Disney-comics digest #123.

[David A Gerstein]

	Mark Semich quotes a Gladstone lettercol:

	["Scepter of Doom" in US 267] "...was credited to... Barks, and
still generates letters from confused readers.  In fact, the story is
a foreign tale written by Lars Enocksen and Unn Print-Pahlson, and
drawn by Vicar..."

	Looks like that lettercol had its own miscredit in it.  That
should be Unn Prinz-Pahlson... a "z" at the end of the first name, not
a "t".

	On Eliot's Dark Prince book:

	[Note:  I am not trying to insult Mark Semich by the following
very harsh criticism for Eliot...  it's about that book, not he who
posted comments about it to the list.]

	The comments W. D. made about Mickey and Donald... remember
that this is about the *cartoon* versions of the characters.  I find
that with the single exception of the 1941 "Little Whirlwind" I have
no memorable feelings about Mickey in any post-1936 cartoons
(including the celebrated "Brave Little Tailor").  In the former
cartoon Mickey looks and acts exactly as Gottfredson interpreted him
at the time and holds the screen for all eight minutes of the film...
for the only time in the 1940s.  Mickey essentially behaves as he
hadn't since about 1932 on-screen.  And it would never happen again,
either.  A real shame, for "The Little Whirlwind" is what Disney's
studio should have been doing with Mickey all along.  Instead, the
bland later film Mickey is exactly as Walt described him.

	And as for Donald, the screen version that Disney refers to
doesn't have the depth he's given here.  He's just a rather stupid
bully who has raging fits that make him look like an idiot.  The only
real exceptions are the later cartoons that Barks worked on, but these
aren't "dark" either:  Donald merely acts more like he was to act in
the Barks ten-pagers to come.  (And when Barks left the studio, Donald
regressed again.)  Please give Mickey more of a chance than this...

	As for Eliot in general (I've read the book):

	He is loaded with misinformation.  I know very well that
a lot of his comments about Walt Disney are true, but this portion of
the facts was made much clearer in the earlier book by Leonard Mosley
"Disney's World".  Unfortunately, that book *also* had many errors in
it -- albeit not as much as this recent travesty.  Eliot has the fault
of assuming that anything bad said about W. D. must be true...
including the concept that he was actually mothered by a South American
prostitute, or something like that (I forget).

	Eliot is also misinformed about the comics.  He presents a
panel from Gottfredson's 1940 "Bar-None Ranch" story and, because it
has two crossed musical notes that look vaguely like a swastika, Eliot
assumes that no one but active fascist Walt Disney could have done it,
and that hence Walt must have made the strip in question.  Eliot 
doesn't mention any comic strips other than this one, or mention Barks or
Gottfredson in the book... well, maybe he mentions Gottfredson *once*
somewhere, but if he does I haven't seen the reference.

	I am reminded of a review I read when the book was published:
"Every year someone writes a biography of either Walt Disney or Adolf
Hitler.  And as the years roll by, more and more begin to roll the two
men into one."

	Can someone describe the contents of WDC&S 588 and US 283 to
me in the next digest?  And particularly the nature of the Mickey
story in WDC&S... are the strips sideways, and if so, how many to a
page?  I wonder how much this printing of "The World of Tomorrow"
differs from Gladstone's old printing five years ago.

	If someone has the guts to dig through the letter columns and
describe one or two of the more interesting letters, I'd like to know
about them.  Here in Williamstown, Massachusetts we don't have a comic
shop and the drug store hasn't even gotten DDA 23 in (and I'm
wondering if the distributor *missed* it).

	Thanks!

	David Gerstein

	"Little Boy Blue, come blow your horn... The sheep's in the
meadow, the cow's in the corn... And where's the boy who looks after
the sheep... HUH?  THAT'S THE LAST STRAW!  *WAAAAK* WAAK WAK WAK WAK
WAK!  COME ON AND FIGHT!  COME ON AND FIGHT!  *WAAAAK* WAAK WAAK
WAK WAK WAK WAK WAK  [CRASH!]  OOOOG!  WAK!  WAK WAK WAK!  WAK!
[SOCK!]  AWK!  WAK WAK WAK WAK WAK WAK!  [SPLATTER SPLATTER CRUNCH!]
*OW!*  WAAAAAK!  WAK!  WAK!  ... AW, PHOOEY!"

	The above:  Donald as id - darker, volatile, emotional, and yes,
*sexual*... From "Orphans' Benefit," 1941 version.
	<David.A.Gerstein at Williams.edu>