Quantcast
Channel: Duck Comics Revue
Viewing all 278 articles
Browse latest View live

"Donald Duck and the Rheinegold"

$
0
0
Here's an interesting thing (actually, it may turn out to be a really banal thing; you decide): I was reading this issue of the French digest Mickey Parade, which includes back-to-back printings of duck stories based on/inspired by the Iliad and Wagner's Ring Cycle. Both of these were written by Ol' Man Martina.  The one was first published in January of 1959, the other in May.  So pretty similar, you'd think.  And yet, I was reading the first--which was the one I was most keen on reading, onaccouna Luciano Bottaro's art--and in spite of its high inducks ranking, it wasn't doing anything whatsoever for me.  I just found it lame and tedious, and to top it all off, you have Gladstone in the Paris-ish role acting wildly out-of-character (out of character for Gladstone, I mean.  I say if you're going to do these literary adaptations, you need to find a way to integrate the characters into them while more or less maintaining their personalities.  Otherwise, there's just no point to it).

So after that, my hopes were none too high for "Rheinegold" here (which is drawn by Pier Lorenzo De Vita, whose work I criticized earlier, but like here).  But then something hilarious and awesome happened in the story.  And then something else.  And again and again.  And I tell you, if I had had a better-quality copy of the story, I would've started a translation project then and there.  At the very least, I knew I'd have to share on this here blog.  I'm not trying to say the story's a masterpiece; it has its problems, not the least of which being that it's pretty clumsily plotted.  But you don't too often encounter a story that so often makes you think, "huh--I had no idea I wanted to see that, but now that I have, I realize that before I did, my life was incomplete."  So there you are.

The putatively interesting thing is that I would have such disparate reactions to such similar stories.  But I feel like the explanation is that Martina just put more oomph into this one.  The Iliad story is kind of eccentric, I guess, but not in terribly interesting ways.  Whereas this one…well, you'll see.


Scrooge's delightful fish pose there, for instance.  Note that, as is usually the case with these adaptations, the actual correspondence between the source material and adaptation is veeeery loose.  So you'll get bits and pieces that match up with bits and pieces from the original, but you will drive yourself to gibbering madness if you try to make the two fit together anything like exactly--in this story, there are even places where characters themselves seem to fluctuate.

Above, we see Scrooge/Alberich diving to retrieve what would be the Rheinegold were this Wagner, but in this instance is just a coin that some Beagles tossed in the water to trap him.  Note that the hat, in a clever move, is the Tarnhelm, though again, in Wagner, it wouldn't play a role in this scene.

Anyway, the Beagles do steal the helmet and ring from him (though Martina doesn't seem to know what to do with the ring--it's mentioned, but it plays little role, and it rarely appears), after the manner of Wotan and Loge in Wagner, although they do not otherwise play the roles of gods.  And then we get THIS deathless scene:


One Beagle betrays the other, so he attempts to kill his former partner with a knife, only to be transformed into…José Carioca?  Waaaaah? How do you not love that?  It's also worth noting that this is the only time I can think of that I've seen Beagles turn on one another, not counting instances where our heroes trick them into thinking they're attacking one another or whatnot.  Say what you like about those guys: they display admirable solidarity.  I can't help liking this exception to the rule, however.  At this point, they are playing the roles of Fafnir and Fasolt, and the one with the hat accordingly turns himself into a dragon to guard the treasure.


…'an Daisy, Minnie, Clarabelle, and Clara as Valkyries.  Cowgirl Valkyries (because the story has an inexplicable, inchoate Western/Mexican theme).  I wish that this was a better scan, and in color, but alas, this is the only picture of all four of them like this; only Daisy, in the Brünnhilde role, plays any substantial role in the story.  It's still a great image, though.


Also, note that, in spite of theoretically taking place in some sort of typical vague, mythic past, when Donald/Siegfried is summoned (via smoke signals, because of course), he's living in his plain ol' house and arrives by car (though not, sadly, 313).


Unfortunately, the portrayal of Donald is a weak spot.  Stories like this really give you the impression that Martina flat-out does not like Donald, the way he portrays him as having basically no positive characteristics--like winning the above battle by sheer luck, as the dragon laughs itself to death when his sword gets stuck in a log.  I guess I shouldn't say that, because I get a similar vibe from some of Rosa's work, and I'm certain that Rosa doesn't hate Donald--but both of them get the tone very wrong too frequently.  It's one thing to play up Donald's bad temper/vanity/hubris--that's just par for the course.  But--although its hard to quantify these things--when Barks does this, it generally feels earned and realistic, whereas for a lot of other writers, it can just feel unfair, as it does here.

At any rate, in a rather clumsy effort at mashing different parts of the story together, it turns out that for some reason, the only way to get into the cave and get the treasure is for Donald/Siegfried to rescue Daisy/Brünnhilde.  So it's off we go.


Inexplicable Chip and Dale cameo!  It doesn't contribute in any way to the overall story, but hell, in a thing this goofy, you might as well just stack that shit on (I'm not sure if there's any way to tell from the above which is which).


…also, Burrito from The Three Caballeros. Who…can talk now?  Sure, okay.  Could've given him a cartoon Mexican accent; refrained.  Now, Martina usually restricts himself to regular comics characters, but he's not averse to sticking movie characters in his stories, either.  An example American readers may be familiar with is the Mad Hatter from Alice in Wonderland appearing in "The Blot's Double Mystery."  When Western did crossovers like this,  the crossover was generally the point--look at this unusual thing we're doing!  Whereas Martina is much more matter-of-fact about it.  Not that I'm familiar with the paths by which Disney stuff filtered over to Italy in the first place, but it's easy to see how an Italian artist could see it and not interpret it the same way--with the same unofficial boundaries--that an American likely would.


…well, it's sort of cool-looking with the flames and all, which is good, because otherwise, it's just the usual tired gender tropes.  Whee.


To cut a long story short: Gladstone shows up, and for highly dubious reasons it's necessary to have a duel to determine who gets the treasure, and Donald's going to win except that his foot, the only part of his body that's unprotected, gets injured (and I can't believe I didn't make the connection and realize that Siegfried is a Northern European take on Achilles before now.  It is because I am a babbling cretin, probably) (and no, alas, if you were wondering, he doesn't become invulnerable by bathing in Fafnir's blood--it's just a potion of Gyro's).  And so, Gladstone wins. Granted, he's not as offensive as he habitually is, but still…who's supposed to like a conclusion like this?  I ask you.

Anyway, this is why I like to read European comics: sometimes I find gems like this (yeah, in spite of everything, I'm still willing to use the word "gem") that would almost certainly never be printed in the US.  Fun for kids of all ages, I sez.

"Monsterville"

$
0
0
Some people seem to think that the issue of Gyro Gearloose (FC 1184) in which today's story appeared was actually written by Mr. Barks, but this seems unlikely.  Neither the dialogue nor the plots themselves feel at all Barksian--but they do feel very characteristic of the work of Mr. Lockman.

"Monsterville" bears superficial similarities to Barks' own "Dream Planet," but that story is much better put-together.  It's a somewhat ambivalent portrait of society.  Whereas "Monsterville"…well, it's weird.  It really feels like Probably-Lockman is trying to make some sort of social statement, but it's all very incoherent--difficult to make heads or tails of.


"Low-down come-uppance."  Just try to tell me that Lockman didn't write that.  I should be clear and note that these art-only Barks stories actually aren't bad, even if they're kind of silly.  The art helps a lot here.  Recently, there was a rather dopey debate on the Disney Comics Forum about whether art or writing is "more important" for a story--as though the two can be neatly separated.  I maintain that, while you can certainly talk about good or bad writing or art, the two are intertwined in such a way that we as readers simply are unable to judge what effect different art or writing would have on our appreciation for a story.  You might think, well, this story is what it is, and it would basically be the same even if it were drawn by Strobl or whomever, but I suspect that--with all due respect to Mr. Strobl--you would be unpleasantly surprised if you read his hypothetical rendering of this.


Well, anyway, for reasons that remain pretty murky, getting a ticket is the catalyst Gyro needs to present his swell plans for fixing the city.  Can you imagine living in a world where civic innovations were readily adopted just because they're obviously good ideas?  A thing like that.  There's obviously a utopian impulse here, but I don't think Probably-Lockman was aware of quite how deep it went.

Another thing I like about these Barks art-only things is the frequency with which he sticks in distinctive new duck characters, in a way that he rarely does in his own work.  Did Duckburg elect Jake McDuck as mayor?  All signs point to 'yes!'  Alas, however, his campaign was so expensive that it left him unable to afford a full-size hat.

But the main problem with this story is that Probably-Lockman doesn't seem to know quite what he's criticizing here.  The idea--spoilers!--is that the city gets all automated, which makes everyone bored.  There may be something to this…


…but what do higher air standards have to do with anything?  Aren't these good in and of themselves?  And yet they're presented as being just part and parcel with the rest of the big ol' changes.  It's hard to know what to make of this.


And then there's this kind of thing--are we meant to think that the Terrible Dark Side of all this new stuff is that now, what with people's houses not burning down, firemen will be deprived of a swell challenge?  I'm sure that when this new system is rescinded, people who lose everything in fires will comfort themselves knowing that, sure, it could've easily been prevented, but it was a reeeeeal rush it was for the firemen to try to get there on time.  Whee.


Obviously, I could do a similar riff on this scene.  More evidence that this wasn't written by Barks: if he had been doing the layout himself, he probably would've avoided  getting into a situation where there was no way to draw a scene other than by making the characters into midgets.


