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

"The Golden Christmas Tree"

$
0
0
Ho ho ho, motherfuckers!  Santa found another present at the bottom of his bag!  Please to be festive and jolly! 

Well, whether that happens or not is open to question.  "The Golden Christmas" tree is from 1948, and it could be argued that Barks hadn't quite gotten a handle on how to do a Christmas story (or at least a long one--his eight-page Firestone efforts aren't bad).  "Letter to Santa,""A Christmas for Shacktown," and "You Can't Guess" were still to come.  As I understand it, he wasn't all that keen on doing them at all, and only buckled down due to editorial fiat--which makes it all the more impressive that he was able to produce deathless classics like the aforementioned.  However, although "The Golden Christmas Tree" certainly has its moments, it doesn't really deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as them.


This whole "strangely-colored Christmas tree" thing is pretty strange.  Was that a real thing?  Surely not.  But no one even comments on it or acts as though it's in any way out of the ordinary.


Seriously, can you imagine having a tree like that in your domicile?  Just think how outlandish it would look!  Gah!  I guess it makes sense that the more oddly-colored they are the more they would cost.  What kind of nightmarish genetic engineering must have been involved in their creation, I shudder to think.


…though maybe it's just paint, as the witch suggests, in which case it doesn't really make much sense that they'd cost so much, or that some colors would be pricier than others.

The thing about this story is, it's kind of sour.  Sure, something like "Letter to Santa" is rambunctious, and concerned more with human foibles than with what you'd call "Christmas spirit," but it still ends up feeling basically good-humored and festive.  Whereas this…well, HDL sobbing because they can't get the weird-colored tree of their dreams is representative of the general feel, and they're not forced to change or anything, as they might be in another story.


So yes indeed, the lady is a WITCH!  Though decidedly not Hazel, alas.  This is not a fun witch, as her apocalyptic pronouncement there may indicate. 


Yeah, tidings of comfort and joy to you too.  One might be reminded of the professor in "Ancient Persia," who wanted to reduce everyone to dust so he could just be left alone.  Might be that both of these are sort of parodic renderings of Barks' own misanthropic side.


The whole fight is reminiscent of the one in "Trick or Treat," complete with the witch disguised as a glamour-duck.  But that fight was far more energetic and, ultimately, life-affirming than this, which isn't really much of anything.  The fact that, in this story (and in contrast to "Trick or Treat"), Donald has no particular reaction to the lady may be indicative of the difference. 


Hmm?  Yes, okay, you're right; that's a funny/clever gag.  But that's about as good as it gets.


So yeah, naturally, she's ultimately defeated, and "The Spirit of Christmas" is released.  That's kind of Christmas-y, right?  Well…yeah, kind of.  The problem is, this spirit does nothing but spout pious homilies that aren't actually reflected in the action of the story.  There's nothing organic about it.  Barks' cynicism is reeeeally apparent here--just shoehorning this stuff in apropos of nothing.  Not very well-balanced.


And how weird is it that a Christmas story is one of very few Disney comics (along with "Dangerous Disguise"--any others?) in which a character is actually killed?  "Fairly weird," would be my response.  Nice that The Spirit of Christmas is so chipper about it!


And then…well, then we have an ending.  It's a typically Barksian sort of ending--generosity turns out to have unexpected consequences--but in the story's larger context…I dunno.  It seems like rescuing The Spirit of Christmas ought to have something to do with anything.  But instead there's this, which isn't commenting ironically on anything because there's nothing to comment ironically on.  It seems positively designed to blunt any search for meaning.  And not in a good way. 

Barks, of course, would not have been the artist he was without his cynical side, but I believe this is one instance in which it was not turned to the all-time possible best effect.   But it's at least interesting to think about, hopefully.  May your Christmases be happy and your trees be tree-colored.

"All Creatures Great and Small"

$
0
0
A slightly belated Happy New Year to all.  Here's a story by Dave Gerstein that he pointed to when I asked about New-Year-themed stories (which I had read before and which came back to me upon this reminder).  It's a good opportunity to look at something less predictable than another Barks "resolutions" story (in spite of THIS being a "resolutions" story too--I feel like that's pretty much the only salient aspect of the holiday that people can think of to use, which isn't surprising--there isn't actually all that much TO it, really, and its other main feature--ill-advised drunken hook-ups--probably wouldn't work too well in a Disney story).


I don't know if this was intentional or not, but this story sort of gestures in the direction of that perennial Barksian mystery: what the heck happens after page ten to the innumerable animals the Duck Family adopts?  Your Cheltenhams, your Catapults, your Rockets Wing?  I always like to imagine that they're all still there; they just somehow manage to remain off-panel in all future stories.  But if they're really just accumulating, you could run into problems.  This would have been the ideal opportunity for a shitload of Barks call-backs, but I don't think that's how Egmont rolls, alas (actually, I think basically no one rolls like that, which is part of the reason Don Rosa seemed like such a revelation).  

It must be noted: for a story taking place in the deep midwinter, everything sure looks awfully verdant, the odd tiny patch of snow notwithstanding.  And is "Duckburg [?]wells" some sorta reference I'm missing?


The idea is that the kids resolve to get rid of the pets, while Donald resolves to be more tolerant of them.  ZOMG!  What will happen next?!?  This dynamic is just about identical to Barks'"we'll only eat healthy foods" vs. "I'll only feed them sweets"thing.


…the problem is, as Dave himself noted, that there's a certain confusion here: in the absence of some sort of wager, what exactly is Don's plan meant to accomplish?  To me, it looks very much as though the story is sort of unconsciously piggybacking on the Barks story and to that end implicitly assuming there is a wager, even though no such thing has been established.


"Rue Morgue Pet Palace"--now that's funny.  Geoffrey Blum would approve.


Ah, St. Canard!  Is this the gods' way of telling me I should get back in the saddle with the Darkwing Duck reviews?  And am I so incredibly narcissistic that I assume everything is about me?  The answer to both questions is: apparently so!  Actually, the reference kinda sets me up to expect there's going to be some sort of DW reference ahead, even if it's just a tiny visual thing.  No such luck, alas!  Though now I'm getting slightly dizzy trying to rationalize the notion of this decidedly non-Ducktales story existing in the same world as DW, which itself exists in the same world as Ducktales.  Egads!


Does this seem somewhat dubious?  It does.  Note also that the original pet premise kinda vanishes as soon as the ape business starts.  They're just unceremoniously shuffled out of the house, and evidently we're just meant to take it that that's that.  That's one of these things that really bothered me had I read this story when I was small (though granted, I was probably more sensitive than most in these matters).  


Okay okay, the ending's sort of cute, if a bit…oh, abrupt, I'd say.  Not the kind of dynamic you'd be likely to see in Barks.

Look, I'll level with you: I do not have strong feelings about this story.  It's one of those things where you read it; you think yeah, that was all right; and then you forget about it pretty quickly.  Still, it's interesting for the helping us to think about a Barksian question.  For "Rue Morgue Pet Palace," also.  Thanx to Dave for pointing it out.  What will 2014 bring, duckwise?  Stay tuned.

"Donald Meets Baron Münchausen"

$
0
0
Apparently, the historical Baron Münchausen was less than thrilled that he was known exclusively for telling crazy tall tales--but hey, there are worse things to be known for.  Anyway, it's too late now!  He's known for what he's known for, and his fame was cemented when he featured in a duck comic, and now I've made an English version, and you can download it right here.

Yes, I have been a BUSY LITTLE BEE lately.  What can I say?  I love this story.  It's ZANY, but unlike most zany Italian stories, it's intentionally zany, which is a whole 'nuther thing.  I know a lot of the time when I've translated a story I'll sort of qualify my recommendations in a "whether or not it's exactly good is up in the air, but it's interesting enough to be worth reading" kind of way.  Not so here: this story is good AND interesting AND worth reading.  It's one of my favorite efforts from our ol' pal Guido Martina.  

Again, you really should read the story before reading anything I write about it, but if you don't, know that the reason that the panels I've grabbed don't seem to point to any coherent narrative is that there is none--the whole thing is more a series of vignettes.


We've certainly seen Barks stories in which Donald is angered at the kids' reading material "Super Snooper,""Stranger than Fiction").  I even reference a few!  What I especially like here is that bottom left panel, because who knows what the fuck is meant to be going on there?  The French version just says "Ça aussi?" ("this too?").  I get the impression that neither Martina nor De Vita had a clear idea.

I would also like to note that the reason "Munchausen" doesn't get an umlaut is that this font--SmackAttack--doesn't do diacritical marks.  If I stuck them in, the "u" would appear as plain text, which seems too distracting to be worth it.  Same reason "Léocadie" didn't feature an accent aigu in "Saturnin Farandoul."


What I like about this story in general is the way it so consciously veers away from any sort of would-be realistic mimesis.  This is an issue that comes up again and again in these classic Italian stories: shit happens that seems to make no sense, and you're not quite sure whether or to what extent this nonsense is intentional.  Here, it definitely is.  And it's so matter-of-fact about it.  It really creates a dream-like sort of atmosphere that I like a lot.


See?  Scrooge is upset, but he's not exactly baffled, or at least not in the way would be in a more realistically-grounded story.


Even in the original, I think that the direct quotes are meant to come from Rudolf Erich Raspe's Surprising Adventures of Baron Munchausen, which was the first English-language source for these stories.  I went through the book and found the relevant passages, anyway, and quoted them as closely as possible (allowing for necessary revising and editing-down to make them fit).  This business about the Baron getting down from the Moon on a rope seems to be straight out of the book, as does the bit about how he incapacitated a bear and held it in place until it starved to death (…that sounds quite unpleasant when I just say it like that).  However, I'm not sure what the sources are for some of the later business.  The Baron's speedy servant, for instance: this is definitely from somewhere, since the character appears in Terry Gilliam's Adventures of Baron Münchausen, and also in the crazy 1943 Nazi-produced movie Münchausen, but he's sure not in Raspe's text, and I don't know what the original source is.  And as for the tall-tale-y bits that don't seem to involve the Baron in any way--like the lion jumping out of its skin or the musical notes coagulating from the heat--I just have no idea.  Basically, the story seems to be a crazy mash-up of elements from a number of different source, plus probably some totally made-up stuff, plus new stuff that I introduced, advertently or not, in translation.  Somehow, that seems appropriate to the spirit of the character.


"Wifi," indeed.  I guess I've permanently waived my right to complain about anachronisms introduced into old stories, haven't I?  Well, as Don Rosa notes re the Eisner Award plaque in "The Richest Duck in the World:""I will never, ever compromise the realistic aspects of my Scrooge stories, ever, not no time, not no how--until it's funny to do so" (though "realistic" is hardly a word one would use here).


