Keskustelujen arkisto

SANTIAGO GARCIAB to me, 29-08-2003:

>>"Very good show! Here is a REWARD for you and your talented reptile!"
>> (Which Barks story?)

> Could it be a Scrooge gag?

Yes, it is a Scrooge gag. One of my most favourites, a gag which made
me burst from laughter when I first read it.

A gag *is* a story. Only just a very short one. But I'm guilty of having
divided gags and stories as separate items, myself. Where does the word
"gag" come from, by the way? Is it a correct word? The Carl Barks Library
calls them "fillers".

(At the end of this email, there's a new quote.)

CORD WILJES to me, 29-08-2003:

>> [Time travel is] dangerous. What would happen if Walt Disney decides
>> to drop the idea of Mickey Mouse, because it already has been
>> copyrighted by the potential audience? That means no Mickey Mouse,
>> no Gottfredson books, and therefore no reason to go back to old
>> California to make them affordable...

> ...and no travelling back in time so no pre-copyright and thus Disney
> will not have been had (future perfect II *g*) no reason to drop the
> idea. Or he will not drop it right away. So essentially he has
> no choice, regardless of what I do.

I just went to the shops, but nowhere I could find a cheap Gottfredson
collection. Nowhere! Not even an expensive one. What went wrong with
your mission?

HARRY FLUKS to SIGVALD GROSFJELD, 29-08-2003:

> Sigvald, you won the prize for this month's most ridiculous DCML
> discussion.

Hey! What about the above discussion, Harry? It even has developed from
the subject of hunger strike to the pros and cons of time travel! Within
a few days!

And besides, the month is not over yet. If we're going to discuss
ridiculous discussions, that would be a potential candidate for a
rather ridiculous discussion, too!

--- Dani?l

"Never, never have I so much enjoyed being a JUDGE before!"
(Which Barks story?)

OLIVIER to me, 29-08-2003:

> --- Copyright Isue ---
> Remember the wall painting of a Mickey Mouse-looking character?
> Maybe some DCML member did try to go back in the past, something went
> wrong, (s)he got trapped in prehistoric times, and left that drawing
> for us. He should have made it clear he was applying for a copyright
> on the mouse, though.

Oh no! And I just asked Cord what went wrong with his time travel
mission... Didn't I, Cord?

{silence}

Hey Cord! CORD? CORD! CORD!!! WHERE ARE YOU????

Well, time fellows, it seems we have a Mickey Mouse Martyr, after all. :-)

--- Dani?l

Harry wrote:

>I have a xerox of the original Fallberg script of a different story, drawn
>by Carpi (if I remember well). The script (in pencils) looks very much
>like the finished artwork.
>
>So at least *some* of the Studio stories were not heavily reworked by the
>Italians.

VERY interesting...
What about a scan? (Or a xerox copy snail-mailed to me so that *I* can make
the scan available for everybody...) ?

Marco

http://www.cce.unifi.it/~marcobar/Comics

OLIVIER to me, 29-08-2003:

>> In Barks's "Ten-cent Valentine" (WDC 258), Scrooge calls Magica both a
>> sorceress *and* a witch. The witch-reference can be found in panel 9.8:
>> "Drop your WEAPONS, you witch!"
>> So, looking at this story, it's discussable if Magica De Spell is a
>> sorceress or a witch.

> Well, "witch" here is used in a pejorative way more than by reference to
> what she actually is. You can call a woman a "hag", a "crone", or a
> "witch", regardless of her actually being one; "sorceress" is just too
> long for such a use. So I don't think it's conclusive here.

Yes, that's why I said it's discussable.

I have checked another Barks story, "Oddball Odyssey" (US 40). This story
seems to have the same pattern as in "Ten-cent Valentine" (WDC 258):

- Magica calls herself a sorceress.
- The Ducks call Magica both a sorceress *and* a witch.

I don't know what is mentioned in other Barks stories, though. And maybe I
didn't look minutely enough.

> Now, I must very humbly say I'm a bit confused as to the nuances between
> witch, sorcerer(ess), magician, wizard, ...

I'm also a bit confused about that. Maybe the borders between the words
have become vague, as often happens with words that have meanings that
look alike.

> From the dictionary (Cambridge)--
> witch: a woman who is believed to have magical powers and who uses them
> to harm or help other people. [...]
> sorcery: a type of magic in which spirits, esp evil ones, are used to
> make things happen

I can't remember a Barks instance in which spirits are used to make things
happen. Does such a Barks story exist?

As far as I know, a witch also is person who lives close to nature, knowing
much about nature's possibilities to make potions, or just a good cup of
healthy tea, etc. (Something which made/makes people superstitious, thinking
of magical powers instead of nature's powers.)

Maybe this Cambridge dictionary version only contains short definitions,
like a pocket dictionary?

>> "Did another missile blow up on the launching pad?"

> Isn't that from the Valentine Magica story? Or maybe simply here first
> appearance?

Yes, it's from "Ten-cent Valentine". It's not from her first appearance.
(It might be her first appearance in Walt Disney Comics and Stories,
though. I don't know for sure, at the moment.)