…but here we come to what I suppose is the meat of the story, and though it's not hugely profound or anything, it at least gets at real issues.  Personally, my idea of utopia is one in which there really is very little work; where people mostly do what they want to do to improve themselves and the world.  But, it must be conceded, given the current state of human evolution, you'd probably actually get a lot of stuff like this, albeit in a less exaggerated way.  Once again, Barks helps out here a lot; HDL'S looks of heavy-lidded ennui are winners.


Then again, even Barks isn't quite able to render Gyro's counter-revolutionary zeal in a way that doesn't look kind of silly.  It sure doesn't help that the best Probably-Lockman can come up with epithet-wise is the supremely silly-sounding "Monsterville."

Given that Lockman's idea of utopia, if he has such a thing, is almost certainly quite different from mine, I do quite sincerely wonder what that "yet" is doing there--does he actually think that, at some point, we may reach this level?


More waters-muddying--what does the availability of public transport have to do with anything?  Are cars supposed to be more…exciting?  Is this another thing like with the firemen and cops, where the fun challenge of not getting into collisions enlivens everyone's days?  Not buying it.  I lived for a year in a city--Montreal--with a great public transport system, and I can report that it did not appear to have stripped away anyone's will to live.


Okay, so this story isn't easy to parse, but I'll grant that the ending, where Gyro at least takes a personal stand against the status quo isn't bad.  I've read a lot worse.  And given past (okay, future) evidence, maybe it's for the best that Lockman's social commentary remains abstruse.

"The Cube"

$
0
0
Well, inducks is willing to concede that this one is probably by Lockman, though they qualify that with a "(?)." Why they're not willing to do that with the rest of the issue, I don't know.

It's a trivial story, but I like it a lot. One of my favorite Lockman efforts, for sure. Its dismal (sub-twenty-thousand) inducks rating isn't fair, but that's what happens: stories with big names attached to them that aren't liked so much get disproportionate negative ratings, rocketing them down below plenty of awful stories that benefit from nobody remembering them. But this isn't an awful story at all. Really.


The opening here always really cracks me up: Gyro's new sport seems to be a combination of Calvinball and blernsball, the sport in Futurama that's like baseball only completely inscrutable. Give Lockman credit here. The fact that these people have all packed a stadium to see a completely new sport apparently completely on spec could be seen as a flaw, but to me, it just adds to the humor.

(And it must be said, "You can't stick-it-up on your finger!" is never not going to sound really dirty.)


Possibly the above is why inducks is willing to attribute it to Lockman--it's the most Lockman-y thing around. I have to admit--and it's a bit surprising, in light of how abysmal his work would become--that Lockman in his prime could turn a decent phrase ("un-cubelike vegetables"). 


And further credit should be attributed to Gus's tale of woe here, even if it seems to run counter to our usual perceptions of Gus's blissfully lazy existence.  This whole bit on the farm is really just making time, but it's much more engaging than it could've been.


Sheesh, man--they're just rubber cubes with holes in them. Not really much of an "invention." My understanding was that the real invention was the game itself (still an unusual thing for Gyro to be concerning himself with, but at least a little more substantial), but for some reason Gyro's just hellbent on finding something to do with this low-tech sports equipment. Maybe he's just determined to get rid of them because he wants to recoup on the substantial investment he made in them on the assumption that Cube would be a smashing success. We must question is judgment on assuming this, but hey, he's Gyro. Not that he's ordinarily concerned with anything so practical as financial matters…


Well, and so it ends, kind of lamely. What, all the problems with the nonsensical rules are solved because players are wearing plungers on their heads? Color me skeptical. Look at that rodent dude in the top panel there, though. It's hard to imagine that Lockman specifically stipulated that this is what the character should be, so I can picture Barks just deciding to do something unusual to amuse himself. So there you have it. Again: a completely trivial story, but I think we're all a little richer for having read it. Well done, Messieurs Lockman and Barks.

Not dead.

$
0
0
Just taking intensive month-long course.  BRB.

"Mighty but Miserable"

$
0
0
I tell you, it's a grim day, because it's the day that I try to write something about "Mighty but Miserable." Easier said than done.  And let's face it: you're busy folks.  You don't have time to dick around.  You've got places to go and people to be.  You don't WANT to hear me reiterate bullshit I've already said.  Sure, I could say "hey, Lockman has some decent dialogue in this story!" but you have HEARD IT ALL BEFORE.  This is not, I think, a story that warrants hugely in-depth discussion--or at least, given all I've previously written, such discussion would be redundant.  So let's have a stripped-down entry where we strive to make only points we haven't made before.


For instance: did Lockman invent the concept of the Beagles as an ill-defined corporation rather than just a plain ol' family?  It is possible.  The thing is, I'm not sure at what point the Italians started doing this, so I don't know whether they could have been influenced by Lockman, or whether it's just a case of convergent evolution.  But anyway, the genesis of a not-so-great idea: it either happened here, or it didn't.  That's the kind of incisive commentary you've come to expect from this blog.


Less said about this plot, the better.  I'd swear I've seen this exact story used in some story or other by the McGreals or someone like that.  At least we can marvel at Gyro's incongruous facial contortions throughout.


The idea is that, to protect himself from vengeful Beagles, he invents a thing to make him stronger, only now he maims everyone he touches.  Seems like a shaky idea, but hey--as far as I know, nobody in the real world is ever actually in a situation where they literally go from weak to massively strong instantaneously.  So we may never know the truth.


But the most notable thing in the story is this, which, intentionally or not, has the trappings of Greek tragedy about it: Gyro was gifted with this super-inventing power, but thanks to said power, he is compelled to make an invention that causes him to inadvertently kill the only thing he's ever loved.  Whee.  'Course, the pathos is instantly undercut, to the extent where you could easily just skip over it without pondering such things.  Still, there it is.


And so it ends.  While it's true that you can point to specific Barksian precedent for the idea that Gyro is physically weak, d'ja think maybe Lockman is pushing it a bit here?  As I believe was noted in comments recently, not one for subtle gradations of character, is he.  The business with Donald, Scrooge, and Daisy also seems a bit off, somehow.  But anyway, there it: "Mighty But Miserable."  A painfully generic title for a largely uninteresting story.

"Brain-Strain"

$
0
0
If there's one main takeaway from these stories, it's that Lockman's conception of what exactly Gyro should be doing as an "inventor" is distinctly different from Barks'.  For better or worse?  Well, I suppose that's a matter of opinion, but I will speak more of it shortly.


"Brain-Strain"--again with the painfully generic titles.  You see an opening splash panel like this in a Barks story, you expect the narration box to read "how did Donald and Gyro find themselves in this predicament?  To answer that question, we must turn to the previous day, in Duckburg."  Just shoving us into the action like this with no explanation is kind of awkward.  And are we really meant to believe that Donald is this dumb?  Sure, he does dumb things often enough, but generally this is either the result of hubris or of coming up with ideas that seem like they could work.  Just straight-up building a boat with thumbtacks?  I have my doubts.  No, it's not a major part of the story or anything, but I feel like you should try to get the small details right anyway.  Certainly, there's no compelling reason why the boat's disintegration had to be predicated on something so dopey.


If we remember back to that one Barks short where Gyro has a new pool but is self-conscious to use it because he doesn't want them to know he can't swim…well, he can't swim at all, strongly or otherwise.  I guess we can say that this takes place after that, however.  Sure, why not?  Actually, this whole "OMG how do I get to the island?" bit is neither here nor there; it's just Lockman making time with something that doesn't have any connection to the central plot, such as it is.


Yes!  Sulphur, charcoal, and saltpeter make gunpowder!  I learned this fact in elementary school.  We had this cool little quasi-educational role-playing game going on where we controlled different tribes of people in different parts of the world, and one of the rules was that our people could invent a thing if we could describe how it's made.  Our tribe was obsessed with inventing gunpowder, for some reason--which we did, though as I recall it never served any very good use.

So this is a science-class type of invention--something that someone, in real life, could actually copy.  That is not remotely the sort of thing that Barks would have Gyro invent; for him, the inventions were more or less the same as magic.  And if we look at the other stories in this issue, we can see that, while they aren't like this, they're also distinctly non-Barksian.  "Mighty but Miserable" probably comes closest, but all of them approach the concept of "inventing" from different angles.

What do I think?  Well, to me, the problem with Lockman's work is not that he has a different way of characterizing Gyro than Barks does, but rather that he doesn't have a coherent way of characterizing him.  I find that the character becomes kind of fuzzy and indistinct when he's going around doing all these miscellaneous things: coming up with sports and being a city planner and, here, playing Bill Nye, Science Guy.  These stories aren't exactly bad, but I think I'd find them more compelling if Lockman had a distinct vision.  Like it or not, his stories are more action- than character-based.  Barks was great in part because he did both action and character extremely well.  Lockman, not so much.


I'll end on a positive note, however, and say that, if we have to accept that Donald is this inept, him going from using thumbtacks to railroad spikes is kind of funny.  And that's about the level of praise I would use for this issue: not great, but semi-frequently kind of funny.  Hey, that's not so bad.  It could be, and often was, a whole lot worse.

Bonus! Gyro One-Pagers!

$
0
0
The completist in me cannot bear to end the coverage of this issue without looking at the one-page gags included therein.  This includes a few rather obscure Barks-drawn pages, so c'mon--let's do this thing!