I'm sorry; I know I shouldn't go on about my writing, because it just makes me look like a massive egoist.  But I think "fair-trade coffee" is my best joke in the whole thing.


You know--I tell you--augh.  So maybe I'm just having a spasm of liberal guilt here--and certainly, as these things go, this story is well down the list in terms of problematic cultural depictions--but I just feel the strong urge to apologize to someone whenever this crud comes up.  I can easily say "well, it's not a big deal; obviously no one meant any harm," and the second part of that is surely true, but it seems a bit much for me--a white dude from a privileged background--to just blithely assert the first part.  I suppose it's probable that, if you have Native American ancestry, you've developed a thick skin and an eye-rolling attitude towards stuff like this, but man…I really, really could live quite happily without it.


Of course, the nephews just giving up on the book like this makes little sense, given the way total hero-worship they had for the character earlier, but eh…at least it provided the perfect opportunity for a Barks call-back.


I also like that the story ends without making sense of things or declaring definitively that it really was just a dream or anything like that.  One cannot, however, deny that De Vita's art is, as ever, weirdly inconsistent in parts--like, in that middle-bottom panel where Donald's approaching the cannon, why does he appear to have a carefree smile on his face?  In general, however, the nature of this story plays to De Vita's strengths; occasionally out-of-place facial expressions mostly contribute to the overall atmosphere.


Anyway, please enjoy.  And a contemplative MLK Day to all.

"Donaldus Faustus," version 2.0

$
0
0
So way back in the murky depths of the past (August 0f 2012--was it really that recently?), as you may or may not recall, I presented to the world my first effort at a fan translation of a comic story. Specifically, it was a translation of a Faust story, "Il Dottor Paperus." And for a while I was quite taken with my work, but time passed, I gained a bit more experience, and I came to realize what you all were too polite to tell me, which is that it was actually pretty darned shoddy work. Specifically, there were three big problems with it:

1. The font was really, really ugly-looking. I'm not saying that just because it's plain text; I think my other translations that use plain text look pretty much fine. But there's SOMETHING about the size and spacing here that just makes it look, to my current sensibilities, really unpleasant and not very readable.

2. The writing itself--actually, overall I don't think it was terrible, but there were more than a few parts that needed a bit of polish and others that were kind of egregiously overwritten. "ALL your scripts are overwritten," you say. Okay, but this, I think, is qualitatively different--I'm talking about things like this:


Yes, that certainly spells that out in laborious fashion.

3. Entirely too many of the pages had that hideous green'n'magenta color scheme around the edges that you get with badly-scanned images. I'm talking about things like this:


 Most of them weren't quite THAT egregious, but it still ain't right. Why did I think this kind of thing was GOOD enough? I can only assume that I was so impressed that I was capable of translating a story at ALL that quality-control issues went on the back burner.

So ANYWAY, as you've surely guessed by now, what this is leading up to is that I've made a top-to-bottom revised version, which is way the fuck better, and which you can download here. I used a proper font, did some rewriting (the majority of the script is the same, but there are a fair few alterations large and small--also, I slipped in a few extra Marlowe references), and rescanned most of the pages (when I first conceived of doing this, one of the attractions was that I already had all the text-less pages, and so wouldn't need to do any scanning/deleting text--so much for THAT). 

COMPARISON TIME:


 I think the new version really pops, don't you?

Anyway, perhaps you've already read my translation, but you'd still like to read a massively-improved version. Or perhaps you haven't, in which case it's high time to experience this story for the first time. It's not the first Bottaro story to appear in English, but it is the first to appear in good English. Recommended. AND HEY! I figured out how to ROTATE TEXT:


Okay, so granted, it only comes up that one time, but LOOK HOW GOOD IT LOOKS! OMG!

"Donald Fracas"

$
0
0
It's no joke: I am so excited about this one I can barely breathe. The story is "Donald Fracas." The translation is by me. The place to download it is right the fuck here.

The story is based, extremely loosely I'm guessing, on a novel by Théophile Gautier. But that is neither here nor there. I do not know what Guido Martina was thinking when he wrote this story: whether he was really going for something special, or whether it was just business as usual. Certainly, the issues of Topolino in which it was originally published look pretty much like the usual thing. However, it certainly feels as though it's meant to be an Extravaganza. And I'm not the only one who thinks so; the source I used for my translation is a magazine celebrating Walt Disney's centennial ("100 years of magic," it says, which seems questionable--how much childlike wonder was three-year-old Walt invoking?).

Part of the reason for this--obviously enough--is that the story features characters from three different classic Disney films. I kinda feel like it should be a surprise when they come up, but the story spoils who they are in its title panel:


OH WELL.

Now, chances are good that you are, at best, indifferent to the idea of Snow White & Co appearing in a duck story. Very likely, you're actively antipathetic to the idea. When I was introduced to the concept, I kind of grumbled: what is this madness? Why is this here? Oh well; I claim to like weird-ass Italian stories, so I'd better read it. And then I was quite taken with it--so much so that the cheap digest I'd first read it in wasn't good enough, and I bought the magazine with the better printing so I could do the translation. I certainly would not like it if all--or even more than a very few--of my duck stories did this kind of crossover thing, but I feel it adds a certain je ne sais quoi to the story, and reinforces the idea that you're reading something special.

However, while the use of movie characters might be the way the story initially draws attention to itself, it's not the reason that I think it's the best story I've ever read by Guido Martina as well as the best story I've ever translated--both by some margin. No--that would be because I feel it does incredibly well by its protagonist. Look at other stories I've translated--look at pretty much any of them, with the partial exception of "Marco Polo." I like them. They're fun stories to read. Otherwise, I wouldn't have spent so much time with them. But it seems undeniable that they are more or less indifferent to Donald himself. They bat him around for a while, have him lose his temper or act dumb, and there's your lot. Maybe he gets a reasonably happy ending or maybe not, but as a reader, your sympathies aren't very highly engaged. They are certainly not character pieces.

"Donald Fracas," however, is completely different. This story is all about Donald as a character, and before I read it, I would never have imagined that Martina could treat the character so sympathetically. Basically (as you know if you've read it already, and if not, you really ought to), Donald lets his temper get the best of things and fucks things up, and then has to deal with the guilt from that and fight through his fears in order to do what he has to do and be the person he wants to be--all without losing his essential Donald-ness. And in the end, he emerges wholly triumphant. That's another part of the reason that this story feels like it was meant to be special: Martina simply does not write things like this--except, apparently, when he does.

Point is, I recommend it. I think it deserves to be counted among those semi-legendary, never-published-in-English stories.


It should also be noted that this is by far my most restrained translation. That wasn't a conscious decision or anything; it just felt, somehow, as though the script was richer than those of other stories I've worked on, and that embellishing it excessively would've been gilding the lilly. That's not to say that I didn't take liberties when necessary, but you won't find too much pop-culture zaniness here. I did re-watch Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Pinocchio, and Alice in Wonderland in order to get the characters' voices right to the best of my ability. As it happens, the Cheshire Cat--while the best thing in Alice in Wonderland--doesn't really have enough dialogue to give one a clear idea of exactly how he should speak. I just tried to make his dialogue suitably strange. The lines he's always quoting from "Jabberwocky" are my addition, following the movie.

(The two French versions I read have similar but different translations--in the earlier one, the Cat is referred to as "Lucifer"--ie, the cat from Cinderella. You really, really have to wonder how that could have happened. Did Martina himself fuck up, or was if something bizarre with the translation?  That would be pretty egregious on Martina's part, but on the other hand, how the hell could you screw that up in translation?  Anyone who's read it in the original Italian: tell me!).


See? Burning the catnip is just spiteful and irrational, and it sets the entire plot of the story in motion.


Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs! Though truthfully, it would very easily be Snow White and the Two Dwarfs. When I re-watched the movie (and goddamn is it a great movie), I quickly realized that when you come right down to it, only Grumpy and Doc have really distinctive voices. Martina seems to have likewise noticed this, as those two get virtually all the dwarf dialogue in the movie. Sleepy and Sneezy get a few desultory bits involving, uh, being sleepy and sneezing, respectively. Happy gets a few generic lines. Dopey and Bashful? Nothin.' Still, I'm not complaining; it surely would not be easy to give substantial screen-time to all seven, especially given that most of them have pretty limited personality-gimmicks.

(As I noted on facebook recently, Doc is named "Prof" in French, which very likely answers the pressing question of whether he's meant to be a medical doctor or just a PhD.)

The question of just when the hell this is supposed to take place in relation to the movie is an open one. In the original, it was the Evil Queen herself who cursed Snow White; having it be someone else is one of very few substantial changes I made to the story (which I could do with impunity since she never actually appears), 'cause dammit, the queen dies at the end. She falls off a mountain, a huge boulder falls on her, and the vultures swoop down to feed. Sure, you don't see her mangled corpse, but show me the dead Disney villain you do see. Alternatively, we could assume this is meant to be taking place during the timeframe of the movie, and this is just a part that, uh, the movie forgot to include; that would explain why Snow White isn't with her personality-challenged prince, but it's also super-lame. It's a dilemma for anyone wanting to expand the Snow White story, the same as for Beauty and the Beast: the parts of the movies that people like and would want to see more of are no longer operative by movie's end. So what do you do? I think Martina's strategy of basically just ignoring the question is probably the right one.


"Fracas" in French and Italian is a verb meaning "smash." In English, it's...not.  "Donald Smash" would sound pretty dumb, and entirely too Incredible-Hulk-ish.  It was necessary to sort of finesse things.


Oh, and here's the one bit of the story that I just found genuinely baffling. The monkey talks with its stomach? What? I was seriously thinking of just breaking the shit out of the fourth wall and noting in that lower-left narration box that this is just gibberish, but I decided to do the decent thing and try to brazen my way through.


Definitely a bit more violent than your average Disney story, with characters earnestly attempting to murder one another.


So is this dude supposed to be serious, or is it just a lame excuse? You would think it's the latter, but you have to allow that it's really, really hard to know in stories like this.


Ah, yes.  Honest John and Gideon. Okay, fine. I think Pinocchio is one of the most overrated Disney films, but I don't mind. BUT…well, if you buttonholed a bunch of people and asked them to name one trait of Gideon from Pinocchio, you know bloody well that one hundred percent of them would say "DOESN'T TALK." So what does Martina have him do here? Yeesh. It's a wonder he doesn't have Dopey soliloquizing. Reminds me of that Christmas Carol story I rewrote, where the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come had dialogue, but in that instance, I was able to more or less solve that problem. Here, there's just no getting around it: Gideon has multiple lines of dialogue. I figured that maybe if he had a stutter, it would explain why he never said anything in the movie. Eh…what can you do?

