How do you like your Disney Ducks: as birds or as mammals? This may seem like a silly question, but it's actually relevant to the history of Duck comics, as it is, to my knowledge, perhaps the only thing Rosa disagreed with Barks on. Barks's notes to himself indicated that he felt the Ducks were birds, as he noted they reproduced by laying eggs, but Rosa apparently feels they are mammals, if not humans, who simply happen to resemble ducks, just as other people resemble dogs, pigs, etc.
I personally side with Barks here. I mean, if it LITERALLY looks and quacks like a duck... Plus it kind of takes the fun out of a funny animal comic if they're just "people who look like/are depicted as animals."
Pages:
1
Author
Topic: Ducks: Birds or Mammals?
(6 messages)
Majestic_Picnob
Ducks: Birds or Mammals?
Message 1 -
2014-04-30 at 03:49:17
Matilda
Ducks: Birds or Mammals?
Message 2 -
2014-04-30 at 06:15:54
Well, I'd say that Barks did and didn't consider them to be ducks. Certainly he made them thoroughly human in their motivations and concerns and activities. They are never motivated by any aspect of a small-"d" duck's existence. He also often had characters refer to them as humans. In "Statuesque Spendthrifts" the question is whether Scrooge is the richest "man" in the world (though in "The Second Richest Duck," where he's competing with another duck, it's phrased as who is the richest duck!). In "The Screaming Cowboy," the hermit blames the avalanches on "the man who wrote that song." (True, he doesn't know then that it was Donald...but the reader does, and thinks of Donald as "the man"--the reader doesn't think, "No, it wasn't a man who wrote it, it was a duck!") Those are just two examples from the first volume of WDCS stories I happened to pick up. While the Duck/McDucks often refer to themselves as ducks, it's easy in context to read that as similar to a familial or clan identity, not as an entirely separate species from the dog-nosed (and sometimes dog-eared) humans. In any case, it's clear that the dognoses, the ducks, and the speaking chickens/geese/etc. are all *people* with human motivations and life patterns.
It's true that Barks consistently presented the ducks as having come from eggs (as in "That's No Fable!"), and Rosa differs from him on that point, since Rosa finds that notion quite off-putting. But I'd agree with Rosa that Barks's ducks overall are more "humans who happen to look like ducks" than they are ducks. They live in people-houses in people-towns, they eat people-food, they have jobs or go to school, they have dogs or cats as pets. They are not hunted by dognosed duck-hunters. They need planes to fly! Daffy Duck retains more duck-nature than do Donald & Co. Bugs has more rabbit-nature (living in a hole in the ground, eating carrots--the Ducks prefer hamburgers and turkey dinners!). Even Kermit has more frog-nature, having grown up in a swamp with other frogs.
Now I'm sure that someone will come up with an instance where Bugs ate a turkey dinner!
It's true that Barks consistently presented the ducks as having come from eggs (as in "That's No Fable!"), and Rosa differs from him on that point, since Rosa finds that notion quite off-putting. But I'd agree with Rosa that Barks's ducks overall are more "humans who happen to look like ducks" than they are ducks. They live in people-houses in people-towns, they eat people-food, they have jobs or go to school, they have dogs or cats as pets. They are not hunted by dognosed duck-hunters. They need planes to fly! Daffy Duck retains more duck-nature than do Donald & Co. Bugs has more rabbit-nature (living in a hole in the ground, eating carrots--the Ducks prefer hamburgers and turkey dinners!). Even Kermit has more frog-nature, having grown up in a swamp with other frogs.
Now I'm sure that someone will come up with an instance where Bugs ate a turkey dinner!
Quackberg
Ducks: Birds or Mammals?
Message 3 -
2014-04-30 at 15:40:18
My own personal view on the nature of the ducks (and the other human-like animals) is that evolution has taken a different route in this "parallel universe" which has resulted in a much more varied population of intelligent animals. This of course differs greatly with Barks and Rosa (and perhaps others), in which already been explained. In Rosa's case I'm quite supprised he hasn't have taken a similar route of the nature of the ducks, (instead of humans in "duck costumes") as he often tries to tie the often inconsistent Barks stories together and make sense of it all. This, I think, makes the "existence" of the ducks in their own universe less "real", in which instead a "scientific" explanation makes it more so. Then again it is all made up so in the end it's just a matter of opinion.
MrCleveland
Ducks: Birds or Mammals?
Message 4 -
2014-05-10 at 22:01:07
Birds...
They're featheries and NOT furries.
They're featheries and NOT furries.
Robb_K
Ducks: Birds or Mammals?
Message 5 -
2014-06-09 at 11:46:12
Quote from user: QuackbergMy own personal view on the nature of the ducks (and the other human-like animals) is that evolution has taken a different route in this "parallel universe" which has resulted in a much more varied population of intelligent animals. This of course differs greatly with Barks and Rosa (and perhaps others), in which already been explained. In Rosa's case I'm quite supprised he hasn't have taken a similar route of the nature of the ducks, (instead of humans in "duck costumes") as he often tries to tie the often inconsistent Barks stories together and make sense of it all. This, I think, makes the "existence" of the ducks in their own universe less "real", in which instead a "scientific" explanation makes it more so. Then again it is all made up so in the end it's just a matter of opinion.
This idea makes more sense than humans evolving to now have feathers and bills and webbed feet. Evolution doesn't work that way. it takes hundreds of millions of years to change from skin with hair to feathers, probably via scales as an intermediary step. Of course, it would probably take scores of millions of years to develop from current ducks to upright-walking large-brained sentient ducklike beings. And, it isn't likely at all, that so many species of sentient beings would arise evolving from so many different animal classes and families (never mind
phyla and species). They would have been highly competitive, and likely only one or two of the most adaptable would have survived.
So, really, NONE of this comic book drivel makes any sense at all, if taken seriously. So, "Donaldist science" is a futule effort.
This idea makes more sense than humans evolving to now have feathers and bills and webbed feet. Evolution doesn't work that way. it takes hundreds of millions of years to change from skin with hair to feathers, probably via scales as an intermediary step. Of course, it would probably take scores of millions of years to develop from current ducks to upright-walking large-brained sentient ducklike beings. And, it isn't likely at all, that so many species of sentient beings would arise evolving from so many different animal classes and families (never mind
phyla and species). They would have been highly competitive, and likely only one or two of the most adaptable would have survived.
So, really, NONE of this comic book drivel makes any sense at all, if taken seriously. So, "Donaldist science" is a futule effort.
Doriantm
Ducks: Birds or Mammals?
Message 6 -
2014-07-07 at 20:03:18
Definitely mammalian aspects, but I could still see it becoming awkward if Daisy ever invited Clara Cluck over for an omelet breakfast or chicken dinner.
Pages:
1