Too many things to respond to today...

[9475609@arran.sms.ed.ac.uk]

      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>