And the puns roll on...

[David A Gerstein]

	Dear Folks,

	Here's my two cents worth today.

	Don Rosa on
	=== ==== ==

"PUNS: What they told me when I first went to work for Egmont and
specifically asked them about using puns was that I should write my
stories as if they were going to be seen in English. If I use a pun in
one spot, this compels the translator to create a different pun in his
language, or at least create some other gag; otherwise the translator
just translates -- they aren't paid to be funny when there's nothing
funny in the original script. However, I've found that other Egmont
editors have told other writers just the opposite -- DON'T use puns."

	Here are a few examples of comments that you *won't* see in my
stories until the Gladstone editions:

	A)  Scrooge to his Mt. Vesuvius detectives:  
	"It's a ruse by any other name... so *shut up*!" became
	"It's an *illusion*, you halfwitted Hawkshaws!" at Byron's
request.  (I also wrote the revised version, though.)
	From "Two in One"

	B)  Donald to a disobedient pig he's trying to train:
	"Act for me, Napoleon, or you'll meet your Waterloo... but
plenty!" became
	"Act for me, Napoleon... or I'll make *hamburger* outta you!"
at Anina Bennett's request.
	From "Pork-Barrel Politics"

	Bob Foster and Byron Erickson edited "Two in One" and gave me 
a fairly easy time on wordplay... *only* item A above got the boot as 
punning went.  But this year Egmont's policy in general has gotten 
more stringent.  So both Bob and Anina had a hard time with the tons
of wordplay in that story (many pig puns, for one thing), and it's
gone under heavy revision.

	But in the end, I think you guys will enjoy it.

	What I want to know is... how do William Van Horn's scripts
get by?  They're loaded less with puns than simply unique wordplay,
and I imagine a translator having a *very* difficult time.
(Particularly in Russia and Chinese-speaking countries, where Egmont's
license is relatively new.)  Which brings me to:


	Van Horn (New discussion here)
	=== ==== ==== ========== =====

	One critical comment:  I find that Van Horn tends to do a
story now and then which just has too many weird elements in it to be
taken seriously.  Still, he has lots of good stories.

	FAVORITE STORY #1:  The Bees Have It!  This was weird, but had
a very Barksian interpretation of the characters and some of WH's best
art, so I really liked it.
	FAVORITE STORY #2:  No Room for Human Error.  Great, just
great!  I always enjoy conflict between Scrooge and Donald,
particularly when outside threats to Scrooge's fortune are involved.
	LEAST FAVORITE STORY #1:  Just a Humble, Bumbling Duck!  The
idea of Donald failing at being a failure by succeeding continuously
from the moment he sets failure as a goal was just too contrived.
Also, the story was depressing without being very funny.  I could go
as far as to find what happened to Donald exasperating.

	On the whole, though, I really enjoy most of WH's works, and
would be interested to find what others think are his strengths,
weaknesses, triumphs and flops.  We seem to hardly mention WH around
here, which is odd considering that he continues to bring relatively
frequent duck stories and that many of them are good ones.


	Jim Fletcher
	=== ========

	Harry Fluks sent me a mid-'60s Dutch DD Weekly.  I suppose the
sloppily-drawn story with Madam Mim and Magica living together in a
castle is Fletcher's work?  Not only sloppily drawn, but also burying
everything Barks ever did with Magica in the dirt!

	Still, I have seen many Jaime Diaz Group stories with equally
poor art -- for example, "Mimic Menace" in Mickey Mouse Advs. #11.
Did they ever have J. Fletcher working for them?

	And you still can't get ANY worse than Stan Walsh in my book.
"Mickey Mouse and the Mystery of the Robot Army" still takes my vote
as the worst-looking Disney comic story of all time.


	Rec.Arts.Disney and a Matter of Distribution
	=============== === = ====== == ============

	Yes, a lot of what's on this list *is* dreary and/or benumbed
by "cuteness fever".  But look... while Gladstone continues to be
unable, as Disney Comics was, to negotiate to have their comics
distributed in corner shops like they are in Europe, it should come 
as no surprise that the ducks and mice as *we* admire them are next to
unknown on r.a.d. compared to the wildly-merchandised feature
characters.

	Gladstone has negotiated with Marvel to get their comics into
newsstands with more regularity than they once were (although I see no
sign of improved results myself).  They should be negotiating with
Little, Brown & Co. to distribute their CBL Albums -- and in my
opinion, a series of Gottfredson albums -- to *bookstores*.  Little,
Brown & Co. makes Tintin a feature in U. S. bookstores with a special
rotating rack.  Sue Daigle told me that Gladstone tried to do this
kind of distribution *themselves* with the old (1986-1990) albums and
failed because the costs were too high... hence the current albums'
"periodical"-style distribution.  So why not a partnership like
Gladstone worked out with Marvel?

	By the way, I envision the Gottfredson albums as being oblong
sort of like MM IN COLOR was, only not quite as wide (the strips can
stack straight up rather than at an angle, if you ask me!). This way
daily strip stories and Sunday strip stories both can be used very
easily.  Three dailies to a page with a header on top (no header with
the taller pre-1932 dailies of course).

	And they don't have to collect *everything* if Disney refuses.
But they can use about 4/5 of the Gottfredson stories, anyway.


	That's all for now, folks.

	Your friend,

	David