That IS a cool image, though, you've got to admit. Scarpa's art overall is quite good here, though you will inevitably note that his ducks are wildly inconsistent-looking. I've never known a comic artist whose art was quite as endlessly variable as Scarpa's.


Note that I have Donald calling the dwarfs in order from best to worst. I know some might cavil at me putting the nondescript Happy in the middle, but I think Sneezy and Sleepy lose big points for not even having personality traits to fall back on, just physical reactions; and I always just want to tell Bashful, man, give it a rest.


For a while, I kept thinking that the owl was another movie character that I was somehow forgetting, but this listing of Disney owls (of COURSE the internet has a listing of Disney owls!) disabused me of that notion. He's called "Magus Gufus" in the French version, but if I called him that, you'd be confused and disoriented when he wasn't played by Goofy.


Okay, it may not be a fair challenge, but sheesh--asking Donald to do a thing like this in order to save the girl. That is hardcore. And he does it! He doesn't like it, but he does it. And that's what I like about this story. Our guy gets some serious hero cred, and it feels earned.


Just don't even ask about the weird deus-ex-machina things the catnip does. Just. Don't. Ask.


Nor should you ask about why the hell the Cat's treasure turns out to be key, or whether the blindness cure would've worked if Donald hadn't happened along with all this pure-of-heart stuff. Instead, just note that this whole scene is beautiful and oddly poetic. The owl's true form is a comet. Fancy that.


The story sort of flirts with the "it was all a dream!" business, but thankfully, it never does any more than that. Boy that would be lame!


Well hey--this may be an atypical offering from Martina, but he just wouldn't be he if he didn't show Scrooge acting completely psychotic. It can't be denied that this anger feels a bit forced. But Scrooge collecting ancient weapons? Eh--could be. After all, we've seen in Barks plenty o' times that he collects sundry cultural artifacts.


So much for earning it square, eh? I like the way HDL are so emphatically on Donald's side.


…AND I like the way they achieve TOTAL VICTORY. It was just one thousand in the original, but that did not seem like enough to me. Upping the amount doesn't change the emotional tenor. 

Seriously, I love this damn story. Please tell me if you know of any other Martina stories that treat Donald similarly. I wanna read that shit.

"The Seven Dwarfs and the Witch Queen"

$
0
0
Genuinely Odd Fact Number the First: Snow White/Seven Dwarfs comics were a quite prevalent thing in Italy back in the day.  In absolute terms, there weren't that many (certainly nothing compared to the duck/mouse stuff), but they kept making them, and pretty much all the big names in classic Italian Disney comics--Pedrocchi, Scarpa, Carpi, Bottaro, De Vita père, and of course Martina, along with sundry also-rans--tried their hands at the form at one time or another.  The same cannot be said for the characters from any other Disney movie.  One can only surmise that something about the nature of the movie combined with the time it was released just caused it to strike a particular chord with Italians.  Sure, there's a comparable number of US stories, but let's face it, without having actually read any of them, it's not hard to predict that they're gonna be of minimal interest.  Whereas the Italian stories--well, they could be terrible (none of the above-mentioned had perfect batting averages, certainly), but they're also generally longer, presumably more ambitious, and have top talent behind them.  Someone really cared about this stuff.  I've ordered a few that were published in France.  We'll see what's what.

…which, naturally enough, leads into Genuinely Odd Fact Number the Second: after working on "Donald Fracas" and re-watching the movie, I found myself thinking something I never would've expected myself to think: you know, I thought, I kind of want to read some Snow White/Seven Dwarfs comics.  But, as indicated above, more Italian SW/7D comics.  However, here we've got a 1958 Sunday serial by Floyd G himself (and drawn, ably enough, by one Julius Svendsen), helpfully reprinted in Fantagraphics' second Gottfredson Sundays book.  Surely that's worth checking out.  I realize that, Adlai Stevenson aside, this is the furthest afield I've ever wandered with this blog, but hey: once I started writing about mouse comics, it was one a them slippery slopes we hear so much about.  Next up: box turtle marriage.


In the previous post, I talked a bit about the difficulty involved in establishing any kind of convincing continuity in stories featuring these characters.  In comments to that post, the extremely helpful Unca Papasu pointed us to this Scarpa story, in which, he says, it is established that--of course--the Evil Queen survives her fall at the end of the movie, the boulder having for some reason vanished.  Well!  That answers that; it's super-lame, but I don't know that there was a solution that wouldn't have been.  So I suppose the working theory must be that these stories in general must take place after the movie--which still doesn't answer the question of why she remains in Old Hag form.  The first time i saw the movie (just a few years back--never saw it as a kid), I thought that her ending fate might be to be trapped in that form, which would be all ironic and stuff since she prides herself on her beauty and that's why she's trying to bump off Snow White in the first place.  But…no.

So if she isn't dead, then why the heck hasn't she turned back?  Note that there's no indication in the movie that anyone knows that the Hag is actually the Queen, whereas now they do know about the Hag (they might infer the connection, but there's no solid evidence), so it seems like she'd have every reason to turn back.  But…she doesn't.  Maybe she is stuck?  But in that case, you'd think she'd be extremely bitter about life.  I feel like there's some phantom continuity here that I'm not privy to.  ARGH!  Why am I thinking so hard about this nonsense?!?


But as for the question of why SW isn't with Prince Robot…well, this here would seem to indicate that there's some kind of…shared custody situation going on?  One would think that ol' Princey would feel a little bit…weird about this situation.  I suppose being a soulless automaton helps ease the pain.

Note also that Gottfredson doesn't even make a token attempt to include Doc's spoonerisms and the like.


A pointless little mini-reprise of the scene in the movie.  Watch it sometime and pay close attention to Doc--you will note that, as he sort of directs the action, he pretty well diverts attention away from himself and barely gets wet at all.  He's smarter than you think.


Somehow, those narration boxes crack me up.  ALAS!  Try pronouncing them in tones.  It's very rewarding.


These panels are kinda my favorite thing in the story--the ordinary, daily-life stuff.  Hell, I'd go for a comic consisting of nothing but.  It has to be noted, though, that you have to be careful with Bashful's schtick, or it can look more flirtatious than "shy," as above.


However, we have to get the plot started here.  The idea is that the Witch has hit the dwarfs save Dopey (because THERE IS NO MORE STEW) with a shrinking potion.  Unfortunately, this is pretty much all wasted potential.  The idea of the dwarfs having to make do whilst shrunken?  Solid.  The idea of Dopey having to get it together to save them on his lonesome?  Also solid.  But Gottfredson never does anything of any great interest with the concept.  I want to blame this on him having only nine strips to work with, but given that his pedestrian retelling of Sleeping Beauty a few years hence was substantially longer, I don't think that pans out.


IT'S THE PHANTOM BLOT!!!!11  Weirdest crossover EVAH.

Sigh…if only.  I don't know quite what was going on here--was Gottfredson really trying to create suspense?  If so, it's about on the level of the "suspense" in Goosebumps books where there are fifty million fake-cliffhanger chapter endings before anything real goes down.


I mean…bah, is what I mean.  There's just nothing to this.  Will the sprayer return them to normal, or will it make them DISAPPEAR ALTOGETHER?!  O the tension.


I also feel like they're pretty seriously trivializing the villain here.  It's one thing for Magica De Spell to retreat to lick her wounds; that's just par for the course.  But here, we have a villain who is very intent on murdering the shit out of Snow White; the whole HO HO HO!  Let her go!  Now that we've hit her with a broom, it'll be some time before she makes any more murder attempts, probably! reaction just seems gruesomely inadequate.

'Course, this story was written after the powers that be decided that they didn't want any more MM serials.  Let's hope Gottfredson enjoyed the opportunity to briefly return to that territory, but the end result leaves more than a little to be desired.

Two cool images found in Picsou Magazine

$
0
0
First, a rather cool self-portrait of Giovan Battista Carpi with ducks and mice--and, perhaps of more interest to fans, a photograph of Carpi with Carl Barks hisself:


...so was Carpi unusually short, or was Barks unusually tall?  My knowledge regarding the relative heights of Disney artists is tragically limited.

Second, the bizarre image that Luciano Bottaro produced in response to the question that famously prompted Don Rosa to draw the ducks at Scrooge's grave:


Right, then!  As you were.

"Back to School"

$
0
0
So I was reading some old Western comics, as one does, and I came upon this Strobl-drawn 1960 story written by the well-regarded ?.  And I thought, huh. This seems...better than your average non-Barks Western- produced duck story. Good show. And then, I looked again and realized that there's a very good reason for that feeling. But, we're getting ahead of ourselves.


(I don't know that it's actually called "Back to School"--that's what appears on the title page, sure, but the same seems to be the case with the first story in all of these "Back to School" Dell Giants. It could just be referring to the book itself. It's certainly not the world's most relevant name.)


Okay, so it starts about like this.  You'd think that under the circumstances, the other kids would be suspect nepotism, but whatever.  Tonally, it's not too unusual, as far as non-Barks Western stuff goes.  Nothing that's going to make you raise your eyebrows.


However, it does seem like the story's going to be a fairly interesting treasure hunt; this isn't the kind of thing you normally see in stories like this.  A little more "realistic," less silliness, "Kracken-Blowa" notwithstanding.  So that's fine.  

But…

Oh, just come out and say it: all the flimsy, silly stuff is ?'s own; all the GOOD stuff is shamelessly plagiarized from Barks'"Seven Cities of Cibola."  Like:


and


and 


and


Sheesh, dude.  The thing is, you don't necessarily notice all this pilfering at first, because the story's context is so different…


…but then you get to the part where the solid emerald idol is preventing the gold city from collapsing, and you can't HELP seeing what's going on.  Pah!  And it's not even always clear why our writer bothers; you wouldn't think, for instance, that the image of two nephews banging their heads together would seem consequential enough to steal.  And yet, here we are.


You also wonder whether, with effort, ? couldn't have done better, because, in the midst of all the lameness, there's the above, which is quite cool and (notwithstanding the river crossing in "Cibola") as far as I can tell basically original.  That's about all, though.  Seems like there might actually be a glimmer of lost potential here.

I distinctly remember when, as a graduate student teaching composition to hapless college freshmen, I first came across an instance of student plagiarism.  I was filled with a sort of rage that, in retrospect, is hard to fathom.  I felt insulted and betrayed, and I was all for kicking this poor kid out of school entirely (a power which, fortuitously, I did not possess).  Pretty quickly, though, I became totally blasé about it--nothing more than a rolled eye and an irritated sigh.  Obviously it's unfortunate that the practice is so widespread that you get that way, but you'd die of a rage aneurysm if you didn't.

