Happy New Year, Folks! and some replies

[David A Gerstein]

	Hi, Gang!

	Glad to be back!  I've just (gasp!) scoured all the digests
which came out while I was away, and it's a thrill to see that I'm not
the only person who can indulge in really LO-OOO-ONG letters...
(that's not a criticism, I prefer to read longer ones!)

	I'll tackle the points one by one.

	TRYG:  I love the quote from the "Beach Drakes" you end with,
but you say, "I wish the all could...", and though my old recording of
the Drakes is a little fuzzy since the time my 45 to "The Screaming
Cowboy" brought my record shelf to the ground, I think the quote is,
"I wish THEY all could be Calisota Ducks!"

	MICKEY'S INFERNO:  This 1949 Italian story by Martina and 
Bioletto is ABSOLUTELY and COMPLETELY banned from American comics.
Long ago I actually got Xeroxes from Disney-Burbank's file copy, and
they have stencilled over every page, NOT FOR REPRINT!  That out of
the way, though, I can't say it's a great story:  I find it very
slow-moving and meandering.  Much like the "Goofy Midas" story from
Jaime Diaz, although I think the "Inferno" is better-drawn and more
creative.

	THE CHARACTERS AS ACTORS:  Yep, Gottfredson's strip made it
clear on multiple occasions that Mickey earned money between
adventures by being an actor at the Disney studios.  The studio's
Mouseton division is shown as being a live-action studio -- no mention
of the films as cartoons is made.
	I find nothing wrong with OCCASIONAL films in which the
characters play roles, as long as the roles are chosen so that their
REAL personalities can show.  That was excellently done in "The Prince
and the Pauper," which I found to be very like "one of the films Mickey
and Goofy made between adventures".  On the other hand, I loved
"Mickey's Christmas Carol" on its initial release, but I now feel that
some characters -- particularly Donald and Goofy -- have inadequate
roles.  I actually don't find Uncle Scrooge's role so jarring;  you'll
note that Bruce Hamilton liked it enough to use art from the Christmas
Carol film here and there in his _U$ in Color_ book.  I consider it
far less likely that Scrooge would be an actor than that Donald or
especially Mickey would take such a job, but I have to take the film
as a "what-if" after SOME point.
	I find that when Disney characters are shown in films where
they have roles other than their "Mouseton/Duckburg" or "normal"
personas, a real effort is made to shape the role to some view of the
character's personality.  "Brave Little Tailor" was a role made for
Mickey, and though I know it didn't "really" happen to him (in the
fictional "normal" persona), I still enjoy it as a product of "Mickey
given an acting role that is very like his "real" personality".  In
"The Prince and the Pauper," Donald's role was of course nothing like
his "real" existence;  but within the role, he acted just like the
1937 Donald.
	I find very few examples of characters playing a role and
losing their personality completely.  The major examples are Donald in
the "Christmas Carol" and Horace in "Prince and the Pauper."  In that
latter film Horace's voice was the same as it used to be, but his
entire personality was different than ever before.  That's an example
of doing things the WRONG way.  This wasn't the boisterous,
imaginative Horace of the old MM cartoons and strips.  But by and
large, I can accept the idea of doing classic stories with the Disney
characters, if care is taken.
	That's one reason I don't like the Diaz Goofy "history"
stories so much.  Mickey is a COMPLETE nonentity -- perhaps more so
than in any other creator's work -- and so he's given ANY role.  The
idea being that when you get down to it, the Disney characters are
blank slates.  WRONG.
	I view the Mickey of Gottfredson's strip and of the pre-1942
cartoons (the ones set in Mouseton, I mean, not the set-pieces of the
"Tailor" variety) as the "real" Mickey.  This isn't Mickey playing a 
role, but the "real" Mickey, or else a re-enactment with a few
theatrical embellishments of something that happened to the "real"
Mickey.
	When it comes to the Ducks it's more difficult.  I view the
Barks Ducks, and the pre-1948 Taliaferro Ducks, as being the REAL
Donald.  For depictions of "Donald playing a role" to succeed, to me
they must give the Duck a role that exploits his personality.  I don't
think that Disney Animation views the characters as ultimately blank
slates, with the possible and very dangerous exception of Mickey.