> In any case, that's Donald's line after being foof bombed. I believe
> the panel shows him staggering, seeing stars.

It's Scrooge, instead of Donald.

--- Dani?l

This is an automated eMail generated by mailer
daemon hrz.uni-bielefeld.de on behalf of Cord Wiljes:
---------------------------------------------

Dear fellow Disney comics fans:

If you read this message my mission has failed.
I knew the risks and willingly accepted them.

Please do not mourn for me. I did what I believed
in. Could there be a man more happy?

I know that the day will come when people all over
the world will rejoice over the glory of a public
and complete edition of Floyd Gottfredson's Mickey
Mouse strips. And if my attempt to travel back in
time, failed though it did, contributed just one
small step to this goal, it will not have be in vain.

Keep up the hope,
Cord

This is a difficult matter to address because there have been untold
hundreds of stories produced and published about Magica by Egmont and Italy
and Holland and probably South America which I've never seen, and just like
this idea of the coins in the Money Bin being accepted as pure gold due to
long European tradition, even if I think that's completely wrong, it doesn't
change what the accepted tradition has become in other lands. I've even seen
it written by European fans that, even though they know that a particular
"fact" they grew up with is based on an incorrect interpretation of the
original, that doesn't matter, they prefer it because it's what they grew up
on... and that's certainly a very legitimate reason for a preference!
I don't know how other Magica writers interpret what she is. And I can't
even say that how I am personally choosing to define the word "sorcery" will
stand up to scrutiny by Webster and his dictionary. But my interpretation of
Magica, and Egmont's "official" interpretation of Magica, and I personally
feel sure Barks' original interpretation of Magica is quite different from
any idea that she is a "witch". So I'll need to define *my* usage of the
words and go from there. If my definition of "sorcerer" is not the
dictionary definition, it doesn't matter -- suffice it to say that my
definition is used here only for the purposes of delineating the character
Magica de Spell.
A witch (or warlock) is a supernatural being with inherent
supernatural/magical powers who can call forth mystic powers from his/her
fingertips. In ancient and pop fiction they are hideously ugly and evil and
often shown flying through the air on a broom, which is to say they can fly
on a broom or a Hoover or anything they wish, or just plain fly at will,
broomstick or not... they can just about do anything.
A sorcerer/sorceress is a normal human. Like an alchemist. He/she learns to
manipulate preternatural powers through the science of chemicals or
incantations or ancient spells or by using empowered wands. Anyone can learn
to become a sorcerer with great study of arcane knowledge found through long
examinations and translations of ancient tomes and lots and lots of
practice... (actually, it's very much like being a cartoonist).
Magica de Spell is a sorceress. She obtains all of her knowledge through the
study of magic and through her discovery or purchase or fabrication of
magical tools. She might find or develop a wand to do anything in my
imagination that might be funny, but she will always need that wand to do
that magic. If Donald grabs the wand or overhears the incantation, he could
duplicate the feat.
After all, is she is *really* an omnipotent witch, WHY does she seek to use
the #1 Dime to become rich?!?! Why doesn't she just wave her hands and
create a mountain of money or gold? For that matter, why would a witch
*need* money? She could just wave that hand and create her yacht in the
Adriatic or her mansion on Capri.
Someone mentioned my story "A Little Something Special", and I *did*
purposely use that story in part to define Magica's abilities, or lack
thereof. I explained that she is a second-rate sorceress who lacks the
ability to create wealth or the money to buy the wands or spells from the
alchemy store that would enable her to get rich. These are particularly
expensive spells or tools (naturally). The only thing Magica has that's
special is ONE single scrap of arcane knowledge that apparently no one else
either has or is stupid enough to try to act on: if she has a coin that has
been handled extensively by a *very* wealthy person, she knows a spell that
will enable her to melt that coin down to form an amulet which will give her
the Midas Touch to create gold. But okay, that specific point is lost to
history, so suffice it to say she knows a spell that will *somehow* enable
her to use that #1 Dime to make herself rich. That's all that matters. She
can't do anything else of any real practical value. But that one spell she
has learned will make her rich if she can just get that Dime.
Egmont's "official" policy: When Byron Erickson first took over the
editorship of the comic creation department, with no prompting from me, also
decided that it was time to return Magica to her roots. He said Egmont would
eliminate the use of Magica as a "witch" who flew around on a broomstick. He
would see that she returned to the original Barks version since that is the
only version that would make sense (for reasons I mention above). Now, has
Egmont stuck to Byron's policy? I don't know, I can't read the comics. They
also told me that Fethry and Ludwig were "dead", but I have heard they are
mighty lively as of late. But despite whether Egmont could carry through on
this policy, at least in my stories Magica is definitely NOT a witch.
Barks' original intention: I don't know why, but Barks apparently had a
strong aversion against telling any story that involved the supernatural in
any way, shape or form. Normally I would think there was some fundamentalist
religious belief that was causing that, but I've never heard that was the
case. And yet Barks never *voluntarily* used a witch or ghost or Santa Claus
in any of his stories *unless ordered to by the editor for a specific
reason*... like "Trick or Treat" to promote a Disney film, or "Golden
Christmas Tree" where someone else wrote the script, or "Letter to Santa"
when the editor wanted a Santa story for the Christmas annual. I personally
also can't bring myself to tell a Santa story for my own reasons, and that
always is a problem for Finland because they *really* want me to do a story
about Santa living in Finland.
Barks would *never* use a ghost in a story. Me, I am quite different, and I
make no attempt to follow Barks' lead in that respect. I like ghosts (as
benign spirits) as story elements. Some GREAT movies and stories have
involved ghosts or spirits! And I could easily decide to have a witch in a
story... I don't mind doing stories about the occult! (Just look at all the
voodoo I had going on in "Crown of the Crusader Kings"). On the other hand,
Barks loved to tell stories about strange creatures hiding in remote spots,
like Terries and Firmies, about Pygmy Indians, about the Norse gods being
critters on an asteroid, or about the mythological Greek creatures living on
an obscure mountain cooking parsnip pudding. These are ideas that do not
involve the occult or supernatural -- these are strange creatures living in
hidden places. Me, I am again *quite* different. I like the Pygmy Indians
(after all, they're only pygmies, no big deal), but I can't hack Terries or
Firmies or Larkies or Harpies or any of that. Yeah, I loved those stories as
a kid, they were two of my top favorites -- but I could *never* tell a story
using them myself. In fact, at a publisher's request, I actually started
once on a sequel to the "Golden Fleecing" and got a week or so into ideas
for a return of the Larkies or a return of $crooge to their hidden city. But
I had to abandon the idea... the Larkies were just too silly for my style.
I'm more comfortable with other ideas (though they might be less
entertaining... my loss).
Anyway, Barks' Magica was a sorceress. She was a normal person who would
discover Circe's secrets or seek the Cave of Ali Baba in order to gain wands
or learn magic spells. When she grabbed the Dime and tried to flee Duckburg,
she's hop on the next scheduled flight at Duckburg airport. Did Barks'
$crooge ever call her a "witch"? Sure, for the same reason I have people
call her a "witch" -- it's an insult... witches are ugly old crones. Did
Barks consider titling a Magica story "Which Witch is Which?"? Sure, it's a
play on words... and after all, he ultimately did NOT use that title.
So, I don't know if Magica is treated as a witch in all the other bajillion
Duck stories being produced, but in the stories I create, she is still a
mere sorceress, which I think is her charm.

