Paul Murry

[Olaf Solstrand]

Please read this post. It took me two hours, perhaps more, to write it.

Names used in quotes:
David = David Gerstein
Lars = Lars Jensen
Mattias = Mattias Hallin
Sigvald = Sigvald Grøsfjeld jr.
Vidar = Vidar Svendsen

I hope you all understand that nothing I write in this post is meant to
offend anyone.

Please note that all story codes I use, are the story codes as they occur in
INDUCKS, as I don't have access to all printed codes myself.
---------------------------------------------------------

Hello!

After being idle for a while, I'm returning to DCML from tonight. I'm
reading up on the archives now, and trying to send in my opinions on what's
been discussed lately. I've already given my comment to the matter of
geographic inaccuracies. Here's my thoughts and opinions on
Duckburg/Mouseton and the Paul Murry case.

Let's take it from the top, shall we?


SIGVALD, Sat Apr 26 00:14:02 CEST 2003:
> In Donald's home city there is no Chief O'Hara, Big Pete or The
> Phantom Blot. So unless you are an Egmont canonist (believing
> that Egmont's decisions represent canon in the Disney-universe)
> there are good reasons to see Donald's home city and Mickey's
> home city as two separate cities.

...two seperate cities with the exact same name, that is. Sigvald, can you
think of ANY reason that Egmont would give these two cities the same name,
if it wasn't for that they think of it as the same city? That also makes
perfect sense - please notice that the city name "Andeby" occured long
before the name "Mouseton". To me it seems obvious that Danes (or others?)
that needed a name for Mickey's home town (when new European stories
demanded it) had a look at the original stories. They saw that Donald and
Mickey often appeared together (you mentioned Gottfredson yourself), they
saw that Donald lived in Duckburg and they saw that there was no name for
Mickey's hometown - so they assumed this was the same city. Is there any
other reason to give these cities the exact same name?


MATTIAS, Sun Apr 27 14:43:12 CEST 2003:
> It also seemed pretty clear from various clues and references
> in the 1930s Gottfredson comics, that Mickey's home was
> somewhere on the Eastern seaboard of the United States.

I don't have the book here to check it up, but I've heard that this theory
is supported in Bruno Sarda and Massimo De Vita's marvellous story "Alla
ricerca della pietra zodiacale - L'eredità di Zodiacus" (I TL 1791-A), where
Mickey makes a phone call to Scrooge and a map shows Duckburg on the west
coast and Mouseton on the east coast (thanks to Arne Bye for making me aware
of this). When I first read this story myself I was too young to know what
USA looked like, so I never noticed this - and now I have the book at home,
99950 kilometres away (well, at least a hundred).

You wouldn't happen to know what name was used for Mouseton in
Shaw/Moores/Gottfredson's YM 43-05-18, would you? In the Norwegian version
of this (Donald Duck & Co 7-1950), Mickey lived in Oslo (capital of Norway)!
This was long before the name "Andeby" first occured, and translator Helene
Kløvstad did what she could to norwegify the comics - among other things,
she gave the cowboy in Barks' "Pizen Spring Dude Ranch" (W WDC 102-02) the
name Petter Teobaldsen. Still I would love to know what the name of Mickey's
hometown was in YM 43-05-18.


SIGVALD, Sun Apr 27 15:00:08 CEST 2003:
> While Carl Barks and later Don Rosa has placed Duckburg on the
> Western coast of the USA. Another clear indication that Mickey
> and Donald don't live in the same city.

Well, we could also mention that both French and Italian comics has
different names for Duckburg and Mouseton. But let's not forget that one of
my true favorite artists, Romano Scarpa, in "Topolino imperatore della
Calidornia" (I TL 274-A) drew a map of Calidornia (which in 1961 was his
name for the state Duckburg is located in) where both Topolinia (Mouseton),
Paperopoli (Duckburg) and Giuncavilla (Junkville) is shown. If we assume
this map to be "correct", it states two things: That Mouseton and Duckburg
are two different cities, and that Mouseton is situated on the _West_
Coast - not the East Coast. But hey - I'm not asking anyone to set Scarpa
above Gottfredson - although it WOULD seem reasonable that Mouseton and
Duckburg was situated in the same state. Anyhow, just wanted to mention it
as we were talking about these matters. A great scan is available on Gilles
Maurice's pages at http://goofy313g.free.fr/calisota_online/maps/scarpa.html
.


SIGVALD, Thu May 1 00:06:36 CEST 2003:
> Are you sure? DD&Co seldom mentiones other persons names
> together with Paul Murry's name when they print his stories.

Sometimes when reprinting stories from the eighties, it only says
"Tegninger: Vicar". Do you automatically assume that these stories too are
WRITTEN by Vicar because nothing else is mentioned?


SIGVALD, Thu May 1 01:00:37 CEST 2003:
> This is just like in music, most great artists writes most of
> their own material.

I'm into music. I write my own material. But I'm not a great artist. Why?
Because I can't sing. I would be much better off giving my music to someone
who CAN. The result would be better music.

Trust me on that - I can assure you that both Elvis Aaron Presley and Frank
Sinatra were greater artists than me. Even though they didn't write their
own lyrics.


SIGVALD, Thu May 1 16:00:55 CEST 2003:
> Not entirely correct! In Scandinavia a few giant-books
> featuring old Gottfredson classics were published during the
> 1970's:
> - Jeg Mikke Mus
> - Jeg Langbein
> - Vi Minni & Mikke
>
> These are great books.