	DD 283:  Notice how the first strip featuring the Nephews,
last printed in 1987's WDC&S 522, is absent this time around.  I asked
John Clark what you guys are thinking.  Yep.  MAYBE in the 60th-
anniversary issue, but current status unknown.  A shame, since I
REALLY wanted this one with the good, new color.

	DD 283's ROSA STORY:  Don, I actually quite liked this story!
I'm surprised you thought it so poor... the only thing I thought wrong
with it was that the location moved to Lillehammer quite a ways from
the end of the story, so I was surprised when it seemed that the only
reason for going to Lillehammer was to facilitate the single closing
gag.  I wouldn't have minded more activities for the Ducks there (if
Donald's bill could take it!).
	BTW:  Since Donald seemed to take his injuries in stride in
this story, they were not agonizing vis-a-vis your more realistic
style.  I like this.

	DD 60TH ANNIVERSARY ISSUE:  This comic will be not part of the
regular DD or DDA series, but a special comic issued outside of the
usual lineup.  My dialogue for Mau Heymans' story "A Plot Against 
Donald" is now in, and same for Pedrocchi's "Secret on Mars" is well
on its way.  All this and Rosa's story, too!  But now back to

	THE SECRET ON MARS:  This is to be the official title of the
Pedrocchi story as it'll appear in English.  I find this story to have
a VERY advanced version of Donald.  The story starts deceptively like
a Taliaferro Sunday strip, but before it's over Donald has shown a
type of courage that is strongly reminiscent of the Vacation Parade #1
story.  This is a GOOD, VERY Barks-like version of Donald, and I think
that it solidly establishes that the idea of a rounded Donald existed
long before Barks developed it (with no knowledge of Pedrocchi, you
can be sure).
	I don't know if more Pedrocchi stories are to appear after
this, but unless many people write in asking for them, I believe no
plans are in the air.  The art in this story varies from superb, in a
few very, very good panels, to quite crude.  It seems hard for me to
imagine why it varies so much.  In general I really like the style,
though;  it shows enthusiasm even in the cruder moments.
	Pedrocchi was a great pioneer of Italian comics.  Maurice
Horn's _World Encyclopedia of Comics_ tells a lot about him, and it's
really interesting to read it... this is a very honored, accomplished
individual whose work Gladstone should take great pride in presenting.

	HARRY:  I believe it's "Except in Donald Duck's house -- which
is as usual!"  I don't remember the first part of the quote, but I
think it's from WDC&S 64's new year's resolution story.  This was
reprinted just last year, so maybe some of you have a copy handy.
What Van Horn story is this?  One of those in our list?  It'll be
interesting to see if the English version quotes Barks...

	FULL NAMES OF CHARACTERS:  Okay, then... if Goofy's real name
IS Dippy Dawg, then it doesn't follow that Mickey is going to be
Mortimer.  Please remember... the character has to have actually HAD
the name in a finished product.  By the time any films were in
production, Mickey had lost his earlier monicker.
	Mickey = Michel Mouse (given in cartoon "Symphony Hour")
	Donald = Donald Fauntleroy Duck
	Goofy = Dippy "Goofy" Dawg

	The latest Diamond Previews suggests that DDA #26 will have
"Terror of the River" backed by -- groan! -- Tony Strobl's "Donald in
Mathemagic Land."  Given that the CBL Album of "Terror" will appear
merely ONE MONTH after this comic, I may actually skip the issue -- a
first for me.  Meanwhile WDC&S #591 will feature at long last Van
Horn's "Magica's Missin' Magic", while US #286 will have "Master of
the Mississippi" by Don Rosa.  Please note, Don... no cover "LO$"
special logo shown on that issue in Diamond's catalogue.  Which brings
me to:

	OFFICIAL TITLE OF LO$:  I believe that it's only to be called
"The Life of Scrooge" in the U. S.  Don, you probably forgot that
there was the Celestial Arts book titled, "Uncle Scrooge McDuck:  His
Life and Times."  This is just a reversal of your title, and Gladstone
presumably felt that their later book collections would be hopelessly
confused by dealers with the older book if they used the planned
title.
	Although I have never asked John Clark ANYTHING about this
one, so I'm really just guessing.  I may be wrong, and perhaps the
whole title IS being used.

	At last I can say... that's all for now, folks.

	Yours,

	David Gerstein