Here's the cover.  Obviously.  Not, I would say, one of Gyro's more inspired inventions; in order to actually keep flies away, it would have to be whirling around at really disruptive, helicopter-like speeds.  Otherwise, they're just not gonna care.  And why are Gyro and Helper stranded on a tiny island like that?  Well, maybe it's some sort of lake and they just waded out there, but it looks pretty cramped.  Finally, it will be noted that Helper is literally red-hot here, or else has a really tacky paint-job (not Barks' fault, obviously).


Not gonna lie: pretty insipid.  Not that very many of these one-pagers were ever great works of art or anything, but still…bah.  It does, however, remind me of that one Barks ten-pager where an evil scientist is sabotaging rocket launches with fake bugs made of explosives and then Donald saves the day.  That was a good story.  Maybe that dude's back, and this time he's out for Gyro.  Probably jealous of his genius, dontchaknow.


For my money, this simple Strobl-drawn thing is probably the best gag in the issue.  The mama eagle's surprise there is amusing to me.  What else can I say?  It's a good thing we see the actual eaglet escaping there--otherwise it would be kind of gruesome.  And sure, maybe it was just about to hatch when Gyro landed, so that's why it's fully formed.  And maybe it can already fly because…and it's not soaked in amniotic fluid because…okay, that's enough of that.  No need to be an asshole here.


"Oh no!  I've created the first ever sentient machine--but alas, it doesn't also have a built-in calculator!  I'm a horrible failure!"


Hey!  What's this madness?  You couldn't get it together enough to make sure that all the gags in the Gyro comic book were Gyro gags?  Not impressed, people.  A pretty standard-issue gag; at least Strobl's art is decent enough.


This reminds me very strongly of the one where Scrooge is constantly one-upping Donald about how awesome his new lawnmower is, and then it turns out--spoiler alert!--it's a sheep.  This one's significantly lamer, though.  And really, your car is so awesome and thought-out and futuristic, and yet a cup holder was just too much of a wild, fanciful notion for you?


I like this one too, because it shows a funny way that a standard Gearloose invention really would backfire, and in a way that wouldn't necessarily occur to us.  When you think about it, a lot of seemingly innocuous Gyro inventions would be terrifying in real life, and this underscore that fact.  Cheers to everyone involved.

Anyway, that's that nonsense taken care of.  In the near-future we may look at some other Gyro stories that people have been bandying about in comments.

"The Isle of Can't-Be-Can"

$
0
0
Bah.  I would be posting more, but for things.  And stuff.  I WOULD be saying something about the new Gottfredson book, but I fucking DON'T HAVE IT yet.  And when I asked the Fantagraphics people what the deal was, they told me it had been BACK-ORDERED--even though I preordered the thing in April.  I know this is the kind of thing for which the phrase "first-world problems" was invented, but still...shit the what, people?

So anyway, that's forthcoming, if they ever get their act together.  In the meantime, by popular demand (for a somewhat idiosyncratic definition of "popular), let's say a few words about "The Isle of Can't-Be-Can" (which goes by the uninspired "Donald and the Uninhabitable Island" in the Italian), as drawn by Cavazzano and written by some dude named Giorgio Figus, whose work has not otherwise appeared in the US.


Now, as you can see, the basic premise is that Donald and Gyro have to go to this island the inhabitants of which were driven off by something mysterious.  The story itself has decided ups and downs, which we will get to...NOW.

Up One: Dave Gerstein's script; I'm not going to do a lot of babbling about it, but suffice it to say that it's of the usual quality--and even more than usual, it's chock-a-block with pop culture references (oh man, don't you just LOVE it when things are chock-a-block with other things?).  I like these a lot, but let's face it: it would not be hugely fascinating for me to spend a lot of time enumerating them here.


Up Two: The way the initial mystery is established, with a genuine sense of foreboding.


Since we were talking about Gyro of late, it would also be meet to note the way it contrasts the two characters--logical versus superstitious.  Let's not get carried away, though--the story doesn't really push this theme all that hard.


"All that junk"--oh, Gerstein.  Also, you have to like that silhouetted image.  You really do get a strong sense of atmosphere from all this.


Up Three: then, nightmare monsters visit Donald, and, while they ARE jokey, the extent to which they're actually genuinely alarming is impressive.  I don't always like Cavazzano's artwork, but he deserves credit here.


…and for this shadow monster especially.  That's the kind of shit that could give little kids nightmares.  Also appreciated: the flashback to Young Donald.


So on the one hand, the fact that we only see Donald's childhood nightmares in action is meant to contrast the two characters.  On the other hand, given that, as we can see, Gyro does have nightmares, the fact that we never get to meet them makes the story feel sort of unbalanced.  On the third hand, the story would probably drag a bit if it were just set piece after set piece of nightmares.  I don't know--I don't think I have an answer here.  But something feels a bit off.  Full credit for that crazy machine-nightmare, though.


Down One: this explanation.  I suppose, given that this is a Disney comic, it had to be some pat thing like this; you certainly couldn't expect the mystery to be just left mysterious, and it's unlikely that it would be anything genuinely sinister.  But when you just lazily wave the story away like this by going "oh, it was SPACE MAGIC all along," it can't really be all that edifying.  Also, it has to be noted that Donald and Gyro don't actually do anything to solve the mystery; they just run into the guy, tell him this is a bad idea, he leaves, and that's that.


Down Two: this ending.  See, I feel like it's fair for Scrooge to get pissed off at Donald over things that aren't exactly his fault.  Like, he may have encouraged Scrooge to dig up a pyramid or go in search of an undiscovered island or buy a bunch of miniature land deeds (THESE ARE BARKS REFERENCES), but that doesn't mean it's his fault when they don't pan out--in spite of which I think it's fair and true-to-character for Scrooge to be pissed off at him.  But here…fuckin' eh, man.  Donald and Gyro do exactly what they were asked to do, to the letter, and then Scrooge is enraged because they didn't do this really non-intuitive thing that he talks about like it was completely obvious?  That just makes him seem kind of psychotic.  It really feels here like ol' Figus was determined to run this stock ending--Scrooge chases hapless nephew off--and could only come up with this really, really forced way to make that work.  There's unfair and then there's unfair, and for me, this falls on the wrong side of that equation.

What to the evs, though (as the kids may possibly be saying).  There's still enough good stuff here for the story to be at least worth checking out.  I haven't really given much attention to stories from Gemstone's digests on this blog, but given that, as you can see, I was able to solve the scanning difficulties, more or less, perhaps I should do more.  SUGGESTIONS WELCOME.

"Donald Duck and the Count of Monte Cristo"

$
0
0
There was a little talk about this storyhere, so I thought I'd give it a look.  I had read it before and objected pretty strongly to it; on rereading, I still object pretty strongly to it, while also recognizing to a greater degree its merits.


Now, this Disney Literature Classics English script clearly represents the nadir of translations, and possibly of the Western literary tradition in general, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time harping on this.  The story would be a LOT better with improved writing, but that's about all I have to say about it at this time.  However, I can't resist pointing out that second panel up there, because it really cracks me up.  Way to lay out Donald's motivations for us, Ms. or Mr. Translator Person!


But let's get down to tass bracks: the major stumbling block to enjoying this story is the way that Scrooge and Gladstone are portrayed.  As you can see, Gladstone is a pure, wholly unscrupulous criminal--a reductive interpretation of his character if ever there was one.


…and Scrooge is no better.  The idea here is that he wants to build this railroad, Gladstone having coerced his way into a partnership in the enterprise; the only problem is that the thing goes through Donald's house.  What to do?  Well, Scrooge trying to trick Donald into selling his property has Barksian precedent, but here we're going a few dozen steps further: they decide to plant this stolen money in Donald's house, framing him as part of a criminal gang and getting him thrown in jail (apparently when you go to jail, random people are totally free to just take all your stuff.  DON'T QUESTION IT).  Neither Scrooge nor Gladstone ever display a single qualm about this.

Now seriously, what the fuck?  Let's be clear: in spite of taking occasional jabs at him, I don't really hate Guido Martina, our writer here.  I've read quite a few Martina stories I've enjoyed.  Three of the four stories I've localized are Martina joints (as are my currently-stalled fifth effort and the purely notional sixth one--some day, people!).  I'm not his implacable foe.  He sometimes did extremely interesting and enjoyable stuff.  Nonetheless, when he portrays Scrooge in particular (Gladstone's portrayal is silly, but I don't feel that strongly about it) as this vicious sociopath, which he does with some frequency, things get bad.  In this particular instance, one could say in his partial defense that the only reason Scrooge and Gladstone are like this is because he needed a way to parallel the Dumas novel, but that's not much of an excuse, to me: part of the challenge of doing these literary adaptations is finding a way to make the familiar characters fit naturally into the new contexts.  If you're just going to deform said characters willy nilly, I don't know why you'd even bother.

Now, there are those who don't have the same problems I do with Martina's Scrooge.  Allow me to quote Kurt Appel in the afore-linked thread:

Guido Martina […] is a kind of second father of the Ducks who also had his own ideas about their characters. Martina's Scrooge is, at least in the 50s - as the first Bark´s Scrooge - very cruel, a person who wouldn't even hesitate to murder; Gladstone is - as the first Bark´s Gladstone - a crook. I think that for some fans it´s hard to imagine that the Disney cosmos is much larger than the Barks' cosmos but only reading Barks (and Rosa) would mean to renounce of some of the most poetic and fascinating Disney stories ever written.

