Mickey Dailies and Carl Barks, Frank Stajano, Leonardo Gori

[Donald D. Ault]

Re: details of the ORIGINAL print run of the complete 1930-1955 Gottfredson
strips.

I've requested and received two extensive emails (one in 1999 and another a
couple of days ago) from Byron Erickson, who, as the one who actually
produced them, is the only person who knows all the facts about the
publication and circulation history of the very first, large format,
hardback edition of the Gottfredson Mickey Mouse strip collection. The facts
I received from him do not coincide with much of the information recently
posted in the "official" history of the original production. I've asked him
for permission to post a full account of the process, which I've edited from
his emails, but he hasn't had time to approve my editorial version yet. I
AM, however, posting below two facts that need to be made clear--regarding
the NUMBER of original first-generation copies printed and the SIZE of the
original production copies.

Here are Erickson's own words:

"The total print run was 22. Or make that 23 -- I let a financially indigent
friend root through the waste pile and assemble a complete set out of the
castoffs."

"Again, 20 bound sets, 2 unbound 'quality' sets, and one unbound 'trash'
set."

"The SIZE of the pages, though, is NOT A4 -- it's 10 X 14 inches, which
might sound strange today, but in the late 70s it was a 'standard' copy
machine size, and perfect for the Gottfredson strips which were reproduced
three a page (except for the first year or two, when the strips where
taller, so only two could fit on a page)."

Regarding the Stajano/Gori interview as it appeared in Carl Barks:
Conversations:

Frank Stajano sent me the ORIGINAL questions and answers in English, from
which I edited the version that appears in the Conversations book. As far as
I know, it was NOT a back-translation from Italian but a transcription of
the original mailed questions and answers (see below). Also, I had promised
Frank and Leonardo that I would clearly indicate that I had cut out some of
the questions and answers dealing primarily with Gottfredson (for the book's
word length requirements), and I took a few liberties with rephrasing some
of the questions for concision. Somehow, in the rush to get the book to
press to meet the deadline, I failed to make sure to include these important
pieces of information about the differences between the two published
versions of the interview. I can find no record (and I keep good records)
that I did, in fact, request that this information be inserted in the head
note. I apologize to Frank, Leonardo, and all readers of the book for this
glitch on my part. I would never have noticed it if Daniel had not raised
the question on the list. I thought this information was in the head note to
the interview in the book, and I was quite surprised to find it wasn't,
which sent me back to my electronic files to see whose fault it was.
Apparently it was MINE.

There were enormous quantities of small details like this that slipped by me
because I had no help with the proofreading and other pre-production aspects
of the book (as is always the case, the clean appearance of the published
book makes all the background struggle disappear).

Also, Frank could not remember the precise dates, in part because neither
Frank not Leonardo was physically present at the "interview," which was
conducted by mail. Here is part of the exchange Frank Stajano and I had back
in June 2002:

> >
> > The interview was definitely done in 1998. I won't be able to give you
an
> > exact DAY because I wasn't even there: I sent off the questions and some
> > time later I got the answers back. It must have been mid-1998, say
between
> > May and July. I can probably find out at least the month once I'm back
at
> > home. The book was published in November.
> >
>
>Is it accurate to say that the interview was conducted by mail or by fax
>rather than in person?

Yes. Answers went in by email and came back by postal mail (through Gerry
[Tank]
in both cases).

>  I take it that neither you nor Leonardo were present
>at the interview?

Correct.

Again--I had planned to include this information, but I believe the press
decided not to confuse the issue by indicating these things, though I guess
that decision was made on the phone rather than by email because I can find
no record of it. Again I apologize for any confusion or historical
misrepresentation that may have arisen from these omissions.

Donald Ault
Professor of English
University of Florida
ault at ufl.edu
http://www.nwe.ufl.edu/~donault/