DCML Digest Issue 35

[Don Rosa]

> From: "Michiel Prior" <M.J.Prior at let.rug.nl>
> Subject: Question to Don Rosa
> Now that you have 'established' Matilda McDuck as a 'present-day-
> character', do you have any plans to use her as a mouthpiece for
> Lo$-B-stories? I was thinking of tales from the 'Lo$ 11B'-period,
> when $crooge gradually looses contact with his family.

That's an interesting idea, but I doubt that I'll try it. First of all, the
interfamily relationships that I deal with in "A Letter from Home" seemed so
*boring* to me that I'll be gun-shy of attempting that again. The problem
was that I can't touch lightly on such important matters... if I was to
address them, I had to go full-throttle, and that really bogged down the
tale. Aside from that, I didn't think that $crooge "gradually" lost contact
with his family after chapter 11 of my "Lo$" -- I saw that as a clean break
for the next 15 years, 25 years as regards Matilda, and *forever* as regards
Hortense whom I am not allowed to reintroduce due to the difficulty in
explaining where she's been. Now, if I was turning out stories at high speed
like Barks or others could, I think I'd be more apt to get back into this
"family relations" subject. But I feel like I do so pitifully few stories
that I've probably spent all the time I can afford on that subject in "A
Letter from Home". (And when you see it, you might agree!)

> And maybe such a story could show us more of the Duck-side of the
> family and involve characters like Gladstone's father and Donald's
> sister (in the past tense of course). Or are appearances of Della also
> to be avoided in stories dealing with the past?

No, I can use Della if I found a reason to. I'd also like to use Gladstone's
parents if I *first* had a story where they'd fit... I don't think I'd want
to build a story around them, again because there are so many tales to tell,
so little time.

> Could you instead maybe give us some more Pothole? Of all
> members of "your" side of the (McDUCK-family, I like Pothole
> McDuck best.

I have always had it in the back of my mind to do another "Lo$" where
Pothole would be young $crooge's sidekick, giving him a friend/relative to
talk to (since he should otherwise be a loner). And I wanted that story to
tell (as a sideplot) how Pothole invents American comic books after his
success in dime novels. On the other hand, that did not actually take place
until the early 1930's which would put it too late for involvement by
$crooge (who by then would be running his empire from Duckburg) or by
Pothole (who would be either too old or too dead).

> Well, anyway, I think we fans don't have much to complain about,
> with "a Letter from Home" and a return of ze Chevalier Noir in the
> pipeline.

Wait until you read 'em before giving up that right.

> One tiny nitpick at last: I finally found a copy of the DD Extra
> containing "the Sign of the Triple Distelfink". On page 9, what was
> the original slogan on the back of the magazine Gladstone is
> reading? In Dutch, it says something like "Become a millionaire
> quickly!" and you can see a fellow behind a drawing-board drawing
> something resembling a large banknote (appropiately coloured white
> and pink). What was it? "Make big money"?

Yes, of course! That's the topic of most of the back covers of American
comics in the 30's-60's. You can see the ad properly done in the American
edition in UNCLE $CROOGE #310. It said "Make big money" in the script that
the Dutch translator was given, and you can easily tell the person is
drawing a large banknote. This raises the question I often have -- in many
cases, are these people the right ones to be translating comic books when
they seem to have no sense of humor or no ability to look at the art and see
what's going on? Or perhaps the problem is (as I have heard, though it
boggles the mind) that some of these editors give translators comic scripts
to translate *without* showing them the art, which would be blatantly
idiotic. Perhaps Harry can tell us if there is a reason that this joke is
untranslatable into Dutch... but it seems like "make big money" would work
in any language. Anyway, you again see why I used to have hair before I saw
how stories and jokes are ruined by sloppy or careless presentation.

By the way, looking at that story allowed me to check out the scene where
someone here was saying I showed a family gathering with Matilda and
Hortense and $crooge after "Lo$" chapter 11. But no, the flashback clearly
avoids showing $crooge in attendance, and I had envisioned that party taking
place shortly before that chapter 11. So you can't use it to indicate that
the break up of the Duck family group was gradual after $crooge's return to
Duckburg (IMS). (IMS="in my stories", something I should always write lest
one person gets peeved that I am not doing everything just the way he wants
it done or another person will decide that what happens IMS should be
happening in *all* stories otherwise they are wrong, wrong, wrong.)

> [And the backpage-gag on the other man's mag: is this a
> real existing one-pager? Well, maybe not.]

I guess you're kidding, eh? It was very tiny!

> From: Wolfsong <wolfsong at mpinet.net>
> Subject: Re: Does Goofy have a family name?
> If  you look at some of the Goofy  cartoons where he's in a domestic
> situation or where he has an office job, you'll find he's referred to as
> George Geef. I like to think of this as  Goofy's
> real name with "Goofy" being his stage name.

That's the opposite of Disney's position. Disney thinks it's cute to pretend
like their classic characters are actors who are playing roles in the
animated cartoons they appear in, and that would seem evident since they are
almost always (slightly or drastically) different characters in the old
films, and clearly actors-in-roles in recent features like "Mickey's
Christmas Carol" and "The Prince and the Pauper". And this is another reason
why the comic book versions (the non-Disney versions) of these characters,
where they are *true* characters in their own rights, are much more
appealing and interesting to me.