DON ROSA WROTE:

Barks would *never* use a ghost in a story.

AND I AGREE, BUT...

there is one very interesting borderline case: "The Gost
Sheriff of Las Gasp" (WDC 176).

He fell down a mine shaft and afterwards he stopped
aging. Barks sorta offers an explanation for this, but
when I read the story for the first time way back
in the fifties I thought what had REALLY happened
was that the guy had turned into a ghost without knowing
it. I even remember being slightly put off: "This is a ghost
story. This is not proper Duck stuff."

Which just proves Don's point, I guess.

Nils from Norway

Hey Rich,

>Here are two scans from the story J 2012 showing The Capronis and a
>picture of Giddy Goat.
>http://users.cwnet.com/xephyr/ART/Gideon1.jpg
>http://users.cwnet.com/xephyr/ART/Gideon2.jpg
>http://users.cwnet.com/xephyr/ART/GiddyGoat.gif
>
>David or someone familiar with the story and/or Giddy Goat, could you
>possibly share what you know concerning this character?

Giddy's history isn't very lengthy. He first appears as a
nondescript band member in such cartoons as THE BARN DANCE and THE BARNYARD
CONCERT. He's the sheriff who busts Mickey in FISHIN' AROUND. And he'd have
been lost to obscurity were it not for Gottfredson's use of him- or, more
specifically, an inconsistently-named goat farmer with his appearance- in a
small number of Sunday pages in the mid-1930s.
Kay Kamen, or someone at Disney's merchandising arm around 1934, hit
on the fact that this goat farmer was regularly reappearing. Under the
consistent name of Gideon Goat, the character now became a regular part of
Mickey's gang in Disney storybooks, coloring books, MICKEY MOUSE MAGAZINE,
and MICKEY MOUSE MAGAZINE's overseas equivalents.
Giddy wasn't the only minor character to experience a merchandising
rush at this time. MICKEY MOUSE MAGAZINE writers took it on themselves to
revive Squeaky, the squirrel from Gottfredson's "Mr. Slicker and the Egg
Robbers", and refine his tail to make him a skunk. Humanized and going by
the new name of Sammy Skunk, he too became a regular in Disney printed
matter for a few years.
1937 saw SNOW WHITE's release, and the introduction of numerous new
marketable characters to the Disney pantheon. Counting the years forward
from there, one sees merchandisers start to drop characters who had fallen
out of regular use. Patricia Pigg, Gideon, and Sammy were more or less the
first to go. After World War II, lesser Silly Symphony characters like Elmer
Elephant went next.
Today, I imagine that those who use Gideon invoke him as some sort
of homage to Gottfredson. That's definitely the Gideon *model* in the
Topolino story you've shown us, though I'm too unfamiliar with the story to
judge whether it's really intended as the same character.

David