Obviously, it's true that there are great stories not by Barks (or Rosa!).  That should go without saying.  But as for the rest of this--I could not disagree more.  It seems to be implying that Martina's portraying the characters in wildly non-Barksian ways is evidence of an artistic vision consciously different from Barks'.  But I don't believe this for a minute; I think that Martina was trying to mimic Barks and failing.  Plenty of writers have fallen victim to this: emphasizing Scrooge's less admirable qualities while losing track of the nuance that made him a great character in the first place.  Martina just does this more…spectacularly...than most.  Even if I'm wrong, though--even if Martina was intentionally striking out in a new direction--I don't care.  It was a bad direction.  I think this is to a large extent why his work is largely unknown in the US.  He wrote was more prolific than Romano Scarpa, but Scarpa's stories, for all their faults, are on the whole much more humanistic, and thus more appealing.  

ANYWAY…


If you can get past that, there's certainly some enjoyable stuff in this story.  I'll skip past the part leading up to Donald finding the treasure: he escapes from prison, gets captured by Pete & Co, winds up marooned on this island, and bam, treasure.  As in the novel, there is a fellow prisoner who tells him about it, but in this version that's pointless, as he just finds it via random luck.


The best part of the story comes when he returns to the mainland seeking revenge.  First, I really like the way he deals with the guy using HDL as virtually-slave labor.  Way to exercise that paternal instinct!


…and I know I wasn't going to say much about this script, but seriously, does that announcement there not read like something from an indifferently-translated SNES game?  YES.  IT DOES.

The idea is that for some reason there's no one there to ride their railway, and when they go to investigate why, it turns out the destination is no longer available, because…


…Donald has purchased it and founded an independent country for disadvantaged children.  This shit is completely bonkers, but I can't help finding it totally charming.


FUCK YES!  That's the kind of class warfare I can get behind wholeheartedly.


So Scrooge and Gladstone have to  completely disassemble the railroad by hand and rebuild Donald's house.  And I kind of have a dilemma here, because on the one hand, I really, really like their comeuppance; on the other, I really, really think that they shouldn't have gotten into a situation in the first place where such payback was warranted.  I feel like there has to have been a way to tell a story very much like this, only with a slightly less amoral Scrooge.  No way Martina was ever gonna bother looking for any such thing, though!

Check out how Gladstone's able to just bend the hell out of those iron rails like it weren't no thang.  Now that's scary (unless they're made of plastic, or possibly rubber, as some sort of cost-saving measure--you don't encounter iron that's bright blue too often).


DAMN YOU!

It actually is a very solid ending, and it's a case where it could really kick ass with better writing.  Ah, well.  Enough Martina-bashing for me.  If you're a publisher and you wanna know some good stories of his you could bring to the States, drop me a line.

"Ten-Cent Valentine"

$
0
0

Here we have the second-ever story featuring good ol' Magica.  The main thing I always wondered here was this: is the perfume on the valentine meant to literally be magic, or is it just a natural aphrodisiac of some sort?  Upon further consideration, though, I'm pretty sure it's the latter.  Note that Magica's not using it here to trick Scrooge or get him under her power in any way.  I think it's just meant to emphasize the "sexy" in "sexy sorceress."

In response to that, you might say, "oh yeah?  Well it sure seems to work like magic on Donald.


True, and that's the main reason I'm not one hundred percent sure of Barks' intent.  I don't know if he was either.  But I think that this is just meant to be indicative Donald's tendency to go gaga over pretty girls, as in stories around this time like "Queen of the Wild Dog Pack" and "Mythtic Mystery."  That just seems to make more sense than the alternative--ie, that the aroma arbitrarily does and does not work as a mind control thing as needed.


The ending seems to confirm this?  Maybe?  Donald's all verklempt, but no one seems worried that it's sorcery or anything like that.  Also, Scrooge seems to be having a similar reaction to the recover of his dime.  I would guess that it's really just a natural thing.

Anyway, if we've established this much, I can go on to say that I just think it's really funny for Scrooge to be smitten like that.  True to character?  Hmm…let's not get carried away.  This was, after all, published at what was probably the nadir of Barks' career.  You betcha if Don Rosa had written this, the scent woulda reminded him of Goldie, for better or worse.  Finally, I'd like to note that Magica's doggerel there actually isn't bad.  The stresses are slightly off on that fourth line, but that's really the only problem, and I highly approve of the word "snaffle."


I also like Magica turned into a jogger, and especially her bizarre dialogue as she shoves Donald out of the way--another sign that this is sixties-era Barks!  You will note that she had previously been disguised as Miss Quackfaster.  Along with Magica herself, this was only the character's second appearance (or not, as it's not actually her) (both had debuted in "The Midas Touch"); since she hadn't really been established yet, there was no need to establish what happened to the actual Miss Quackfaster.  Barks probably wasn't even envisioning that there was a "real" one, even though he used the same character design as he had in the earlier story.  But from today's perspective, it's hard not to wonder with what sinister device Magica got rid of her.


The other question is: how come Donald apparently doesn't recognize Magica here?  True, he only saw her in one previous adventure, but she's nothing if not distinctive-looking, and given that Scrooge was quite forcefully bemoaning her earlier on, you'd think she's be on his mind.  Once again, it's probably that Barks hadn't quite got the template settled; hadn't realized that she couldn't simultaneously be Scrooge's arch-nemesis and constantly be seducing him and his family members.

Do I have anything hugely profound to say about this story?  Clearly not.  Writing this was basically just a chance for me to pose miscellaneous nitpicky questions which occurred to be as a I reread it recently.  It's not any kind of spectacular story, really; it's basically the exact same thing that later writers would reenact thousands of time over, and not, on the whole, to substantially worse effect than we see here.  Still, this one came first, giving it pride of place if nothing else.

"Trail Blazer"

$
0
0
So whaddaya say?  Wanna take a look at the first non-Barks appearance of Scrooge McDuck?  Of course you do.  The only problem is that, as with so many seemingly straightforward questions, "What was Scrooge's first non-Barks appearance?" does not have a single wholly reliable answer.

If you look on inducks, you will see that "Trail Blazer," a Wheaties giveaway, is listed first.  However, there's also another comic in the same series that also includes Scrooge.  "Trail Blazer" has an earlier number, true, but, although I can't determine this for sure, I kind of think they were all released at the same time, and thus the numbers don't really tell us anything.  Furthermore, Inducks does not tell us exactly when in 1950 these were released; it's probable that it was before November, when the first regular-size story with Scrooge came out (which some of you may remember from its reprint in Gladstone's short-lived digest series), but fairness compels me to admit that I cannot say for sure.

Man, I sure hope the insignificant minutiae of Western publishing chronology is as fascinating to you as it is to me--otherwise, you're probably not reading this because you fell asleep sometime in the midst of that last paragraph.  So let's just get to the point: we like certainty, dammit.  We want to be able to point to one story and say, YES!  This is the first!  So I hereby declare by the powers vested in me as some dude with a blog that that story is "TRAIL BLAZER!"  Ah…now doesn't that feel better?


The story starts with Donald bragging about how he's just as awesome as Kit Carson, and given the chance, he'd SHOW them!  He'd show them all!  Golly, do you think it's possible that this most important matter might just happen by some crazy coincidence to coincide with Donald's boasting?  Naw--that's just too crazy.


We're still in the stage where writers didn't quite have a grasp on the character; thus they just characterize Scrooge as "comically ostentatious."  To be fair, Barks himself hadn't quite decided exactly what he was all about at this point; to be more fair, however, he sure had a better grasp than the anonymous cog who wrote this story.


Yup.  There's just something about this whole HO HO HO HIS STUFF IS SO LUXURIOUS business that makes one roll one's eyes a bit.  I like how the car blatantly violates the laws of physics there.  It looks like it's about to be sucked into a wormhole or something.



BEHOLD!  THE FIRST TIME SOME INDIFFERENTLY-TALENTED PEON DREW SCROOGE!  Far from the last, though.  If he's supposed to be living in such luxury, you'd think his office would be a little less barren.  What's behind that blue curtain?  And what the heck is that…thing on the right?  It's very mysterious.  

Penny-pinching in spite of seemingly being a total spendthrift: a contradiction that persisted even unto Ducktales.


…thing is, though, this is actually kind of a clever idea.  The only problem is that it relies on the whole HE'S RICH THEREFORE ALL HIS STUFF IS HUGE idea that would fall by the wayside later on.  You can imagine the established Scrooge going, "yeah, I was able to buy all this land SUPER CHEAP and I'll bet there's TREASURE there heh heh"--but that would be rather a different, and less interesting, situation.  And anyway, here he has it just 'cause.

So they wander around in his yard for a while.  And then…


…yup.  Sigh.  Now, this surely is not the only reason this story hasn't been reprinted (let's face it, it's just a mediocre piece of nothing like thousands of other), but it certainly can't have helped.


They're pretty much exactly the standard cartoon Indians that we've come to know and barely tolerate.  Not much more to say.  I do like Donald's deranged pelican dance.


…it's no "Mophead Mollie is off her trolley," I'll tell you that much.  Just another demonstration of the fact that Barks was always a cut above.


Oh man.  Horses were introduced to the New World by Europeans, and yet somehow this undiscovered tribe has them just like that?  It's almost like the author wasn't concerned here with historical accuracy.  Shocking!


…and an ending that recalls the climax of Blazing Saddles.  Whee.

…well, gimme a break.  What did you expect?  Was there really any reason to imagine that, just because it represents a very minor milestone, this story would actually be any good, or really worthy of any serious consideration?  Survey sez: no.  Still, if you want, you can download it and read the whole thing.  I'll bet his first Italian appearance would be much more interesting, but alas, it's only been published in Italy and, um, Turkey.  Where in god's name do you go for vintage Turkish Disney comics, anyway?