So how big a deal ought we to consider this kind of plagiarism?  Well, first we should acknowledge that this is a long-forgotten story that nobody today would know anything about if some asshole blogger hadn't dredged it up for his own inscrutable reasons.  So in that sense, it's not any kind of deal at all.  It's about as nothing as things get.  And from ?'s perspective…well, all these stories were being published anonymously, so there probably wasn't much of a sense of ownership (especially among the lesser writers; ie, most of them).  Also, he no doubt assumed, probably quite rightly, that very few people reading "his" story would be familiar with the original, which was, after all, six years old--a veritable eternity for a little kid.  Hell, maybe he even saw some of Barks' own self-borrowings and assumed it was A-okay.

Counterpoint: it's spectacularly lame, and in the unlikely event that ? lives on, I hope he's heartily ashamed.  Is plagiarism common in old Western comics?  I've never encountered it before, but that proves little.

"The Legend of Donald of the Woods"

$
0
0
Okay, at long last, here we go.  I don't know WHY it felt like this took so damn long, but here we are.  Now, this story has long been one of my favorite Scarpa ventures, particularly in the duck realm.  I wanted to translate it for a long time, but I kept holding off, on the theory that it's the kind of thing that would be absolutely perfect for official localization, were a new publisher to emerge.  Certainly more so than anything else I've worked on.  But…I don't see that new publisher exactly looming on the horizon, do you?  Besides, I liked it enough that I wanted to put words in the characters' mouths, dammit.  Anyway, you can download my translation right here.

(If there's one single, small moment in my script that you find seriously WTF?, it's probably because you're not getting my super-geeky China Miéville reference.  Don't worry about it.)


I'll freely admit that there are more than a few things here that don't exactly make sense--GOOD THING SCARPA DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY THE DUBIOUS PLOT TWIST TAX, AMIRITE?--and the ending could hardly be more howlingly insane.  Nevertheless, as I noted above, it's one of my favorites from Scarpa; I would go so far as to say that it's my single favorite duck story by the man.


There's this framing device--you may recall something at least somewhat similar in "Marco Polo"--where the ducks are allegedly all acting out the parts in the story, which parts are them but apparently, in some sense, not.  It's all very vague and pointless; cutting out the framing sequence would've lost the story nothing, especially since it never makes any kind of reappearance: after the "Donald of the Woods" narrative starts, that's it.  Note also: CLARA CLUCK!  Also as in Marco Polo, she makes a non-speaking appearance in a single panel and then ne'er appears more.  It's very strange.


Anyway, I'm not going to go over the whole plot or anything; you can read it for yourself.  I will note a number of things, though.  First, I'll note that it's not totally clear to me whether the idea is that there were no taxes under the old mayor, or that there were, but they were optional.  The exact text of the French version seems to indicate the former: "The mayor is so kind that he didn't have the heart to ask for money."  On the other hand, future events in the story seem to sort of maybe indicate that it's the latter.  It's a bit unclear to me, which I strongly suspect was also the case in the original Italian.  The former DOES seem to make marginally more sense (in the larger context of not making any sense whatsoever, of course), but I don't know.  It pretty much amounts to the same thing either way.

In any case, one of the things I like about this story is the fact that it so stridently resists any kind of coherent ideological message.  Yes, the taxes that Scrooge and Gladstone levy on the city are bad and oppressive and everything, but lest one should take this as some sort of tea party advertisement, there's also the rather obvious fact that the previous no-tax system was self-evidently totally irresponsible and unworkable.  I certainly did my utmost to play up this confusion.  The nutty-ass ending (which we'll get to, of course!) just makes things more baffling.

(I'll note here that in calling him "John McDuck," I'm following the French--in reference, of course, to King John of England.  On a totally tangential note, I recently watched The Lion in Winter with Katherine Hepburn and Peter O'Toole, and man--you would think that a movie that consists of literally nothing but political maneuvering by not-terribly-likable long-dead English people would be deathly dull, but no--that shit is riveting.  Recommended.)

PLEASE NOTE the fact that I found and downloaded a license plate font JUST for that plate there (it's blank in the French version).  Pwn'd!


Note also how little sense HDL's archery-contest cheating plan makes.  Unless I'm missing some vital nuance here, for this to work you'd have to have the filament attached both to the arrow and to the target.  Not too easy to set up to use in an actual contest, one would think.  Also, if you've ever actually shot a bow, you know that those strings are hard to pull; they have to be for the arrows to have any power--meaning that I think the most likely result if you tried this in real life would be for the bow to just be ripped out of your hand.  But that's a minor thing.


The concept of "exile" is more or less meaningless in the world as it currently exists--where are you going to exile someone to, exactly?--but it's an extremely resonant thing in a fictional context.  Any number of RPGs use it to very good effect, and it's one of the things I like about this story as well: exile followed by triumphant return.


This seems to be a common thing in these Italian stories: Donald giving himself a new name by which to refer to himself in the third person.  We saw it in "Saturnin Farandoul,""Donald Fracas," here, and in another story I'm toying with translating. 


Isn't the above SO COOL?  The tension is palpable, and the way it cuts away at the last minute is just perfect.  Very cinematic.  When Scarpa was On, he could do some impressive shit.


Yes, giving Donald actual tea party rhetoric might have been a bit much, but it fits in thematically with the story, as it does with his general grandiose loud-mouthedness.


…and of course, a shout-out to Daisy in drag rescuing Donald from Gladstone.  It's always good when she gets to do something active like this.


Hmm.  Yes.  Here's by far the most radical change I made from the French version.  In the French, the message in its entirety read: "The mayor [actually "governor" in French, but that seemed wrong] is our prisoner.  If you want to see him alive, send us: 8,230 packets of chewing gum, 875 alarm clocks, 6,002 boxes of tomato mackerel, 2,070 cucumbers, 1,021 pairs of shoes, etc, signed, Beni-Beni, Chief of the Gnam-Gnam Tribe, Black Africa."  Now…I don't know about you, but this whole business strikes me as kind of incredibly racist.  Oh, those child-like Africans, with their crazy demands!  BAH.  I will have NONE of this.  Of course, I could've changed it to anything; since we never actually SEE the Africans, or the ransom items, it would've been no problem.  But, ya know…as much as I love Disney comics, I sure don't love the engrained attitudes you see in many of the older ones, so I decided, fuck it--I'm going to change it to something with an explicitly anti-racist message, and I'll grant you that it may feel a bit tonally off from the rest of the story, but I did it anyway.  It might cause people to accuse me of "political correctness," but I take comfort in the fact that I don't care even a tiny bit.

(is it necessary for me to specify that there's a substantial difference between saying "there's a racist thing in this Romano Scarpa story" and saying "Romano Scarpa was a racist," and that I am only saying the former of these two things?)


Anyway, here's the batshit ending.  "Wildly irresponsible" is my editorial comment, but aside from that, it's just like the French--actually, the French might make it slightly worse, since there the mayor specifies that it will never again be necessary to pay taxes.  The first question is: do we really believe that  "John" was really secretly a swell guy all along?  Does the story play fair by only featuring him behaving in ways that could be retroactively reinterpreted along those lines?


Um…


Nope!  Not even slightly.  And…really, now.  What is this ending saying?  It was bad for Scrooge to bleed the townspeople dry--except no, wait, it was actually good, because now our town is in good fiscal shape!  As I've probably noted before, I never quite know with Scarpa when he's doing crazy shit how intentional it is--but I sure get the impression here that it's very intentional, and he's just muddying the waters some more.


Which…does not ultimately make the ending as satisfying as one might wish, alas.  Still a good story, though, recommended to kids of all ages.

"From Egg to Duck" Re-ducks

$
0
0
So when I wrote about this well-known Marco Rota story, I wrote, among many other things:

I briefly considered editing the English dialogue into the panels, until I remembered that I suck at editing images and it would have taken fucking forever.

Hmm.  Well, that was three years ago, I still had my scans, and I sorta thought, notwithstanding its sizable flaws, this is a historically important story, and it ought to be in English.  It was a quick project, so you can download the results right here.  In that previous entry, I made a script available; I used a lot of that for the translation, with a number of awkward bits smoothed out or edited down for space ('cause I really didn't have much of a notion of what would fit in a single panel).

I basically stand by what I wrote about the story back then, although my self-important "hey, look at ME!  I read this in FRENCH!!!!11 Aren't I AMAZING?!?" tone could've done with some rethinking.  Geez, me-three-years-ago.  Get over yourself.  The scene in the bus remains utterly mystifying to me, and I think I understated at the time how unbelievably toxic the bit with Daisy is.  I also felt almost guilty translating this bit:


Ugh.  And HERE is a seriously WTF thing that I didn't even touch upon previously:


?!?!?!  

I mean, I get that the hilarious joke is that you think Scrooge'll give Donald a raise, but then he does the opposite, but in story terms, is there any way to read it other than "Scrooge wants HDL to starve to death?"  Good god, Rota.  UPDATE: As Unca Paspasu points out in comments, that's an egregious misreading on my part.  I think I botched the French in my original script and didn't re-check it when I did the translation.  Sloppy.  Actually, Scrooge in the first panel is finding out that he's RELATED to Donald, whatever that means.  It's such a weird non-sequitur that I apparently tried to tie it in with the HDL stuff just above.  It makes him seem marginally less sadistic, but it's still total nonsense.  At some point, I'll put out a revised version.

I briefly considered trying to smooth out some of the more egregious aspects of the story, but in the end, I decided, no--those aspects, for better or worse, are fundamental to what the story is. A warts-and-all presentation seemed warranted (And the thing that seems to bother a lot of people--Scrooge and Grandma being siblings--is not something I care about at all).

Still…in spite of everything else, I remain a total sucker for Rota's art, which causes me to like the story sort of against my will.  Anyway, now you can read it and make your own judgments.

Translations on the Side

$
0
0
As you will see if you take a look to your right, I've added a new page under "links," on which I have collected all my translations in one place for convenient access.  That is all.

"This Is Your Life, Donald Duck"

$
0
0
Well, so most people are at least aware of "From Egg to Duck," but how many people have THIS little number, from 1960, on their radar?



Maybe my perspective is distorted, but it seems like the answer is: not many.  This may have something to do with the fact that Marco Rota has exponentially more talent than Tony Strobl and Vic Lockman put together (sorry, guys, you know know I love you, but it's time to face hard truths); STILL--it's a biography of Donald, and therefore surely of some significance.  Let's take a look, shall we?


