gi Er Ba Te (Gilbert - a previous guess of mine. Poor Gilbert wasn't
profiled in this book, though)
#7 Si Pai Ke (Spike)
#8 Mao Di (Morty)
#9 Ni Pa (Nipper)
#10 Fu Di (Ferdy)
#11 Wo Li (Wally

> They're the Riverside Rovers. Sounds like the Chinese translated it
directly.

Here again, the name is in Chinese, hence "He bing zu qiu dui" which means
"River side/bank soccer/football team." I took a guess at what was
intended.

> The soccer team first appeared in D 99290, appropriately enough
titled "Riverside Rovers". The team kids and all other relevant characters
were created especially for the series by writer Paul Halas, editor Lars
Bergstr?m, and artist Paco Rodriguez.

Great. I did a little search in the INDUCKS and read the brief story
description about Gilbert making a lucky goal. It's nice that Morty, Ferdy
and Gilbert all share space in the series.

> The name Felicity originates at Egmont, so you won't find it in any
older comics.

I believe the story I have with her was only from the year 2000 or 2001,
and has a "D" coding, so it features a VERY different look for Mickey's
sister (which he does call in the story) than that of the elderly matron
who appeared in M&F's very first comic. This Mrs. Fieldmouse is very
contemporary looking, though still much taller than her younger brother. I
like the preciseness of Chinese since when Mickey calls her "sister" he
specifically uses the wording that means "older sister." Speaking of
which, since Chinese is so specific, the translations of such words as
Grandma, Aunt, Cousin and Brother ALSO tell you EXACTLY from which side of
the family the relation comes. Therefore, they usually AVOID using such
words in order not to have to inform the reader of knowledge that might not
be available, thus Gladstone won't be called "cousin" unless he is
specifically refered to as Donald's cousin on his mother's side of the
family, etc. Uncle Scrooge's name "Shu Shu" means he's from Donald's
father's side of the family, whereas, if he was from Donald's mother's side
it would be "Jiu Jiu." As I said, Mickey called Felicity his "Ge Ge" which
means "older sister" rather than "Di Di" which means "younger sister."
Anyhow, I just thought that was of some relations of our heroes are still
undefined.

Thanks again,

Rich Bellacera

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

Thomas:
> But I'm not sure I agree 100% that at the end of the story, Scrooge saw
> the plate as nothing more than a metal plaque suitable for feeding
> pigeons. As I see it, he's still sad that it wasn't worth it being king
> (i.e. have a lot of money repaid) -- too much trouble in it -- and he
> keeps the plaque as a (secret) memory of the whole incident, and
> probably to remind him that it's the little things that make your inner
> heart happy, not the things that make you look happy or powerful (as you
> put it) for when he's in a sentimental mood (and indeed it *has* a
> practical use, too). After all, he could have used any other flat object
> (wooden plate, etc.) for feeding the pigeons. But he didn't.

After re-reading my original post, i regret stated such extreme opinion
which i myself dont agree. Actually yes, i agree that the plague still holds
memory for him and will be treated as one of his trophies. Isnt it kinda
ironic/sarcastic that Scrooge used the plague that granted him a kingdom of
his own to feed the pigeons while in the 1st panel he didnt use any other
similar flat objects? ;-)

It's a good story.

Unlikely favorites:
Hey, this is fun. Here's mine. The Ben Verhagen duck story which tell DD and
Gladstone competing in a journey around the world.In the end, Gladstone lose
cause he used modern means of transportation. I like it cause the story is
long yet interesting to read and it certainly felt like a Barks story. Story
code unknown cause i doesnt have the books with me now :-)

Sigvald:
"H.W.Fluks at telecom.tno.nl wrote:
>> In 1966 Carl Barks retired...
>>
> Correct.
Are you sure? AFAIK his Barks' last stories was done or at least published
in 1967. I think that's why Don Rosa has chosen that year as the year of
Scrooge's death."

I had the same situation more of the same but i stumbled upon that i thought
Barks last story was made and published in 1966. I asked Don if he had made
an "unofficial" death of Scrooge on 1967 in order for Scrooge to have a 100t
h year. (unofficial because i dont think egmont or any other disney
publisher will allow story of scrooge's death to be made and published). So
i asked Don if he would later change his mind and make Scrooge dead in 1966,
which in my mind, was to create the same "incarnation" of Barks' character
towards his creator. (in simple words, scrooge dead as 99 years old, just
like Mr. Barks).

I got a detailed explanation from Don which i think might be able to answer
ur question:
Don:
"No, I'll stick to 1967. It doesn't really matter when Barks retired, it
doesn't matter when he wrote/drew his final story -- what's important is
when it APPEARED to the world. We don't recognize the anniversary of a
famous book or movie by researching when it was written or filmed -- we go
by the date it was RELEASED. Similarly, you don't celebrate your birthday on
the day you were created, but you celebrate it about 9 months later when you
are born (released). Barks might have stopped producing stories in 1966, but
what matters is that his last story was published in mid 1967."

So i guess that should answer ur curiosity. Barks did retire in 1966 but his
last story was published and made known to public a year later in 1967.

Keep On Quacking,
Arie Fachrisal and a guy named Joe from Singapore.

In December 2001, a new Gerstein/Jippes half page for Barks' silent night
story (D 2001-068) was discussed here. (Yes, I'm THAT far behind!)

Is there a scan available of this new half page, preferably with the
original English dialogue? If so, where can I find it?

--- Dani?l