"Donald Duck and the Seven Dwarfs"

$
0
0

For some reason, inducks lists the title of this story as the vaguely avant-garde sounding "Donald Duck, The Seven Dwarfs," but as you can plainly see, there is definitely an "and" in there.


Ha!  An idea of Walt's!  Gettin' all meta on us as far back as 1944.  Of course, the idea that Disney characters were "actors" wasn't an unusual one, but to go the extra step and assert that the man himself is part of the world--that's something else.  Maybe.  Do star actors also have to act as talent agents?  YES.  And they need pink suitcases.


Man, Walt Kelly was certainly a skilled artist, and I like Pogo, but man, I dunno about this here.  What the hell is the deal with Donald's cheerful  grin after being bashed in the face with a shutter?  How does that not seem incongruous, especially given Donald's character, which especially this early on in his evolution was set pretty firmly to "cranky?"


Actually, Donald is really surprisingly chill in this little piece, in spite of all the mild slapstick he's on the receiving end of.  The only time we see him at all annoyed is in the above, when he's pissed off about the trees.  Whoever wrote this story was…unconcerned with the characterization of its headliner.


THE FAMOUS ACTOR!


A really abrupt ending.  You read through the first three pages and realize, hey!  These are the only three pages!  What is this?  That was nothing!  I demand that this be a thing!  But alas, your cries echo in the silence.

Anyway, the punchline is that this whole little story was just a promotional thing for the 1944 rerelease of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. It saw another rerelease in 1987 (yes, on July 17), explaining why Gladstone chose to reprint it.  But this "Snow White is coming back soon" business raises Troubling Questions: are we really meant to believe that, within this narrative, the whole story of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was just a narrative, in which, presumably, Snow White herself was just another actor?  I find that idea dispiriting.  But wait!  The dwarfs had previously believed that Donald was the evil queen and accordingly attempted to murder him.  So she is real in this story?  How does that fit in?  Especially given that she dies in the movie?  Okay, I've got it: she was an actor in the movie, and her death there was only a movie death, but later on she turned to evil in real life. That must be it!  Though I suppose some would argue that the real answer is that no one was meant to think too hard about a bit of ephemera like this.  TOO LATE!

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is a marvelous film, but I can't say that this insubstantial story, with its weird, half-assed characterizations, really would fill me with the urge to see it if I hadn't.  Well, I suppose that's irrelevant; since most people reading it no doubt had, all it really needed to do was remind people, hey!  Remember that movie you like?  It exists!  And it's coming back!  In a pre-home-video era, that would definitely have been good to know.  In any case, It's very cool that Gladstone decided to reprint it, regardless of its merits qua story.

This hasn't been published widely overseas, as indeed why would it, but out of curiosity, I decided to look at its non-American publications and see if they corresponded to film rereleases.  There's an extremely helpful IMDB page that lists 'em all (well, I assume it's 'em all).  The one French release: no.  The various Italian releases ('cause those Italians'll reprint any damn thing seven hundred thirty times): mostly no.  Possibly entirely no.  There are a few that corresponded year-wise, but the dates don't ever seem to match: the film was rereleased in Italy on January 1, 1950, and the comic was published on June 27, 1954 and again on February 25, 1950.  Doesn't seem to quite work, does it?

I must say, I'm curious as to how that last panel was handled if the story wasn't meant to promote anything.  Did they just literally translate the American dialogue, even though it no longer made any sense?  If you happen to know, fill me in.

"Knight in Shining Armor"

$
0
0
When I was small, I always enjoyed this 1957 ten-pager because Donald gets to be the hero.  From my current vantage point, I have two main reactions to it: first, that it's marred by being didactic in a way that is otherwise unheard of for Barks outside of a handful of his Junior Woodchucks scripts; and second, that it nonetheless sort of makes up for this by being considerably more subtle than I could ever have apprehended as a seven-year-old.  Indeed, even reading it today, my initial impression was that the story was just really confused.  And it may indeed be confused to some extent, but to suggest that that's all it is would be to sell it short.


So there's this party thing.  As we will see, there are unwritten, implicit rules for what the acceptable parameters are for these suppressed desires, which is where most of the confusion comes from.  It starts here: even if we posit that this is one of those Barks stories in which the kids believe Santa Claus exists (or, indeed, in which he does exist), the fact remains that being an elf is not really a tenable desire.  Is this a problem?  Well…


Forget it!  Knights don't exist anymore!  HDL treat it as self-evident that this idea won't go over, but why?  Who says the repressed desires have to be "realistic?"  Wouldn't that be severely limiting?

Nice variation there on the thing where cartoon characters go flying backwards after hearing a punchline (why do I feel like there's a term for that that I'm not quite able to bring to mind?).


There's a fair bit of slapsticky stuff as he tries to get to the party in his armor (really, what costume designer thought it was a good idea to put sharp spikes all over it?).  Often, stuff like this is just here to make time, but in this case it's actually highly thematically relevant, emphasizing the idea that knights are fish-out-of-water in the here and now (which actually seems like a reasonable judgment at this point, given all the stab wounds he apparently inflicted on the passengers on that bus).  Good thing HDL just happened to have a miniature derrick handy.  We also might wonder why--given that his sword, as we'll see, is made of rubber--he is nonetheless wearing actual metal armor.  Seems a tad impractical!


BOY are the guests at this party ever douchebags.  You would not believe.  Here's where the obvious question really comes up: okay, so Donald's armor is considered laughably archaic, but how, in 1957, is it any less relevant than a cowboy, let alone a guy in some kind of indeterminate Napoleonic Wars getup?  Okay, we get it: everyone thinks Donald's ideals as represented by his costume are outmoded, but surely Barks cannot have been unaware of the irony of Daisy crystalizing this attitude while dressed as a medieval princess.

Well…this distinction comes down to the difference between what people are dressed as and what dressing that way really means.


We get an important clue here: that guy isn't a cowboy, he's just a "western movie star" (actually, that doesn't look like the same guy as earlier, but I think it's safe to say that they're at least of a kind).  The key concept--which nobody ever actually articulates--is that the rest of the people have a very superficial, dilettante-y relationship to their costumes.  For them, everything's only skin-deep; they obviously haven't really thought about the meaning behind how they're dressing.  It's all simulacra in the Baudrillardian sense (YES!  Triple-word-score pretentiousness!).  Donald is the only one earnest or foolish enough to really take the party's theme seriously (indeed, it's possible that he was the only one who had a serious repressed desire, and therefore was able to do so).

This is all very interesting; the only real flaw I see is that Donald doesn't really do anything to differentiate himself here.  How do all the other partygoers know that it's not just a lark for him as it is for them?  What's the difference?


Then there's this guy.  On the most superficial level, it seems kind of brave to just stone cold start trying to tame lions like it waren't no thang, but really it's just delusional: he doesn't at all comprehend the reality of this endeavor; he's just putting the entire party in mortal danger with an insanely ill-advised stunt because he thinks it will look picturesque and imagines it'll be easy breezy beautiful (it's actually very like something Donald would try his hand at in many another story).  Naturally, he folds like a deck of cards when the inevitable happens.


So…Donald has to save the day.  I really think that this story would benefit if there had been some previous indication of Donald's loftier ideals.  Up to now, all he's done is suffer abuse, which may arouse our pity but isn't exactly "heroic."  This seems to sort of come from nowhere.

Still, he steps up--and good lord is that narration ever heavy-handed.  It's atypical of Barks to insist on hammering the message home like that, not employing a lighter touch and trusting the audience to get the picture.


I don't know…I mean, I generally like it when Donald is triumphant, and I guess I kind of like this, but it just feels as though the deck (maybe the same deck that the lion tamer folded like!) was stacked so heavily that I can't help detecting a certain unearned smugness from Donald's line there.  And if there were any doubt as to The Message, those bottom panels should take care of that in a hurry.  Barks generally liked to undercut and complicate seemingly simple morals, but not here.  It is exactly what it is.  The setup is intriguing, and the stuff with Donald and the other partygoers is deceptively complex, but it never quite coalesces, and the ending lets it down.  Still enjoyable, but ultimately, I think, one of his more problematic efforts.

"Pawns of the Loup Garou"

$
0
0
This isn't strictly speaking a Halloween story, but it feels appropriately seasonal, does it not?  I say yes, you say no, but you may change your mind.

Now, as you are doubtless aware, this is one of Barks' script-only exercises--the first one, if you don't count "King Scrooge the First."  I can't lie: it's never really been a favorite of mine.  It feels kind of sketchy and disjointed, like Barks wasn't exactly putting his all into it.  However, it does have a thing or two to recommend it.

As you are doubtless further aware, this, like all of Barks' script-only stories, was later redrawn by Daan Jippes.  I am on record as believing that his version of "A Day in a Duck's Life" does the unthinkable, making one of Barks' weakest efforts actually enjoyable, if not exactly "good" per se.  So I'm certainly not totally opposed to this project.  But here…man.  The original art for "Pawns of the Loup Garou," by Tony Strobl, actually is one of T-Strob's stronger efforts.  Sure, there's a certain amount of characteristic Strobl stiffness, but I really have no problem with it.  There are bits here and there that Jippes improves, sure, but there are also some parts that I like better in Strobl, and on the whole, the new version really struggles to justify its existence.  It may be that Jippes himself wasn't always certain why he was doing this; there are more than a few parts where he pretty much just exactly copies Strobl without even trying to improve things in any way:


There's nothing wrong with Jippes, particularly, but it just seems unfair to try to completely write Strobl out of the picture like this.  It's pretty hard to justify retaining lousy Kay Wright art purely for historical value, but Strobl at his best was pretty good, dammit.  Redrawing his stuff seems to be saying, sorry--we Europeans own Barks' legacy now, and we have no use for the likes of you.  I'm about the furthest thing from a nationalist you can get, but man…respect, people!  Have some!