Man, the title just instantly dates the hell out of the story, doesn't it?  How many people who weren't there at the time are more than vaguely aware of This Is Your Life?  I only know about it to the extent that I do because it was featured on, I believe, an episode of This American Life some years back.  Still, at the time it must've seemed like an ideal format for the story to piggyback off of.  Indeed, the story gives you a good idea of what the original was like: there was a guest, and the host would go through their life with them, with the help of surprise guest appearances.  So, now we get this with Donald.  Fair enough, though my distaste for Jiminy Flippin' Cricket remains firmly in place.  It's interesting that both Lockman and Rota felt the need to include framing devices in their stories.


But first, we have to get Donald to the station, for which we need this bizarre Zorro shit.  Apparently.  This comic was published at the same time that Disney was doing their Zorro TV show and associated comics, so that's why this, I guess.  Hard to say whether Lockman was asked to include it, or did it of his own accord, however.


HA HA HA GRANDMA IS NEARSIGHTED.  Well…it's Lockman.  Fine characterization was never his strong suit.  

Also, "you looked more lifelike on TV"=something something simulacra.


Anyway, as in Rota's story, Grandma is raising him.  Also as in Rota's story, we see that he came from an egg.  Some find it unsatisfying that Rota's story elides the question of Donald's parentage, but at least it acknowledges that there's a question.  Lockman, for better or worse, just ignores it entirely.


The bit about Donald's infancy isn't that good, and there's a recurring motif of him smashing his head against things that's on the unappealing side.



On the other hand, if you don't mind the presence of Goofy and Mickey, this childhood part isn't bad.  One is actually strongly reminded here of how you'd expect Donald to behave in your old Taliaferro strips.

"Hee hee at the tree...it's not for me." Yup--that's Lockman all right.


And then we get to the high school section, which is easily the best thing in the story, even if the characters feel somewhat jarringly out-of-place in the milieu.


And then the take on phone-booth stuffing firmly dates the comic even further than it already was, but in a kind of entertaining way.


Strictly from Nothingville!  That cracks me up.


But what's good about this part is that you have Donald actually working and making progress and getting better.  We want to see him not just be a total failure all the time.


...although if anyone wants to tell me how this task wouldn't involve "luck," I'm all ears.  I'm sure we can all think of jillions of ways Gladstone could've won out here.


Still, it's an amusingly silly finale.  I'm tempted to say that this story would've been better off if it were just the high school stuff.  It stands alone fine, and the rest kind of pales in comparison.


Was I recently talking about artistic "borrowing" in Disney comics of the time, or what?  The next section features Gyro, and the whole thing, as you can see, is lifted straight from Barks' think-box ten-pager (the story glides over the question of how and when Donald obtained his nephews).  This somehow doesn't strike me as being quite as egregious as the "Seven Cities of Cibola" affair, just because the story doesn't seem like it's trying to be sneaky; it just grabs this stuff, and that's all there is to it.  Still pretty darned lame, though.  You feel like a biography of Donald ought to be something special, and here you're pissing away a substantial chunk of it on old material that doesn't shed any light on anything.  When Gladstone chose to reprint this story, they just replaced this segment with Barks' original, which, as much as I'm not a big fan of the borrowing, seems lamer to me.  Okay, obviously Barks' art is better, but A) the juxtaposition is jarring; and B) come on--if you're reprinting a rare story, reprint it--don't just replace bits of it with common material we can find any ol' place.  Hmph.


And again, like Rota, Lockman includes a Stardom segment, though there's not much to it.  That expression on Donald's face in the second panel there…


Followed by an ending that might remind one of "70th Heaven."  Look at all them characters--including the weirdly ubiquitous Bongo and Lumpjaw.  Seriously, does anyone these days ever think of Fun and Fancy Free, apart from (possibly) "Say it with a Slap?"  I have my doubts.  So they get to be here, but poor ol' Horace Horsecollar?  Nowhere to be seen.

I do give this story credit for actually featuring some "Donald's childhood material" (albeit of variable quality) where Rota just skips from infancy to adulthood.  Still, it really could've been so much more.  Get rid of the lame Barks swipe, maybe actually include a coherent narrative through-line, and you'd have something.  As it is, this is basically just a novelty, a few ups, not too many precipitous downs, but ultimately not much to remember.

Greetings from sunny Jakarta!

$
0
0
As a few of you may know from facebook, I'm an English teacher here starting this month.  It's quite an interesting city, with first- and third-world elements all jumbled up, sometimes right next to each other.

But...let's not lose sight of what's REALLY important here.  At a kiosk just down the road from my apartment, LOOK WHAT I FOUND OMG:


Not a bad deal for the equivalent of a little less than a buck and a half--five Egmont stories, three ten-twelve pagers and two four-pagers, along with miscellaneous kids' puzzles.  Also, a page of fan art by Indonesian children, which really gives you hope for the future.  Of course, one might well ask: do I actually READ any Bahasa?  And the answer is...no, not per se as such.  But I'm going to learn some!  And Disney comics will be a great learning aid.  Inducks is pretty shaky on Indonesian material; if you believed them, you might think that the country had ceased all publication sometime in early 2013.  But no, in addition to the DD title, there's also a US one, as well as a number of things where I'm not sure whether they're regular titles or specials.  But they're here!  I would index this issue, except I would have NO idea how to identify the stories.  Maybe I'll photograph some sample pages (no scanner over here) and see if anyone can help.

BUT ANYWAY.  What does my being over here mean for this blog?  Well, hopefully nothing too traumatic.  You're not likely to see much in the way of  translation work in the near future, since, alas, I had to leave all my comics (import and otherwise) back in the states (that was why the sudden burst of activity in that regard over the past three months--I DO have a few stories scanned and ready to work on if I ever get the time/inclination, however).  Still, I have a SHITLOAD of scanned American comics (I have a tablet device that I use to read them--works surprisingly well), so expect a lot of that--including more old non-Barks Western stuff than usual--in the near future.  Cheers.

"The Flying Farm Hand"

$
0
0
So I thought it was high time I read the handful of Carl Barks stories that I never have, and I figured if I was going to do that, I ought also to blog about them, since this will be my last chance to have first-reactions to Barks stories.  I've read all his art and story stuff, but there are some Grandma Duck's Farm Friends art-only material and a few Woodchucks scripts that I've yet to partake of.  Of course, you could question the notion that art-only stories really count as "Barks stories," but what the hell.  As I've noted previously, there's this totally erroneous tendency amongst some to think of art as secondary to writing, more of a side-issue than an intrinsic part of a story, but that is WRONG WRONG WRONG.  If we look, for instance, at the Lockman-penned Gyro stories I wrote about last Summer, we can easily see that, in spite of being Lockman's brain-children, they nonetheless have that unmistakable Barksian stamp.  

Now, see, I wrote the above paragraph before actually reading these GDFF stories.  And after doing so, I'm going to have to back off my initial plan to write about all of them---because they're just not that interesting.  Those Gyro stories were, by and large, legitimately intriguing, and I had things to say that made writing about them a more or less fruitful endeavor.  Probably because Gyro naturally lends himself to a kind of zaniness that, whether or not you like it, makes you sit up and take notice.  Whereas Grandma, not so much.  Art can only do so much, it turns out.  Some of these stories are vaguely entertaining, but they're mostly just insipid.  Not bad in an interesting way; hell, often as not not even bad, period. But my soul shrivels and dies at the thought of trying to say anything about them.  And I think the entries would be as tedious to read as they would be to write.  I am going to write about the Woodchucks stories which I (as of this writing still) haven't read, though.

Nonetheless, before reading on and abandoning this portion of my quest, I gamely attempted to write something about "The Flying Farm Hand."  A deathless classic of literary criticism it may not be, but here it is.


I have to tell you, I seriously considered having this entry consist of nothing but panels from the story interposed with me going "WHAT."  My work ethic, such as it is, prevailed, but I'm not sure if this story really deserves it.  I knew that Barks had drawn a story featuring Dumbo, but I had not 'til now had the pleasure.  If nothing else, I suppose it's interesting to see how he does when called upon to draw characters from other universes.  The answer is "pretty well," for all that may or may not be worth.  Crossover stories can be artistically fertile, but Occam's Razor suggests that they will much more likely be the product of desperation and flop sweat.  Dumbo, of course, didn't talk in the movie, but I suppose in the larger scheme of things his dialogue here is a pretty minor sin.  I do have to wonder if, while Barks was drawing this, he was thinking "this…is…so…stupid."

Here's the Official Duck Comics Revue Position On Dumbo: we like it.  We find it charming, and as far as nightmare fuel in Disney movies go, it's hard to beat "Pink Elephants on Parade."  We understand why the crows have become infamous; if nothing else, the movie did itself absolutely NO FAVORS by calling the leader "Jim Crow."  Even for the time, there was really no excuse for that.  Still--noting, as always, that I'm a white guy and would not want to denigrate any POCs' personal perceptions--I find them substantially less problematic than a whole lot of other Disney characters I could name.  Sure, they talk in dialect, but they're sympathetic, and they're clearly not stupid, so…well.  If we want something to really get upset about, I think we should look at the truly mind-boggling "Happy-Hearted Roustabouts," which is either truly vicious satire or truly amazing cluelessness.  I like to imagine that "Hairy Ape" is an intentional reference to the Eugene O'Neill play, but I have my doubts.

This story is sort of a retread of the movie, in that it involves Dumbo finding his place in the world, sort of, though why he would need to do that again--or, indeed, why he'd be willing to leave his lucrative circus career for farm work, of all things--is anyone's guess.


Yup, not only Dumbo, but Br'er Fox.  Again, a thing that is interesting mainly in theory.  Not clear why he wouldn't be able to get corn, though.  Scarecrows work to the extent that they do because they scare crows.  Since Br'er Fox isn't scared of him, what's the problem?  I guess because he'll go back and report on his evil doings?  Still, seems like an easily circumventable problem.

But just look at that scarecrow-throwing business.  It's possible that Barks just couldn't be arsed; then again, it's also very possible that no one could've made that look dynamic.


Imagine how weird it would've been if these had been the crows from the movie.  Could that have happened?  At what point did they become anathema?  Also: "it was home sweet home to them."  "You're wearing the home of the crows."  Sure, you get what Lockman's trying to say, but he sure is saying it in the most maladroit way possible.


TWO-FISTED ACTION!  Again, I think Barks had kind of an impossible job here.  


Well ain't that just dandy.  Makes you wonder how these non-anthropomorphic crows would interact with the movie crows.

Actually, to tell the truth, there's not really anything that particularly stands out about this story as notably offensive, once you get past the whole premise.  But I find it's just a dispiriting slog, very much unworthy of Barks' talent.  I suppose he needed/wanted some extra cash, and no doubt it was easy enough work, what with not having to come up with a story, but the results are not particularly ennobling.