Uhm... I never read these books, but I read other books in the same format
(like "Vi, Ole, Dole og Doffen"), and I don't like them. Simply because the
great stories in there (mostly Barks) was torn up and twisted to make it fit
into the giant pages, with twenty-thirty (not literally, just estimating)
frames on every page. The stories were ruined. And the books was way too
overwhelming in size for a ten-year-old to read in bed anyway. (Have you
ever tried reading Aftenposten or Adresseavisen on the bus? It's ALWAYS hard
reading something as big as that!)


SIGVALD, Thu May 1 16:26:17 CEST 2003:
> Second: IMO it's the writer who's the most important artist
> behind a story. That's why I say "King Scrooge Ist" is a Barks
> Story, not a Strobl story. Let me explain this: I guess any
> great non-Disney artists (like Uderzoo) could draw great Disney
> stories after a complete manus, with only minor knowledge or
> interest for the story. To write a great manus the artist both
> need a lot of knowledge and much interest of the actual
> universe and the actual characters s(he) is working with.

(sigh) Lars pretty much said it all. Not to be rude, Sigvald, but it's very
obvious when reading your posts that you have never written a Disney comic
yourself and had it drawn by others. (Not that I in any way use that against
you.) Writing a script is great fun, a thrilling adventure and an exciting
experience. Still, the result is nothing but letters on paper. Nobody
bothers to sit down and read scripts - there's a reason they don't just
print the scripts in the weeklies. (and don't argue that you actually sat
down and read one of my scripts once - I'm talking in general terms here).
Why do you think e.g. Don Rosa has chosen to draw his stories himself
instead of sending it onto others so that he can get straight back to
working on a new script? Because making the art IS an important part of the
story process. Because the artist DOES have pretty much influence on what
the final result will look like. I recieved the art for my first stories
about half a year ago - and I STILL discover new, fascinating details while
reading them. No, a comic is and must be a cooperation between writer and
artist.

Besides - if you really mean that the artists are just bricks in the wall,
then what is so big about e.g. Don Rosa or William van Horn doing both
scripting and art themselves? After all, it doesn't really matter who makes
the art, so why is it automatically better when they draw it themselves?


> Yes and no! He used to, but the later years Egmont have often
> used a Gottfredson look Mickey instead.

...but Egmont is not the only Disney publisher, you know.


DAVID, Fri May 2 00:03:48 CEST 2003:
> Ah, well, back to the lab. What do you want to do *tomorrow*
> night?

The same as we do every night, David...


SIGVALD, Sat May 3 14:57:30 CEST 2003:
> I refer to Donald Duck & Co in general. I can't remember that
> they have ever have told their Norwegian readers that Paul
> Murry worked another way than creators like Barks and Rosa. As
> long as nothing else is stated, most readers are lead to
> believe that Barks is the norm.

Why is that? When it says NOWHERE that Murry wrote these scripts, and what's
_normal_ in the comics we see daily is that the writer and the artist are
two or three different people.

Let's see... A quick count shows that out of 26 comics appearing in Donald
Duck & Co 16, 17, 18 and 19-2003 (not counting covers, illustrations and
riddles), ONE of them was drawn and written by the same person. ONE out of
26. So why automatically assume the opposite when nobody says it is so?
Also, please remember that the majority of the weekly's readers are probably
NOT barksists.


VIDAR, Sun May 4 22:27:22 CEST 2003:
> I can't find any articles about Murry in DD&Co. I've found one
> article about him (Aargangsbok 1953 I). The article states:
> "In contrast to Barks he was a only an artist, not a
> scriptwriter" and "Murry was extraodinarily hard-working and
> efficient. He received scripts and drew all kinds of suff."
>
> well... I rest my case

Even though there may have not been any articles about Murry in the weekly,
we _do_ have the Internet, and an article on Paul Murry on www.donald.no
(official homepage for Donald Duck & Co) says - well, I quote:

"Paul Murry never wrote his own comics. He simply got scripts sent from the
publishing house Western, and did the rest himself."


SIGVALD, Mon May 5 03:10:32 CEST 2003:
> That's a pretty new publication so it doesn't change my
> argument. It's possible that this stuff about Paul Murry was
> mentioned in the giant book "Vi Mikke og Langbein" though, but
> as someone else previosly has staded - those books were rather
> expensive and were thus not read by everyone.

...and I know you will probably argue that "the web pages are not read by
anyone", too. But WHY, Sigvald? Why is it so that if the weekly has never
written an article about something, they're hiding something for us? I'm
sorry, but I feel that your arguments remind me of Erasmus Montanus now.
"As this was never stated, you [Sigvald] believed that Paul Murry wrote his
own stories." Fine. I'm not having any problems with that, and I'm not
blaming you for it or laughing at you for it. I must confess I've believed
that myself.
"As this was never stated, it's obviously a conspiracy going on. Egmont has
never (except for in a few books plus on the internet) said that Paul Murry
did not write his own stories - in other words, they have always said that
he DOES write his own stories and is obviously trying to lead us to believe
in that." That is where I fell off.

You said for yourself (in one of the posts I _haven't_ quoted here, Thu May
1 15:53:13 CEST 2003) that the Scandinavian weeklies don't have much
information about the creators (interviews etcetera). So why is it so
strange that they don't have this information about Paul Murry? Is he so
different from everybody else?



---------------------------------------------------------
Best,
Olaf the Blue
http://www.andebyonline.com