Here are the openings.  As you can see, Gladstone did that dumb thing they occasionally did where they changed the marquee character.  At least the Jippes version fixes that.  On the other hand…I don't know whether Jippes did this, or whether Gemstone's to blame, but people--"Voyageurs" was not a typo!  "Voyageurs."  Come on, man!

Anyway, the idea here is that Donald has a job as a pilot and he has to deliver a package to northern Canada.  A good set-up for a horror story, no doubt, although this is only intermittently that.


…and Scrooge gets all curious and sneaks on the plane.  It's prickish in a kind of uncharacteristic way, which is one thing that I'm not a big fan.


The other thing is, we all want there to be a single, definitive version of this or any Barks story, but that's really not possible, because anyone who's drawing it is just interpreting Barks' writing; there's no way to get at an absolute, platonic ideal.  It's one reason that I find arguments that writing is "more important" than art so misguided: the latter is an extension of the former and can affect it in unexpected ways.  So: would you prefer that Donald be enraged when he finds HDL on board the plane (as Jippes would have it), or merely bemused (Strobl's interpretation)?  Personally, I'm inclined to go with Strobl here.  Jippes sometimes goes overboard, for my money, with the emotions.  And the way he draws the kids--the thing is, he's able to draw more in the way of extreme expressiveness, and I feel like he has this idea that because he can, he should; that it's always the best way to go.  I don't agree!  To me, his versions of HDL there just look dumb.  TRYING TOO HARD.


…not to say, however, that Jippes does nothing that improves the story.  His version of the above is clearly substantially more spooky and atmospheric.  I feel like what he does here is kind of what the whole story is trying, but more often than not failing, to do.


Of course, the big difference between the two stories is Miss Minemore here, and it's another great example of how the art can make a much bigger difference than you'd think.  I suppose which version you like better is up to personal preference, but to me, Strobl's version, though certainly concerned about what's going on, still basically has it together, whereas Jippes' looks like she's on the verge of a nervous breakdown throughout.  I much prefer the former, I have to say--and frankly, I think if Barks had drawn the story himself, she would look a lot more like that.  Hmph.


One highlight of either version of the story is Donald's dedication to the job at hand.  He's really determined to do what he's been assigned, and if that involves kicking the ass of a terrifying wolf creature, so be it.  In this instance, Jippes wins out: extremity of emotion and regular motion is appropriate here, and Donald's wolf-bashing activities look weirdly low-impact in Strobl's rendtion.


The real question: why the heck don't we ever get to meet this "Count Drakula?"  It just seems like such an odd lacuna to just mention the guy and then not feature him or resolve this conflict in any way.


I'm irritated by the ending, in which, in spite of having dragooned his way into the story and then been basically useless all the way through, Scrooge is still able to cash out and everyone else is all jolly about it.  I suppose it would've been possible to depict Donald and the kids as being less jovial here, but neither artist did.

I guess I don't have anything profound to say here.  Neither artist's take on the story is perfect (if there could be such a thing), but I still pretty strongly prefer Strobl.  Seventy-three years from now, when Fantagraphics gets around to printing the script-only stories, I wish that, at least in this instance, they would defer to Western history when they choose which one to use.  Or at least, I wish it weren't such a totally foregone conclusion that they'd go with Jippes.  But alas!  Sorry, Tony.  I still like you, at least. *Glares around defensively*

"Jet Witch"

$
0
0
As it happens, Barks really didn't do many Halloween stories.  Sure, he did a fair few that were spooky-like in a non-Halloween-specific sort of way, but as for ones specifically centered around the holiday…well, you've got "Trick or Treat" and "Hobblin' Goblins," along with a couple of one-pagers from the same issue, and then, as near as I can tell, there's just "Jet Witch," from 1961.  Tell me if I'm forgetting something; it's certainly a possibility.  But the basic point remains.  Halloween just doesn't seem to have been that big a deal for him.


What's notable about "Jet Witch" is the contrast between Donald's relationship to the holiday here and in "Trick or Treat."  As you will recall, in the earlier story, his behavior was notably anti-social; he was all about foiling trick or treaters so he could have all the candy for himself.  Whereas here, as you can see, he is throwing himself into Duckburg's civic life.  In either case, he was putting himself in opposition to the spirit of the holiday, but here it's not just an individual thing.  I love how self-important he looks.


Of course, it becomes clear that he doesn't really care about this, particularly--it was more wanting to appear civically engaged than anything else.  But it's still a big change: he certainly didn't care about appearances in "Trick or Treat."

…but seriously, what kid is possibly going to be happy with this "safe and orderly Halloween" business?  Especially given that it doesn't involve trick or treating?  Man, that shit is mad inimical to the spirit of the season.


The follow-up to his previous smash-hit, "The Screaming Cowboy!"  The idea being that, in spite of allegedly being passionate about the Halloween issue, Donald hasn't been following it even a tiny bit and is totally oblivious about what's going on.  No question about it: he's a bit of a buffoon here.


I mean, boy, just consider this contrast: in "Trick or Treat," Donald was gonna battle trick or treaters tooth and nail; here, he surrenders unilaterally the instant he realizes that the holiday is upon him.  Given how terrified he seems to be of potential tricks, it's a bit surprising that he was caught unawares here, or that he didn't realize trick or treating had been cancelled.  


But the real question about this story, which will haunt me to my dying breath, is: what the heck is the deal with this lone trick or treater?  I guess the easy answer is that his family (and no others?) just missed out on the new Halloween policy, but there's just something so striking, to me, about the image.  It feels as though there's going to be some, oh I don't know, explanation for what this lad is doing here, but then…there isn't.  He's just there and gone.  I'll not forget you, single solitary little kid!  You're in my thoughts!


Donald mistaking Gyro for a witch and braining him with an urn certainly provides us with an echo of "Trick or Treat," whether or not this was intended.  At least our Donald displays a little of the ol' spunk.


…though he also runs around like a a headless chicken.  To be fair, if you did somehow fail to get the message as to what was going on, you to might be a little alarmed at this apparent sudden depopulation of the city.


…so he's off to see what's what.  Did Barks intend this?  Probably not.  Did Donald?  Certainly not.  But the fact remains, he's re-injecting the holiday with some of that good, ol'-fashioned anarchic spirit.  Good for him!


…and those kids may CLAIM that it was merely "the most fun [they] ever had until the witch appeared," but they're not fooling anyone, with those wide grins: the "witch" was the highlight of the evening for them.  It would've felt like something was missing if [she] hadn't shown up!  The adults' efforts to contain the holiday and make it "safe" and anodyne met with dismal failure.  So may it ever be!  Happy Halloween, everyone!

"A Tale of Two Turkeys"

$
0
0
This story is untitled, but the above is what I suggested that a few years back that it SHOULD be retroactively called, as opposed to "Turkey Trouble" (or possibly "Turkey Turmoil," according to the somewhat confusing inducks page)  But hey--Gladstone (was it Gladstone?) might have thought "Turkey Trouble" was the right title, but they're dead and I'm not (...yet!), so I am unilaterally changing it.  Just try an' stop me!

It's actually a really solid story, packing in a lot of incident and showing more narrative sophistication than most of Barks' ten-pagers of this vintage (1946).


…did I say "sophistication?"  Ahem.  Well.  Okay.  But the dual-turkey business is remains impressive.  It feels to me like more than ten pages.

Nothin' wrong with potato pancakes!


Pretty odd that turkeys are pretty much the only well-known domestic bird that's non-anthropomorphized in the Duckiverse.  I guess it was just too convenient to have one freely available for food-related shenanigans in holiday-related stories and the like.  But in spite of not being anthropomorphized--well, the inevitable happens, and no one wants to eat him.  I distinctly recall reading a Little Lulu story or two that used this same conceit.

You know, I don't eat meat, but far be it for me to proselytize to people, especially on the day when (if you're American, at any rate) you're no doubt busily wolfing down birds of various stripes.  Still, when I think about the implications of stories like this, it looks to me as though there's a certain collective ambivalence about the ethics of meat-eating. 


To wit: "You can't cook Raffles!  He's a pet!"  Well, yes, okay, but if one turkey is unacceptable to eat because he's our pet and we love him, it just seems difficult not to conclude that any turkey can be eaten with a wholly clear conscience.  You're not allowed to murder people, even if you don't know and like them, so I don't know why that doesn't scale down.  Not that our relationships with animals aren't in general exceedingly irrational on an objective level, but still…

I like how pissed off HDL are up there.  Just DARE touch it!


Anyway, so now we pinball to this thing which is referred to as a "turkey shoot," though I don't know if it should really be called that given that no one is actually shooting turkeys--it's just targets.  Also, again as a vegetarian, I maybe shouldn't give advice like this, but I have to note that if you're going to eat that guy, you'd want to kill him sooner rather than later.  If you wait 'til he's elderly, which seems to be your plan, he's not gonna taste like much (not that turkeys taste like much anyway--back when I did eat meat, I always wondered what the big deal was about them).


…you would really think that HDL would extrapolate from Raffles and not be so doggone excited about the prospect of decapitating this other turkey.  As I said, things seem a little confused here. Donald's battle and subsequent outraged "I LOVE this turkey! He's got spirit!" is the best thing in the story.  Really gives some dimension to his character; you might well think he would be all too willing to go through with the slaughter.