"Only a Poor Old Man"

$
0
0
Good news, everyone!  Using Science, I have determined that the first-ever Uncle Scrooge adventure is a pretty good story!



What, you're not impressed by my penetrating insight?  JEEZ, you're impossible to please.  Sometimes I don't know why I bother; I really don't.


There's really no overstating the story's impact.  Most of this stuff isn't new, exactly: we had seen Scrooge bathing in money as far back as "Voodoo Hoodoo:"


We'd known for some time that he had piles of money lying around:


And of course, "The Big Bin on Killmotor Hill" established the bin itself:


Nor did the idea of Scrooge playing with his money come ex nihilo; in "The Big Bin" he is, if not swimming in it, at least kind of wallowing:


That's all neither here nor there, though.  Nothing can dull the impact of the way that all these disparate elements that had been brewing for the last few years just come together in "Poor Old Man," creating something potent and entirely new.  All changed, changed utterly: a terrible beauty is born.  Or something.  You get the really, really palpable sense that Barks was very conscious that he was responsible here for the start of a whole new line, and he wanted to do it right: really establish who the character was and what the stakes were.  And to go back to the swimming thing for a moment: that was just a brilliant innovation, for the way it lets us palpably feel Scrooge's physical pleasure in his money.  Obviously, you couldn't swim in money in real life, as the Beagles learn the hard way (and if you could, it would be really unhygienic), but it's really easy to imagine what it would feel like, isn't it?  Even though it wouldn't actually feel anything like that?  It's hard to identify with the travails of a centrifugillionaire, and Barks was very wise not to even try to make Scrooge anything like a normal rich guy and make us sympathize with him on normal-rich-guy terms.  It's a dynamic that many other writers could've stood to take to heart.


Surprisingly violent stuff, too: maybe I'm wrong--I don't know if that's meant to be some specific sort of fifties trap I'm not aware of--but Scrooge appears to have decapitated that poor rodent, right on-panel.  Maybe this is emblematic of the kind of artistic upheaval that the story represents.  Sacrifice must be made!


Now, this stuff may not be exactly subtle, but…it actually is kind of subtle of Barks not to go so far as to have the characters actually articulate the point here--pure showing-not-telling.  Also, let it be said that this is maybe my favorite aspect of Donald ever. You don't see it in too many stories (though this isn't the last time Barks would use it--see, eg, my little avatar to the right there), but I find the understated, amused irony just priceless. Donald contains multitudes; why shouldn't there be a little wisdom in there in addition to everything else?  So, so often--in Barks and elsewhere--Donald is just portrayed as jealous of Scrooge, and plotting to get money from him by means fair or foul.  And that's okay--there's certainly plenty of potential there--but here, we see a more complex and interesting dynamic to their relationship.  The thing is--as this story makes abundantly clear--Scrooge's money isn't actually money in any standard, economic sense (the fact that Barks keeps using made-up words to talk about how much of it he has may be a clue).  That being the case, it only makes sense that their relationship should not always proceed as though it were--as though arguing about it qua money actually made sense.  And besides, although this oft goes unrecognized, Scrooge really is a profoundly ambiguous character, and it's extremely useful for him to have someone else as a counterpoint--someone who doesn't just accept his weltanschauung as a given.  In stories where Donald is competing with Scrooge over money, there's a sense that while they may be in competition, they're both in general agreement over the rules of the game: more money equals better.  But while that's true for Scrooge (though, again, recognizing that "money" for him doesn't mean what it does for a normal person), it's just not for Donald, even if he sometimes thinks otherwise.  That's something that's easy to lose track of.

Since Scrooge's salient characteristic--miserliness--is, in itself, so simple, it's easy to just caricature him.  Even the most talented writers have done it.  But situating this miserliness as nothing more than "people squabbling over money?" Mmm…I dunno.  If that's all you're going for, you might as well just watch any reality TV show ever.  No reason we shouldn't expect more from our ducks, who are, after all, Mythic.


It goes without saying that this story is the entire backbone of Rosa's Life & Times. Honestly, between this and "Back to the Klondike," you have pretty much the whole thing, minus a bit here and there (okay, better add "The Fantastic River Race").  Still, in all fairness, it has to be admitted…as much as we enjoy Rosa's work, "Poor Old Man" reeeeeally doesn't support his notion that Scrooge didn't begin accumulating his fortune until his Klondike days.


Does anyone honestly think we can reasonably append "…and then, I gave up all that copper money" here?  'Course, I'm not trying to say that this matters or anything.  That's one of the main things about myths: there are all kinds of variations on them.

And, of course, although Barks and everyone else constantly contradict that "every bit of money means something" thing, it's still a very powerful concept, and it really drives home the notion--if we hadn't gotten it already--that the importance of Scrooge's fortune has nothing to do with spending power.


Now let me say this: it seems to be pretty much universally accepted that "thirty cents an hour" is meant to represent "extreme cheapness." Only…I realized as I was rereading this story that I'm really not convinced that's true, or at least entirely true, here.  Yes, thirty cents an hour is kind of cheap.  The minimum wage in 1952 (the internet tells me) was seventy-five cents an hour.  But Donald and the kids certainly don't act as though they think they're being exploited (there's never any indication that they wouldn't be helping him even if they weren't being paid--Scrooge offers to compensate them of his own accord), and we had just seen Scrooge articulating his now-famous "and I made it square" mantra.  I think Barks is trying to square the circle, a bit--to make Scrooge seem cheap, but not (even if it goes against his instincts) unfairly cheap.

And that is what I have to say about that.


Did I mention how much I love Donald in this story?  Well, let me mention it again.  "Sounds like great stuff!" truly brings me an incalculable amount of glee.


More violence.  The Beagle Boys blowing up fish?  That seems pretty inhumane even by their standards.  It's worth noting that these guys are no pushovers in this story.  They don't lose because they're incompetent.  They're damned competent; they only lose because Scrooge is just that slightest bit more so.  That's something that Rosa and others have gotten a bit wrong over the years.  A mythic hero demands mythic enemies.  You don't want Hector to die because he trips and falls on Achilles' sword, dammit.  Actually, you probably don't want Hector to die period, but you know what I mean.  Your hero will not seem very impressive if he doesn't have villains to match.  That was one of things that annoyed me about "Terror of the Transvaal."


See?  Incompetents would probably not have been able to--apparently at will!--just stick a story in the paper and have it look official.


Okay, so there was never any chance that Scrooge would lose here.  Nonetheless: another impressive aspect of the story is the way Barks limns his hero's mortality.  It's right there in the title, of course, and here again: the terrifying acknowledgement that Scrooge is old and could very easily simply be worn out.  Of course, Confronting One's Own Mortality isn't exactly a jolly topic for the kids, and it has to be handled with a light touch.  Still, I think recognizing and to one extent or another acknowledging the idea that Scrooge Is Old And He Could Die lends--not to keep pounding this button--a real mythic quality to the proceedings.  In his essay on "Horsing Around with History," Geoffrey Blum quotes several times from Tennyson's "Ulysses," which I think is highly appropriate, and not just as a gloss on the nonagenerian Barks.


And I guess I would be remiss if I didn't make note of what may well be Barks' most impressive image ever? It may not be my favorite--not in a world with dueling steamshovels--but it's a helluva thing, no question.


I MEAN JEEZ--the progression here--Scrooge walking into the sunset, mourning lost time, and then having a sudden internal revelation and regaining his resolve without articulating as such--is just dazzling.  How the HELL could Barks be that good?  How could ANYONE?


And truly, Scrooge's non-explanation for his money-swimming ability is one of the funniest things there is.


Look at Donald kicking Scrooge there, and with no consequences whatsoever: how often do we see anything like that happen?  This goes back to what I was talking about regarding Scrooge's money not really being "money" in a literal sense: there's this unspoken idea in many if not most later stories that, because Scrooge has more money than Donald, he's more powerful, and thus can end things by chasing him away with his cane.  Here, we see a picture more realistic and more in keeping with the nature of the character.  And I suppose I don't even need to mention how much I love love love the way that both Donald and Scrooge are one hundred percent correct in their assessments.

Donald's right: Scrooge's whole character is fundamentally absurd, and the problems in which he embroils his nephews are really irritating for no easily justifiable reason.  And yet…there's a deeper level on which Donald and HDL are simply unable to understand their uncle.

Scrooge is right: his money-related frolicking does bring him a kind of joy his nephews can't understand.  And yet…there's still the sense that he's living in the past, and in spite of having family who love him in their own grudging way, he still experiences a kind of isolation that Donald never does (it's not irrelevant that he alone occupies those last five panels, and that stunned expression on his face in the fourth panel is in reaction to something real).  And this character was expected to appeal primarily to kids. Can you imagine?

This, mes amis, is genius.

There lies the port; the vessel puffs her sail:
There gloom the dark, broad seas. My mariners,
Souls that have toil'd, and wrought, and thought with me—
That ever with a frolic welcome took
The thunder and the sunshine, and opposed
Free hearts, free foreheads—you and I are old;
Old age hath yet his honour and his toil;
Death closes all: but something ere the end,
Some work of noble note, may yet be done,
Not unbecoming men that strove with Gods.
The lights begin to twinkle from the rocks:
The long day wanes: the slow moon climbs: the deep
Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends,
'T is not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down:
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho'
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

"Back to the Klondike"

$
0
0
You know how the sequel's never quite as good as the original?  Sure, it might still be okay, but there's just not going to be the same spark of originality in…hmm?  Oh, no, I'm not talking about "Back to the Klondike;" it's great.  I refer, of course, to this blog entry.  But, let us give it a go nonetheless.

I had never previously read Barks' Scrooge stories (or any artist's ANYTHING stories) in chronological order.  I really don't think I'm going to want to write about every one of them, but it really is kind of fascinating to see how the character and the narratives surrounding him evolved in the early going.  

On facebook, Thad Komorowski (frequent Gemstone letters-page habitué, among other things) disputed my claim in the previous entry that "you get the really, really palpable sense that Barks was very conscious that he was responsible here for the start of a whole new line," and after reflection, I think he has a point.  "Only a Poor Old Man" is pretty atypical in the context of most of Barks' Scrooge stories.  The plot is relatively sedentary, and there's a lot more overt attention given to character than in most later efforts.  Surely on some level he must have known that he would be called upon to write more about the character: whether or not he'd've been cocky enough to admit it, he can hardly have failed to realize that he was miles above his fellow Disney artists, and given that even subpar material was enough to keep many a line chugging merrily along for years…well.  Still, when you think about it, "Poor Old Man" really does read well as a kind of one-and-done thing.  It's self-contained in a way that doesn't really suggest ways future stories.

