Too many things to respond to today...
9475609@arran.sms.ed.ac.uk
9475609 at arran.sms.ed.ac.uk
Sun Mar 12 17:52:46 CET 1995
NEAL:
The Beagle Boys, in Barks' canon, have always had 1, 6, 7 in some
order on the first three digits of their codes. In later stories this
half of the code became 176, for good. It's stayed that way for Egmont
almost all the time.
The second half of the code is usually derived from 1, 6, 7, but
in early stories this wasn't the case. In "Only a Poor Old Man" the
Beagles' technical expert is 176-840, for instance.
Anyway, Egmont only uses 1, 6, and 7 in the last three digits,
which suggests that there can only be six "real" Beagle Boys. But of
course, even Barks used more of them than that. And Egmont themselves
knuckled under; in a short Madam Mim story six weeks ago, twelve Beagle
Boys appeared at the end.
I think Don Rosa came to grips with the maximum number of Beagle
Boys that ever appeared in a story both drawn and written by Barks, in
an old letter column. Maybe he remembers the number?
But the most important thing is that for Egmont, the three "main"
Beagle Boys have PERSONALITIES as per their code numbers! 176-167 is
the down-to-earth, often-impatient leader. 176-671 and 176-761 are the
slightly more personable followers who have certain weak spots. For 761
the weak spot is food, while for 671 it's a sort of childish silliness
that causes the foul-ups.
Here's a panel from the script of my next-to-be-published Duck
story, as in Egmont's script, which illustrates how important the
numbers are:
* * * * *
Pic 3: Wildly excited 176-167 bursts into the Beagle Boys' hideout.
The hideout is a ramshackle room with a wall of unpainted boards, some
of which are cracked. In foreground, 176-671 and 176-761 play checkers
on a card table. The card table has one sagging broken leg which has
been bound with tape. 176-671 (sitting at left of table) is moving a
chess piece on the board, while 176-761 (sitting at right of table) is
munching down prunes from a small, wide-mouthed jar. Next to the jar on
176-761's side of the table rests a small box in which several
"captured" chess pieces lie. 176-671 turns his head quickly to look at
the entering 176-167. 176-761, his mouth full and cheeks bulging, looks
up with a start. Sign on jar.
Sign (jar): PRUNES
176-167: It's time for a BEAGLE BLITZ, men! McDuck's hidden his money
from us again, and I know WHERE!
* * * * *
Before any of you think I'm doing the old saw about hiding the
money in a weird place, don't worry... I'm not! The story (this is the
one titled "Rolling in Dough") should have a lot of things you don't
expect.
JORGEN:
>- Donald Duck (93552, 12 pages). Art by Vicar.
>Donald is trying to become an astronaut. >snip<
Sigh! If only the British had printed this one...
>- Donald Duck (H8316, 10 pages). Art by Jan Guldbrandsen.
... instead they printed THIS one. In English, this one has to be
one of the very worst Dutch stories I have ever read! I can only
imagine that some other translations must have been more inspired.
DD decides he can get rich looking for money on the street with
the right kinds of methods. That's fine -- but he dresses up as if he's
expecting to hire himself out to perform some service. He even gives a
demonstration to others. Why? Who'd pay a guy to find money for them?
If Donald hadn't managed to nab the dollar bill Scrooge threw over
the bridge, wouldn't Scrooge have had to have given back the coin he
took from Donald? He took the coin BEFORE making any kind of deal to
trade it for anything!
The coin ends up getting lost in the money bin. But DD and
Gladstone both wanted merely to give it to Scrooge, and now it's
certainly with Scrooge. So why should DD hunt to find it again? It's
not stated that whoever personally GIVES the coin to Scrooge was going
to get the reward for it.
Last (and maybe this is kind of nitpicky) the story seems to take
an awfully long time to get going. The ducks spend a LONG time arguing
at the theatre, and just when you think there's going to be a classic
competition with Gladstone, Gladstone disappears.
I imagine Geoffrey Blum could sort out all of this, but doggoned
if I can. This story leaves me at a loss.
>- Mickey Mouse (D94073, 8+ pages, total 16 pages). Pat McGreal,
I think Ferioli's art in this part of the story ranks with his
absolute best. Mickey is especially appealing. But I agree with you
about the plot.
>I-1993 [set in the Middle Ages with 177 pages!]
I actually like the Italian stories with alternate timespans for
the characters, because the characters STILL ACT LIKE THEMSELVES.
I-1948 ("Mickey Mouse in King Arthur's Court") is my favorite, and I
plan to redo it for DM one day. (I found this in a German edition after
someone -- Fabio, I think -- recommended it.)
> Marvel also quite recently published the old adaption of Snowwhite
>and the Seven Dwarfs (the official adaption they called it...). They
>also put into the magazine a ten-pager with the Dwarfs fighting against
>The Witch.
No credits?! But... but... if this is that same, 1937 adaptation
that's appeared umpteen times (including Whitman and Gladstone
reprints). The credits for the 1987 Gladstone version are in our
index... but only for the regular film adaptation, not the backup.
The ten-pager could be one from around WDC&S 46 (there were
several Seven Dwarfs stories around that period). But I don't know.
I'll know when I see the comic.
I'd really like to get a copy of Marvel's edition, though. The
1987 reprint was on good paper, but the color was pre-computer. I'll
try to get one at home, but if someone has a spare copy, hold onto it --
I'll contact the Digest from California if I can't grab one.
David Gerstein
<9475609 at arran.sms.ed.ac.uk>
More information about the DCML
mailing list