And then: one of Barks' ambiguous endings.  If Donald likes "spirit" so much, you'd think maybe he'd accept this sort of take-charge action on the part of the turkeys, but apparently there are limits (I do think that in a later story, the kids wouldn't have been so willing to give up Raffles).  And yet…in spite of that, strangely enough, they don't eat the turkeys.  They sell them to (presumably) be eaten, but they don't do it themselves.  Out of residual affection?  There may be an element of palatability here: for little kids especially, it might be upsetting to see the birds killed in the end, and it would seem awfully vindictive of the ducks.  Still, if that's true, it would seem to support my "ambivalence" theory.  If you don't like thinking about turkeys being slaughtered…  

But regardless of motive: they don't do it.  Go figure.  Good luck finding a hamburger place open on Thanksgiving!

Anyway, this is my humble Thanksgiving offering.  Please accept it.  I should have some okay stuff for Christmas, and also--if we're lucky!--a little something special at some point in December.  Stay tuned.

(And no, that wasn't meant to be the world's most obvious hint that I'm writing about the Rosa story.  Though that's another thing I should do one of those days, no question.)

COMING SOON.

$
0
0
-Kangaroos!

-Accidental drunkenness!

-Super-racist ethnic caricatures!

-Scrooge's secret history as a nineteenth-century whaler!

And MUCH more.  Believe me: people who are don't see it will think themselves accursed they were not here, and hold their manhoods CHEAP whiles any speaks that read this blog post.  DO NOT MISS IT.

"Donald and the Treasure of Saturnin Farandoul"

$
0
0
Shortly after I finished my English version of Marco Polo, I determined that my next project would be this story.  I even went so far as to scan it and delete the French text--ie, the mindless, tedious parts.  But then for some reason I just stalled out, and the thing lay fallow for some eight months, until a couple three weeks ago, when I finally roused myself.  If there's one thing I hate, it's leaving things unfinished.  And now…well, here we are.

Is this a good story?  Well…yeah, I think it's good, though I will freely grant that there may be a certain amount of Stockholm contained in that judgment.  It's surely not without its problems, along with some standard Italian eccentricities, but I like the way it whipsaws crazily from one thing to another, never giving you any idea what's coming next.  It's based on a French novel by Albert Robida, The Very Extraordinary Adventures of Saturnin Farandoul (1879), which is itself a Jules Verne parody/pastiche.  I haven't read it (though now I kind of want to), but it's supposed to be pretty wild, and I think in that regard the comic is probably a pretty good representation of it.

Here is the fruit of my labor.  Please download and read it.  I'm proud of all my localizations, no question, but this one, I don't know--maybe it's just that I've used an actual comic-book font this time, and thus the whole thing looks more or less professional (if, as always, overstuffed on occasion), but I'm super-happy with it.  Also, it would be better to read it before checking out my commentary, below, which spoils various of its twists and turns.


First: the infamous (or would-be-infamous, if this story were well-known) whaling background thing.  Of course, it's wildly far from anything that anyone would consider canon, and it seems incredibly jarring to contemporary sensibilities, but you can't really blame Martina; opposition to whaling amongst civilized people wasn't really a thing until the sixties.

What you can do, however, is ask: just how ancient did he think Scrooge was supposed to be?  This story was published in 1959, and there's no indication that we're meant to imagine it being set anywhen but the present-day.  So give the story wildly more benefit-of-the-doubt than it deserves and assume that Scrooge is meant to have somehow become a whaling tycoon at the tender age of fifteen; that would still make him 119 in the present.  


I'm certainly not going to go over every story beat here, but especially in the Mysterious Island section (The Mysterious Island being Verne's quasi-sequel to Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea--but you knew that), there's a really nice sense of atmosphere.  Sure, there's goofy stuff with apes, but I think somebody--De Vita, I suppose--deserves credit here.


And the whole Nautilus business?  That's just awesome.  You assume that the whole story's going to go on in this vein, and then you're kind of disappointed when it doesn't.

("Merit Badges in Submarine Discovery"--I  kill me.)


I could've excised the earlier reference to whaling (although I wouldn't have; such bizarre little details are half the fun in stories like this), but for the fact that it comes up again.  Bah.  Anyone get references to New Zealand folk songs?


Now here's the thing: I mostly like De Vita's art here.  But this story's biggest weak spot, by a wide margin, is inconsistent character reactions from panel to panel, and I can't quite figure whether De Vita or Martina should get more of the blame.  So in the above, first Scrooge is all enraged--which seems perfectly plausible--and then he immediately collapses into this feeble gloominess that doesn't at all seem to work with the character or to be a logical thing for his anger to dissolve into.  Too bad.


Donald getting pissed off like that is kind of the same problem I mentioned above.  And no, that thing with the guidebook doesn't make a great deal of sense.  The French version has the kids saying "the page is missing," which just seems odder.  One option would be to just stipulate that the book they have isn't in fact the Woodchucks Guidebook, but…I'm not down with that.  Hey, what can I say: some editor decided that kangaroos weren't that important.  I suppose he'll probably get reprimanded and lose some merit badges.


For me, the Australian segment is the weakest part of the story.  The other parts are disparate, but they all feel kind of appropriately old-time-y and Jules-Verne-ish (boy, dig that critical vocabulary).  Whereas the Australian stuff just seems kind of generic, in spite of my efforts to add Local Color.  Those are the sorts of headlines you see in Australian newspapers, right?  I'm pretty sure that's accurate.


The ducks are "rescued" by Beagles, some of whom are more or less normal-looking, and some of whom GAAAAAH.  Hard to know what else to say.

RANT ON
I'd like to use this opportunity to say this: I think just about everyone who cares enough about Disney comics to bother having strong opinions about them agrees that problematic racial presentations in old stories should not be whitewashed.  If you're arguing against that position, you're more or less attacking a strawman.  But the thing is, there are certain persons--some of whom may post on certain popular Disney fora--for whom you get the impression that it's not just that they don't think this stuff should be censored; rather, they think it's tragic that you can't still get away with stuff of this sort.  That it was in some sense a positive good.  The invocation of the "political correctness" shibboleth is often present.  To which I say: no.  Yeah, stuff like this should be preserved, and yeah it's interesting for historical and sociological reasons, but at the same time, it's bullshit, and we're well rid of it (to the extent that we are) in the twenty-first century.  Dammit.
/RANT OVER.


After all that yelling, how about relaxing?  Maybe with a drop of the hard stuff?  Now, there's that one Jippes/Milton ten-pager in which Donald imagines HDL getting smashed, and of course there's "Bubbleweight Champ," in which Donald is depicted for all intents and purposes as an alcoholic.  Still, as best I can remember, this is the first story I've read in which the ducks get genuinely, no-doubt-about-it drunk (though I'm sure there must be other vintage Italian stories out there where it happens).  I don't really have a bigger point than that.  It's just an interesting little oddity.  The discrepancy between the sort of things you could get away with at Mondadori versus what you could at Western is notable.

I had to stick a "Scrooge's Second Childhood" reference in there.  Just had to.  I really enjoy the idea that, in spite of the wildly-different sensibilities of Disney comics created in different times and places, they're all taking place in the same world.


The Paparaguayan sequence is easily the story's most bizarre.  Yes, a descendent of Phileas Fogg, of Around the World in Eighty Days fame, is the antagonist here.


And yes, they engage in this insanely baroque duel that involves playing chicken with trains.


And yes, when Donald and Scrooge win (or think they won) they are declared supreme commanders of the country's military.

Now, all this is completely nuts, but for once, I think that's mostly not Martina's fault.  I may not have read the original Saturnin Farandoul, but I have read the introduction to the English translation, which you can do on amazon, and this seems to be more or less from the original text.  Yes, Fogg is a villain, and yes, he and Farandoul become enemy generals in a civil war (which I think is actually meant to be a rekindled US Civil War--I believe the switch to South America is Martina's innovation, although, as always, I Could Be Wrong).  Do they do this batty train-dueling thing?  That, I do not know.

At any rate, I'm not complaining.  Is not the bizarreness part of what I like about so many Italian stories?

Now, one thing I very much appreciate is the way, on a number of occasions, like


here


and here


and here

various of the ducks express indignation at the idea of killing or otherwise badly injuring enemies.  That injects a good humanitarian note that is sometimes lacking in Martina.  However, it has to be said, these instances do not, for me, quite balance out this:


I know the joke, such as it is, is that both sides are totally clueless about what actually happened (because HDL changed the tracks at the last moment), but really, now, hilarious gleefulness about having (you think) completely annihilated your opponents?  Hmm.


I think it's a really cool, triumphant ending, though part of that may well be due to a bit of a "yes!  I've FINISHED TRANSLATING this mother!" feeling on my part.  In the French, Scrooge gives Donald one gold piece for his work.  Tiny as it is, that percentage might seem overly generous, but hell, Donald and the kids got made out like relative bandits with a small percentage in "The Loony Lunar Gold Rush," so hey--Barksian precedent.

So that's about it.  Hardly a perfect story, but seriously, you look at something like this, and then you look at what everyone not named Barks was doing at Western in the fifties and sixties, and in terms of ambition and sophistication, there's just no comparison.  I hope that you have enjoyed this story.  Hard to say exactly when, given my schedule, but I have two more really good stories in the translation pipeline for the near future, and after that, who knows?