On the other hand, when you think about it in these terms, it becomes really, really obvious that "Back to the Klondike" is very much a transitional story.  On the one hand, it feels something like a companion piece to "Poor Old Man:" both are concerned with Scrooge's history and what makes him tick in ways that Barks would only very intermittently explore, and never in any great depth, in stories to come.  


On the other hand, "Klondike" clearly suggests a formula for stories that "Man" didn't do.  In later efforts--by Barks and others--Scrooge's tendency to abruptly dragoon his nephews to go off to far-flung places would become such a standard trope that the joke would be their blasé attitude to this happening yet again--a necessary development, no doubt, so as to justify these sorts of plots.  But here, we see an initial recognition on Barks' part that this whole notion that Scrooge could just do this was kind of weird, and thus the joke is the left-field nature of Scrooge's sudden, apparently arbitrary request.


Another thing this story has in common with "Man" is that Scrooge's mental processes remain in large part opaque.  Sure, there's the whole "he's a swell guy after all!" ending, but exactly how he thinks about Goldie--and how she stacks up in his mental priority list against his money--both remain somewhat at least a little obscure.  As we'll see later on, there's a good reason for his moments of rapaciousness here, but to what extent is he actually making this trip to collect a debt, and to what extent is that just a flimsy excuse?  I certainly think he's convinced himself to a very large extent that it's entirely the latter.  Still, I think the ambiguity is intentional and well-done. 

Now, it has to be admitted: "Back to the Klondike" is substantially less thematically dense than its predecessor.  That's not a bad thing!  It's very difficult for me to imagine how the series could possibly have been sustainable if every story had to be as much of a character study as the debut was.

(Well, I thought it was less dense when I started writing, but now that this entry has turned out to be substantially longer than that last one, I'm not sure.  You be the judge.)


This is amusing: the fact that here Scrooge evidently doesn't even know how much money he has contradicts the "every bit means something" business right out of the gate.  Another thing: ever noticed how, when fetishizing specific bits of money, it's always coins, and never paper money?  "Every coin has a story," Scrooge says in "Poor Old Man."  Which, practically speaking, makes sense: coins have more solidity to them, and if we're being ruthlessly realistic here, we have to recognize that really old bills--especially with a dude swimming in them every day--are going to be reduced to tatters.  If Scrooge's money represents his living to a large degree in the past, the nature of paper money kind of undermines that.  Which could actually be a very interesting symbolic way of representing the different aspects of his character--the way, in spite of living in the past, he is driven to strive onwards--but as far as I know, no one's ever made use of this idea.  If this post inspires you to do so, I want co-author credit, dammit!


I want to make note of something which is obvious to anyone who looks, but which seems to generally go unremarked.  You see things like the above (definitely a funny joke!), and you realize, man--Don Rosa's portrayal of Donald in long adventure stories is completely non-Barksian.  Not that that's any kind of sin--interpretations vary and wouldn't it be boring if they didn't--but given that he was explicitly trying to build on the Barks aesthetic, it's kind of bizarre.  Donald does not come in for any special abuse in Barks' adventure stories--certainly no more than Scrooge himself does.  And as we see, he can be assertive and clash with Scrooge and sometimes even get his way.  I can only think that Rosa conflated the ten-pager Donald--who is subject to a lot more comic mayhem--with the adventure Donald.  So I guess in that sense it's Barksian, but transposing these two versions of the character really creates a completely different dynamic, not always to the stories' benefits.


Of course, how could we talk about this story without making note of the four-ish pages that Western, in their infinite wisdom, cut?  But I have to tell you something: I actually really do not blame them for excising this stuff.  Obviously, it would have been a huge shame if it had been lost, but really now: Western was very clear about the fact that they were publishing comics for children.  If occasionally someone was able to transcend that, bully for them, but they certainly weren't in the business of publishing l'art pour l'art, and it is wholly understandable that this Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down stuff was not going to fly.


Seriously, now: I feel as though it doesn't really strike us as such because it's so familiar, but this shit is kinky.  It is no coincidence that it was the inspiration for Rosa's last story, which in some countries has been retitled "Scrooge Gets Laid," or at least that's a rumor I'm trying to start.  For all that publishers can be really conservative, it's notable the things you can get away with these days that you couldn't back then.  The censorship of "Trick or Treat" was nothing but a petty editorial assertion of power, but this--eh, I'm okay with it, given that the full story is now widely available.  Besides, if the cut hadn't been made, we would not have a dopey but funny short in which Donald tricks Scrooge into converting his money to fish.  And I don't know about you, but I sure don't want to live in that world.


I'm actually a little ambivalent about these depictions of young Scrooge as this violent badass.  On the one hand, they're certainly interesting, as they show him in a light that we really don't see anywhere else in Barks.  And that's undeniably a nice-looking image up there.  On the other hand, it seems pretty clear to me that Barks was still developing the character, deciding which roads to take, when he drew this, and to me, it honestly looks a little bit jarring.  I cannot honestly argue very strongly against anyone who believe that, yes, this background is what informs the character's later exploits, but I dunno…maybe my perception is partially colored by the fact that I've never been a huge fan of the more over-the-top violence that Rosa's Young Scrooge inflicts.  Well, never mind.

One thing I do like is how Barks consistently keeps this romantic tension totally under the surface, to the extent that one isn't entirely sure there's anything there at all.  Of course, this may in part have just been down to concerns about the sort of material he was allowed to include in a story (and whaddaya know, look what happened, even as it stands!), but the lack of sentimentality perfectly fits the character.  I would posit--maybe possibly--that the central problem Scrooge runs into here is that his psyche is attuned in such a way that his relationship with the past is mediated entirely by money--stuff.  Every coin has its own story etc.  But then here we have Goldie, this total anomaly.  He sort of tries to fit her into this schema by forcing her to dig for gold--ie, making her instrumental in the acquisition of money--but, obviously, this does not work, because she's an actual person who doesn't just blankly reflect his history.  She has, like, agency and stuff.  And as we see…well, I'll return to this topic anon.


Why did Barks reduce the going rate for Donald's and HDL's services for just this one story?  It is a mystery!  But he changed it back immediately after, indicating that he really was concerned with consistency.  I don't know whether my previous hypothesis--that he may have gone with that particular thirty-cents-an-hour figure because it was cheap but not too cheap--has any validity, but it so, well, here's a small bit of evidence.  Maybe.


And I must just say--the above is definitely one of the grossest images ever seen in a Barks story.  Yeah.  Perfect mosquito rugs!  Pretty perfect all right.  For sale on Etsy!  That "CRUSH!" Gah.


It's certainly worth noting that this is unique in the whole of the Barksiverse.  Sure, we see some comedy-infatuations (in "Trick or Treat," eg), and there's Donald's generally reductive, cartoony relationship with Daisy, but attraction that's supposed to actually point to something real--that is what's new.  Did I say "unique?"  I tell a lie, of course; there's also "Old California," though in that story the romance was between one-shot secondary characters.

Of course, the obvious thing this does is emphasize the general maleness (or maybe I should say "boyishness") of Barks' world.  Things like romance are not to be seriously considered, and even finding a decent female character of any sort is difficult.  So, of course, this stands out (like the sadly under-appreciated Ducky Bird in "Mystery of the Ghost Town Railroad").  Probably he felt liberated to do a love story of sorts like this because Scrooge was still a relatively new and undefined character.  This is such an obvious observation that I'm sure I've made it before, and if not no doubt Geoffrey Blum or someone has, but Scrooge is actually positioned as a character with a past, whose mental make-up is the result of actual forces, whereas Donald & Co are timeless; they've always been what they are and there's not even the bare implication that they'll ever be anything else.  Therefore, it wasn't totally infeasible to do something like this.  Similar thing with Panchita and Rolando in that other story.

But, of course, feasible or not, Scrooge sure isn't good at it--and nor, obviously, is Goldie, although I feel that an unavoidable problem here is that we really don't get enough of a grasp on her to really understand where she's coming from.  Look at them there--they look ridiculous, septuagenarians acting like nervous high school kids on their way to their first prom!  But, of course, that's the point.  Or at least, you can argue that it's the point and have more of a case than you could with a lot of cartoony romance things like this.  As I noted earlier: Scrooge doesn't know how to deal with this.  He's starting from square one here.  If he's acting far younger than his age, it's because, for all intents and purposes, he is, when it comes to romance.  He doesn't have anything to build on, because his entire life has revolved around money, so he's reduced to this absurdly awkward, gawky behavior.  It is clearly uncomfortable as hell for him, which is why it's such a relief to just be able to explode in anger, even if, objectively, the justification for that anger is pretty weak.  I like Donald widely grinning in the background there.  As immature as he often is about affaires de coeurs, he's definitely got one over on his uncle in that regard.

I also very much appreciate that Barks' refusal to romanticize extend to Goldie herself.  She's bony--sort of alarmingly so, actually.  She's a person, and she's aged like a person.  I think the Rosa argument--that the reason she's so much more, ah, filled out in his stories is that she's been leading a more comfortable life--is perfectly reasonable as far as it goes, but…well, Rosa is undeniably more conventional in this regard.  I really don't mean this as crassly as it may sound, but he wants his hero to have a hot girlfriend.  This is not a concern that Barks has.


I also appreciate the ending.  Maybe I'd like it even better if the nature of Scrooge's actions weren't spelt out quite so obviously--that final line has always seemed a little awkward and abrupt to me--but I like the fact that after all is said and done, our heroes just…leave.  Of course, the notion of introducing Goldie as a regular would never have flown, and for that we can be grateful, as it would have totally destroyed the characters' dynamic--not that Barks would ever have been comfortable with doing something like that anyway.  Still, as much as I enjoy Rosa's interpretations (I really do, dammit!), I think that, regardless of whether or not it had to be this way, the emotional logic really works.  Scrooge and Goldie may or may not have had a brief thing fifty-odd years ago…and that was fifty-odd years ago.  So he comes back, makes restitution for what he perceives (probably fairly dimly) as wrong that he did to her in the past, and…that's that.  Is the fact that it doesn't go any further than that on some level tragic?  Well, yeah, probably, but only to the extent that there's a tragic element to his character in general.  Maybe if his mindset weren't so totally money-centered, things could be different.  Still, these things happen, you know?  It's not the end of the world, and I think that we can read him as having achieved peace here in the way and to the extent that he can.

Happy belated birthday, Donald Duck!

