Keskustelujen arkisto

I wonder why Donald Duck and Scrooge tend to be more popular than Mickey Mouse in the comics? After reading the new Gottfredson collections and BOOM's Mickey Mouse paperback collections with Casty's stories, I've noticed that there are some very talented artists and writers who have worked with Mickey, and some fantastic stories that seem to have a broader scope than some of the newer Duck stories, many of which seem to slavishly imitate Carl Barks' work. Maybe I've just read so many Duck stories that they're starting to seem a bit stale, but I find lately that I'm more drawn to Mickey's adventures (although I am still a big fan of Barks and Uncle Scrooge, too, and am looking forward to the next Fantagraphics collection).

I think the relatability factor is probably the big thing. I would also note that Mickey--in theory, at least--lends himself a lot better to big saving-the-world-or-some-part-of-it adventures, since the ducks are more geared towards self-interest.

Quote from user: Lars JensenQuote from user: Artemi[Mickey Mouse is] too much of a good guy for my taste, without many facets
IMO: for the last 15-20 years Egmont has been producing stories where Mickey is much more relatable than he was the previous 20 years. No longer a know-it-all goody-goody, but a likeable, adventurous guy you'd want to hang out with.
I know. But still I find him syrupy. Besides I find those 2000-20?? Egmont Mickey stories too much of a kid's stuff, just like Egmont's recent output in general, bar the pocket books. And the attempt to draw Mickey "ala Gottfredson" by artists like Caesar, Rodriguez Peinado etc, IMO failed, because their style is to "plastic" or rubbery, cartoony, while Gottfredson's was dynamic, flexible and elegant.

P.S. Denmark still does produce excellent stories I think, but not ones related to this thread.

For me, it's kind of like this: in terms of characters, it's Barks' conception of Scrooge, Donald, and the nephews that I feel like I've known for most of my life ... and known better than I've ever known most actual people, at that. But it's Gottfredson's Mickey Mouse serials that I'm most likely to rave to anyone who will listen, "These are the best comics you've never read!" (But rest assured, I wouldn't go on for very long without telling them about Barks, too!)

Here's what I wrote recently on GeoX's Duck Comics Revue blog:
I feel the same way about Mickey that Rosa does: Mickey never became a living character to me in my childhood, and still has not done so. Certainly the main reason is that Barks was way better at character-creation-through-narrative than the authors of the Mickey stories I read in childhood. Another reason for me as a girl may be that Mickey has no family, so it feels like a more exclusively male world. That is, it's just one guy, with guy pals and male colleagues and a girlfriend, out doing stuff. While Barks did not do a great job with female characters (!), the fact that Scrooge and Donald have family connections, and that the three kids are central players in their adventures, made their characters/stories feel less stereotypically male. Donald is, after all, a single parent, and Scrooge is an uncle (dickish and exploitative though he often is), and though Rosa may sometimes have been a bit too sentimental in how he expressed it, he's right that Scrooge's family connections to Donald and the boys *do* redeem him and save him from ending his days as the Misanthrope of Bear Mountain. Anyway, I feel that (a) the role of HD&L as child protagonists and (b) the familial roles/relationships of Scrooge and Donald gave me as a girl-child an "in" which the Mickey stories did not provide.
Rosa says that if he had grown up reading Gottfredson, perhaps Mickey would have become a real character to him. And in light of GeoX's observation, if I had grown up reading Gottfredson, perhaps Minnie's role and Mickey's relationship to her would have given me that "in" that I needed as a girl reader. Maybe. Like any girl, I learned to empathize and identify with male protagonists in books, comics and movies. But it did help if the male character was embedded in family or family-esque relationships. (Daisy didn't help much at all. I identified with her rarely--e.g., in the "Daringly Different" Daisy's Diary story, which doesn't concern her relationship with Donald. I did not identify with Daisy-as-girlfriend at all.) As a child in the world, and as the child of parents, I could identify with HD&L, much as I did with Little Lulu. And as a person with familial connections, I could identify with Donald more than with Mickey.

You all have made some good points.
Don't get me wrong, though, I really enjoy a good Duck story for many of the reasons given here. Maybe that's why I found it hard to get into some stories, because Donald Duck isn't the Donald I know in many of them. And when people stick too close to Barks' work, it tends to give too much of a "didn't I read this already?" feel to the stories. To be fair, some Mickey stories are guilty of both of those, too (substituting Gottfredson or Murry for Barks, of course). As for the idea of Mickey being too much of a "goody-goody", to me, that's part of his appeal. (Although that wasn't always the case in the early Gottfredson stories.) In this day and age, it's nice to be able to read a story with a hero who has a strong sense of morality. I wouldn't change a thing about the Ducks, though. Donald and Scrooge wouldn't be themselves if you changed them too much. It does seem a shame, though, that we seldom got to see Mickey and Donald together, as their differing viewpoints would probably make an interesting addition to a plot.

Quote from user: DebbieAs for the idea of Mickey being too much of a "goody-goody", to me, that's part of his appeal. (Although that wasn't always the case in the early Gottfredson stories.) In this day and age, it's nice to be able to read a story with a hero who has a strong sense of morality.
Mickey absolutely should have a strong sense of morality. There's a difference between having strong morals and walking around lecturing everyone, though.

Quote from user: Charlie BrownI don't like these new stories, especially the ones with the Mickey being the clumsy guy.
I don't like Mickey being clumsy (or childish), but I do like him being fallible once in a while.

I grew up with the 1970s-late 1980s Western Publishing/Egmont Mickey; a world famous, popular, well-mannered and intelligent adult person who dressed like a golfer, was considered the world's greatest detective by everyone (including the police) and cleverly solved every crime he came across while smugly laughing at Goofy's stupid behavior. Yes, personally I actually found some of those Mickey stories fascinating (a handful of Murry-drawn mystery stories and http://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=D++2331 ), but that was due to the stories themselves. Not because of Mickey whom I detested. In fact, no one I knew while growing up liked Mickey as a person and none of them read the Mickey stories in the Danish weekly; instead they always skipped those pages. I remember once trying to talk about Mickey Mouse with a friend of mine, and he actually got angry at having to even think of that character.

When I came across Gottfredson's Mickey, it was a revelation. Here was a Mickey who had a personality, who sometimes leapt to conclusions that were later proven wrong, who sometimes made mistakes but then tried to rectify them, who sometimes was knocked down by life... but then got back up. I remember asking myself why Mickey in the weekly didn't act like that. When the Egmont Mickey in the late 1980s got a makeover that made him and his universe a bit more interesting, it actually got noticed and talked about by my fellow comics fans. (I think it was http://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=D+89267 that made those fans begin to come around.) And Egmont's big Mickey makeover in the mid-1990s was noticed by readers in general... who not only liked the stories, but actually began liking Mickey Mouse as a character!

I have never missed the 1970s version of Mickey. I never will.

Do you think that Paul Murry is overrated, then?