"Christmas in Duckburg"

$
0
0
The time has come for a little thing I like to call A VERY BOB GREGORY CHRISTMAS, where we look at the Barks/Gregory Christmas stories.  Yeah, okay, so as holiday specials go, it's kind of skimpy.  I was hoping that, in looking through Gregory's substantial output on inducks, I would be able to find that he did some lesser-known, Barks-less Christmas stories that I'd be able to use.  Given the number of stories he did, it almost seemed like a statistical inevitability that there would be a few--and then we could've highlighted some obscure work and compared it to the Barks stuff and noted the way the art influenced the feel of the story.  Woulda been fun.  But, as far as I can tell from some fairly careful sifting through inducks, the Barks stories were IT, as far as Christmas material goes.  If you know otherwise, clue me in and I'll find the story and read it and have an entry about it up on Christmas Day.  That's the Duck Comics Revue Guarantee.

So, only two entries.  But that's okay!  Both "Christmas in Duckburg" (1958) and "The Christmas Cha Cha" (1959) demonstrate that Gregory had skillz, notwithstanding the somewhat wobbly art in his self-drawn efforts.


We see some parallels in this story with Barks' deathless "Letter to Santa."  There, Donald was all, no sweat, I'll just have Santa deal with Christmas presents for me; here, he's all, no sweat, I'll just use catalogues (something something late capitalism)--though of course, here, he still has to pay.  Note also no mention of ol' Claus himself, either here or in "The Christmas Cha-Cha" (update: on rereading "The Christmas Cha Cha," I see that that's not technically true.  But he's not considered a figure the existence of whom is in any way up for debate).  On the one hand, this kind of consistency is unsurprising; on the other, it's still kind of weird when you have a story with small children getting presents and Santa goes unmentioned.


Another similarity to "Letter to Santa:" the kids ask for an insane, manifestly infeasible thing (well, not actually in "Letter to Santa," but per Donald's perception--I clarified that exclusively to head nit-pickers off at the pass), and instead of just noting that this isn't gonna work, Donald feels honorbound to try to fulfill the request.  Crazy, yet honorable.


As I believe I've mentioned before, I like when Barks creates whole new, distinctive-looking characters like ol' Jolly Ollie here (one presumes the particular character designs are all his doing).  Okay okay, so he's not the world's most memorable character, but still.  I like how enraged Scrooge is by this fairly harmless roasting, and how amused Donald is thinking about it.  It must be said, though, Gregory sorta botches it by having the pig dude spell things out exactly.  Eiderduck's line and Scrooge's look of disgust are plenty sufficient to make everything clear.


The above lack of subtlety is strange, given that this, one of the most delightful bits in the story, revolves around Donald himself spelling out a joke.  I just love how goshdarned enthused he is about it.  These are sorts of things that demonstrate a different style than Barks himself would be likely to use as a writer.  In a good way!


Another such thing is this pair of Beagles disguised as French Canadians.  I had never heard the expression "by gar," but I am told it comes from a French character in "The Merry Wives of Windsor."


I also love how bad they are at being French Canadians.  I don't think just saying "by gar" a lot is really cutting it.


Now, this moose/meese thing--Scrooge wants them to bring home animals to help his reputation, but the first letter gets effaced--could easily be construed as basically just making time.  You could also argue, perhaps, that it's unlikely that the ducks would be quite that dopey.  But I don't do either of those things, because I find it juuuuust delightful.  The way they keep belaboring the word.  Also, "meese aren't mice, you know."


Also, Scrooge's line cracks me up every time.


Also, the ending ties the plot strands together rather nicely.  And the moose are named "Gretel" and "Ingaborg."  Not that they get all that much face-time in the story, but as a general rule, you definitely want to name your animals, to make them more relateable/endearing.  That's my handy hint for you, the reader.

People being compelled to follow through with the figurative "I'll eat my [article of clothing]" bit: of course, we also see it in "The Money Champ," but has it ever happened in real life?  Well, yes, there was that one time when Werner Herzog ate his shoe.  So, question answered.  But nobody was forcing him or expecting him to fulfill this promise; he just did it because he's a madman.  And a genius.  In any case, though, I'm glad we can count on duck comics to keep this more-or-less non-existent tradition alive.

Man, I just like this story.  It leaves me in a good, festive mood.  Let us find out tomorrow whether the other Barks/Gregory Christmas story does the same.

"The Christmas Cha Cha"

$
0
0
Welcome to day two of A VERY BOB GREGORY CHRISTMAS.  It's time for "The Christmas Cha Cha," which somehow was one of the last (possibly the last?) long Barks (or half-Barks, anyway) stories I ever read.  Possibly for that reason, or possibly because, unlike most Barks Christmas stories, Gemstone never reprinted it (I have to think it would've been the marquee story in a hypothetical Christmas Parade 6), I've always gotten the impression--possible false!--that it's a rather obscure story.

The thing is, I wish I didn't have to say, this, but it's kinda sorta not all that good.  Which is not to say that I don't like it, kind of, but it really doesn't hold together as well as it should.  There are all these proliferating subplots (Cha Cha Contest! Selling Christmas cards! Decorating storefronts! Setting up a tree! Donald stressing out! Billionaires worrying about their image! Scrooge and the cha cha teacher!), and while they do all turn out to be interrelated to one extent or another, it just feels overstuffed, and not all that coherent.  Which isn't to say that there aren't things I like about it!  Still, I think this entry is going to largely consist of me kvetching about things.


Well, the central "cha cha contest" idea is fine, and Donald busting some moves is fun.  It's a good, and kind of unusual, premise for a Christmas story.


The off-ness starts right up with this whole "poetry Christmas cards" thing.  I don't get it.  Cards with doggerel in them?  How is that different than any ol' card you can buy in a store, and certainly could in 1959 as well?  The story acts like this is some awesome new concept, but…it's not.  Now, if Ajax would directly mail the cards to all your desired recipients, that would be one thing--very convenient.  But it's not; the story actually takes great pains to make it clear that the cards are sent to you, and you still have to send them.  What's the point?


Oh ho!  But THESE card greetings are composed by A FAMOUS POET (Ezra Pound?)!  That's gotta be worth something, right?  But NO--as we later see, they're actually just the usual thing.  Was the idea of rhyming cards AT ALL so novel in 1959 that that alone would just knock people out?  Well, no:


The long and short of it is, I don't get it.  I know I'm belaboring the point far past any likely interest, but it really does interfere with my enjoyment of the story--my brain just can't help getting caught up in the question of what all this means.



…though granted, "I guess most folks are still pretty relaxed at 6:30 am!" is funny.


Donald has to help Daisy erect a Christmas tree!  The kids have to decorate store windows (is that really a Woodchuck-type thing to do?  I, again, don't get it)!  One's head starts to spin, a little bit.


Meanwhile, we have this thing with Scrooge being very concerned that plutocrats are not seen as Men Of The People.  Even granting that the portrayal of Scrooge can vary from story to story, this just rings false to me.  I don't know about his billionaire pals, but in what possible world does Scrooge want people to think he's just reg'ler folks?  His whole thing is that he's the Richest Duck in the World, and NOT like everyone else.  Even Barks'"Status Seekers," in which he becomes determined to break into high society, seems a bit questionable to me, but this is substantially worse.


And then we get this out-of-nowhere bit where Donald is on the verge of a nervous breakdown because women who've bought cards from him keep asking when they'll be delivered.  Overstuffed, dammit.


If nothing else, at least the story has Rosita, from whom Scrooge has to learn the cha cha to win the contest to win the prize that he himself was compelled to donate.  She doesn't get all that much screen time or, let's be honest, personality, but I can't help liking any unique character type drawn by Barks, especially if it's a woman (see also: Katie Mallard and Ducky Bird).


That "I'll make you think you have two left feet" is the most characterization she gets, but I like it, and I like the idea of her teaming up with Scrooge.


Good character moment, there.  "I-I guess I'm even that grateful!"  What's that one Barks story where Donald gets good at dancing, but then it turns out to be the wrong kind of dancing, and he loses?  Good contrast to that.  If nothing else, this is certainly an amiable story.


Also, we get Barks' self-portrait, which is unexpected and amusing.  Of course. there's the one Olympic ten-pager in which he wrote himself in as the javelin-thrower with allergies, but this seems a bit more blatant as self-insertions go.


And then there's this simply-bizarre resolution to the problem of the kids having  forgotten to send out Donald's card orders (another echo of "Letter to Santa?").  What?  No, what?  The cards weren't sent, but that's okay, because the would-have-been recipients (who all live right here in Duckburg, I guess?) might just wander by this storefront and see them?  Um…no.  Just no, man.  The whole "Woodchucks decorate store window" business was included just for this purpose, and boy, it wasn't worth it!


So wait…this means that Donald doesn't, in this case, get paid for his work?  Hardly seems like a great solution, then--much less one that he would be so excited about.


And jeez louise, there is just noexcuse for the ineffable lameness of this denouement.  Poison oak, indeed.  I tell you, I would really loved to have seen a sweet dance-off between Donald/Daisy and Scrooge/Rosita.  But no.  Poison oak.  Poison oak!  I guess I can't deny that their gyrations are pretty visually amusing, but it just isn't worth it.  Aaaah!

As I suspected would happen, this entry makes it sound like I hate this story a lot more than I do.  As noted above, I actually kind of like it, just lettin' it wash over me.  But there's no denying: it's a bit of a mess.  Still would've liked to see more Barks/Gregory Christmas collaborations, however, not least because it would've allowed me to extend this series.  Well, have a merry Christmas, or War on Christmas, whichever you prefer.  I have nothing but goodwill towards all of you.
Viewing all 278 articles
Browse latest View live