$
0
0
Yeah, okay, so I missed it.  I must confess, I honestly wouldn't have known about it if not for a few people posting on facebook and a new comment on the last post.  I WISH I had something ready, but...I don't.  I've been very preoccupied lately, and it just wasn't happening.  Of course, the Donald of "The Wise Little Hen" has precious little to do with the character as we know him; certainly less than the Mickey of "Plane Crazy" and "Steamboat Willy" does with his modern counterpart.  BUT THAT'S NO EXCUSE, DAMMIT.  Big congratulations to my favorite fictional character ever.  I only wish there was a publisher in the states to officially commemorate the occasion.  Just imagine: twenty years ago, Gladstone celebrated his sixtieth in spectacular fashion with a special issue which included both "The Secret of Mars" AND "The Duck Who Never Was." Now?  Crickets.  You're goddamn right those were the days.

The Horseradish Story

$
0
0
THE GREAT UNANSWERED QUESTION: How come this is the one Barks story that has never received a semi-official NAME in the US?  This is a very strange bit of trivia.  I suppose it was felt that there was a certain charm to just calling it "The Horseradish Story," but still.  Of course, since we all call it that, there's no real reason we CAN'T think of it as the semi-official title, but YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.  It does not position itself as a "title," just as a marker that refers to the story.  Stupid things!  Be less idiosyncratic!

This was the oldest story in my dad's collection, though of course I didn't know that at the time.  It certainly shows that Barks was able to get into the swing of things quickly enough--it stands out from the overall oeuvre much less than "Only a Poor Old Man" and "Back to the Klondike" do--though it does have a level of inspiration and freshness that mark it as written by a man stretching his wings and figuring out what he could do in this new field, so different from the Donald adventures he had previously been working on.


Don Rosa is the only other artist who even tries to create the kind of verisimilitude that that splash panel does.  You may find exceptions to that blanket statement, but they are few and far between.  It's impressive, as is the way that the story just dives the fuck into the action right away.  No dicking around.


One really great thing here, I think, is this "small print" business (duck comics were certainly the first place where I came upon the concept that contracts could be used to trick people).


So ol' Seafoam fell for the trick, BUT LOOK--his descendent does have his glasses, and is not so easily bamboozled!  McDucks are sharper than they used to be.


Ha--or so you would think, but then you get this really brilliant business where the kids do essentially the same thing to him, and he falls for it hook line and sinker.  He may be annoyed about it, but he doesn't suspect a thing as he signs it.  Looks like, in spite of everything, the McDucks are as fallible as they'e always been.


Scrooge is lucky, though, even if he doesn't know it.  When he gets fooled, it isn't by his enemies; it's just by his family members, who only want their perfectly reasonable and legitimate wages.  I think this is really, really good--Scrooge is much less appealing if he always come out completely on top.  He needs things like this to create some balance and make him sympathetic.

Incidentally, if it's actually two hundred twenty-six dollars, we can't be talking about an even number of hours--the math doesn't work out.  Still, it's approximately seven hundred fifty-three--which doesn't really work out, since if they were working for thirty days, it would only be seven hundred twenty hours, and they would be earning only two hundred sixteen dollars--though this, of course, is assuming that that's how the pricing works, and that they're not each getting paid thirty cents an hour for something less than twenty-four hours a day, presumably subtracting sleeping, meal time, and other miscellaneous breaks.  In that case, everything's completely messed up.  Dammit, someone better at math than me needs to figure out exactly what's going on here.  THIS IS IMPORTANT, PEOPLE.

Finally, I'd like to note that I totally feel Scrooge's pain here.  There's this wide misconception that horseradish is a food, when actually it's a chemical weapon.  Same with wasabi.  It's truly alarming that people willingly consume these things.


Don't you always wonder what the heck HAPPENED to ol' Seafoam?  He just disappears, never to be seen more.  Very mysterious.  But, it's all part of the economy of storytelling: he was no longer relevant, so away he went.


Did I learn what a "fathom" was from this story back in the day?  I sure did!  I think this is the kind of Scrooge-chasing-Donald-with-a-cane action that I can deal with: it punctuates the action in a comic way without seeming distractingly heavy-handed or abusive.  TAKE NOTE.  I still have no idea why Donald would've thought a fathom was equal to an inch, though, or why Scrooge seems to imply that this misconception is common amongst land-dwellers.  It looks to me like something of a non-joke.


Probably in a later story, Barks would've had the kids make this deduction.  Rosa woulda done it like that from day one.  But I for one am glad that Donald gets to do the honors.  It just makes him a more dynamic character when he gets to do smart stuff like this on occasion.  I think it's unfortunate, though inevitable, the way characters get forced into roles and then have a hard time emerging from them.



Let's just take a minute to appreciate the changing weather.  One rarely gets this sense of passing time and associated drama.  Just look at that dialogue there between Donald and Scrooge.  It just snaps.  And "a roaring pinwheel of flailing storms" may be, let's say, not the most coherent way to characterize a hurricane, but it sure stays with you, dunnit?


Once again, this is VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS: can anyone find some kind of source for "horseradish" being use as a slang term meaning "nonsense" or similar?  It must come from SOMEWHERE, mustn't it?  But the internet sure doesn't seem to know where.  It's always seemed so weird to me, the way the announcer laughs at his own weird pseudo-joke.  Who IS this guy?


…and seriously, is McSue the most evil villain in all of Barks?  I say yes (you say no but you will change your mind).  Sure, there have been villains who were gleeful about their villainy, and ones who tried earnestly to murder the ducks, but have we seen any who combined all that with trying to murder their partners?  Not so sure about that one.  Point is, he's great, and by comparison, he makes that lame Ducktales adaptation seem even worse.


So pretty normal story, right, albeit extraordinarily well-executed?  Well, yeah, but then you come to this bit, and if that's not the most profoundly self-revealing statement Scrooge has ever made, I don't know what is.  Not "I'm too stubborn to give up."  "I just haven't the strength to give up."  And why doesn't he have that strength?  It doesn't take a lot of extrapolating to conclude that it's because the entirety of his sense of self is wrapped up in his fortune; letting go of it--in a Buddhist sort of way--is the one thing that, for all his strength and smarts, is beyond him.  It further follows that his endless questing after MORE TREASURE is his way of staying alive: without the constant acquisition, what is he?  Nothing (this also accords well with the character as Rosa depicts him in "The Richest Duck in the World").  Okay, so admittedly, none of this is anything any of us haven't likely already figured out about the character, but to see it presented so starkly, and from the horse's mouth--irrefutable proof that, on some level, Scrooge knows this about himself?  That's really something else.  And that expression on his face really helps to emphasize the fact that he does. All this went right by most of the story's original intended audience, I'd wager.


I think this works because it's so understated: Donald just being decent because that's what he has to do: no elaborate explanations of why this is; just the understanding that everyone knows that he has to save McSue because this is just what you do--which, of course, is also the answer to Scrooge's rhetorical "why?" as Scrooge himself well knows.  I daresay his last line on the top there overdoes things a bit--personally, I'd just leave it at "oh, phooey!" and leave the rest to the reader--but it's still very good.  I keep thinking of how clumsily, by contrast, Romano Scarpa handles Ethical Dilemmas in the likes of "The Lentils from Babylon" and--shudder--"The Last Balaboo."  BARKS FTW.


My other favorite thing in the story: this part.  Nowhere else do we see the Duck family acting of one accord in this way; I know it's partially just that I'm a big ol' sentimentalist, but the solidarity always makes me smile--and it doesn't hurt that Donald's line there is so damn badass.  You've also really got to appreciate the art in the bottom left--in spite of the characters appearing in the distance in silhouette, it's still easy to discern which ones are which and see what they're each doing.  That's the kind of care that not just any artist would lavish on a story.


…which brings us, at any rate, back to the end.  Granted, it's only a page and a half between McSue kicking the box overboard and HDL's reveal, but at this conflict is sufficiently well-defined, with such a sense of consequence and gravity to it, that it really feels like an amazing bit of unexpected salvation after all had seemed lost.  That's the thing, really: I like almost all of Barks' Scrooge adventures, but as we move later and later into his career, fewer and fewer of them can muster this sense of something really, really important being at stake.  The Horseradish Story, while more "conventional" than its predecessors, maintains this feeling of urgency, and thus serves as a good transitional work and one of Barks' best.

Quick! To the Someone-Is-Wrong-On-The-Internet Signal!

$
0
0
Yeah yeah, insert appropriate meta-commentary about the pettiness of a post like this here.  But it ANNOYS me, and I feel the need to share my irritation.

So someone just left a comment on my "Prisoner of White Agony Creek" post saying, simply, "I disagree."  Very cryptic.  You disagree that it was Rosa's last story?  You disagree that there are too many historical figures dragged in?  What's going on here?  Fortunately (?), she also left a link so you can SEE what she disagrees with, which disagreement she makes via an incredibly forced interpretation consisting of two basic parts: 1)I don't want that to have happened; 2) sex is dirty.  I think the most irritating thing is this business of treating the story as though the relevant plot point is--beyond side-issues and minutae--open to debate.  MY GOODNESS.  It reminds me of my brother's ex-girlfriend's vehement insistence that Scar does NOT die at the end of The Lion King!  You never SEE him die (I'm not sure whether the idea was that he fought off the hyenas or that they became pals, but either way…)!  Or else fanfiction about how at the end of Cowboy Bebop, Spike…well, I suppose even for an old show, that's spoiler territory.  But you know what I mean if you know the show.

Now, you might say: "Jeez, what's the big deal?  Okay, so someone's wrong, but who cares?  If making up their own version of events allows them to enjoy the story in a way that they wouldn't have been otherwise, then so be it.  It's not like they're actually changing it.  Besides, if asked to comment, Rosa himself would no doubt give his usual non-committal 'it's up to readers' interpretations' answer, and sure he HAS to say that, inasmuch as these are putatively kids' stories, but there's a kernel of truth there.  He KNEW he was pushing the envelope with this story, so it's just fair play if someone wants to push back."  To which I say: man, you sure are long-winged, Mr. or Ms. Hypothetical Interlocutor.  

But really: it's true, of course, that by any objective metric, this issue really is no big deal.  But gosh, this thing where people are unable to appreciate a text if they don't consider it Ideologically Acceptable is just dismaying.  I suppose better to misinterpret it than just throw it out, but you're sure not fully appreciating it if you feel compelled to do this round-peg-in-square-hold stuff.  It also bothers me because sexual morality really is a thing, but a lot of people think it's not specifically because the predominant version of it in American culture is the dispiritingly stunted, myopic one that you see in this person's argument (the way she keeps putting "making love" in quotes is especially telling, and a little bit heartbreaking), and that leads to all KINDS of problems.

The world's biggest WHAT? Never mind that; there are DUCKS to peruse!

Viewing all 278 articles
Browse latest View live