Gemstone's Mickey Mouse - IE What Constitutes A GOOD MM Story

[Jonathan H. Gray]

I'm a HUGE fan of the Disney Mice (Sky Island was the very first Mickey 
Mouse story I ever read followed by Land Of Long Ago and what a trip they 
were). While I love the ducks tremendously, I just see so much untapped and 
unused potential in the Mouse universe that really truly hasnt been 
implemented since the days of Floyd Gottfredson - who is in my opinion the 
MM equivalent of Carl Barks.

So several days ago after finishing my latest assignment for Sonic, I went 
into "fanboy mode" and sent this rather long and detailed letter into 
Gemstone. I'm kind of wishing that I had waited and could edit it after 
reading some of the archives of the DCML. But what with my schedule and all 
I only just now had some time to get it into my head to read the back 
archives on this topic.

Anyways, I got to reading a lot of letters on the subject and what mostly 
intrigued me were the comments by David Gerstein cause I couldnt help but 
agreeing with practically **every point he made** concerning Mickey Mouse, 
why the Gottfredson era should be so revered, why it didnt sell (or rather 
why it got people involved in Mickey, but its format proved to costly to 
make), and why the Murry/Bradbury/Strobl era of Mickey is looked upon with 
something resembling bland and utter disdain by most. =\ This is an 
obscenely long letter, but I thought it would make for interesting 
discussion on the list (what with all the prevalencies for ducks) so bear 
with me.


This is a longer version of the letter, edited with a extra comments for the 
list. here goes:
______


Its been a while since I caught up on the latest issues of Mickey Mouse, but 
I've always had a certain penchant for the cute little circular rodent that 
the ducks aren't always able to fill. I remember reading somewhere that Don 
Rosa said that Mickey was mostly nothing more than 7 boring circles made to 
make a character, and Carl Barks had similar feelings for him (resulting 
only in The Riddle Of The Red Hat and nothing else). Looking at the 
Dell/Gold Key Mickey Mouse. I can't help but agree. The 40 something to 85 
era of Mickey (pre Gladstone Series 1) - the longest and most pravalent 
interpretation of the character - hurt Mickey in ways one can't even imagine 
and set the universe that Gottfredson created back tenfold.

While the Duck universe is most certainly deeper, has a more stable history, 
and (90% of the time) Barks' comic works were more imaginative in places 
than even most highly revered superhero comics could pull, - there's just 
something about the Mouse side of the comic at its CORE that, when utilized 
properly, can keep you on the edge of your seat and make you come away with 
a HUGE smile or a good laugh, knowing you've you've read something 
worthwhile. In the classic comics - whether it be Scarpa or Gottfredson or 
Moores or Murry, the *determined* Mickey I grew up reading is the total 
opposite of the sickeningly sweet giggling mascot of todays Disney that I 
grew up *watching*. Not that I said *determined* and not *detective*. With 
Murry/Gottfredson Mickey, there is a difference. Mickey's history in comics 
outside of the classic "Mouse Masters" mentioned have never been as solid or 
as endearing as the ducks but anyone who knows even little about the comics 
version of Mickey knows that theres something there that has the potential 
to be really great.

Lately, and I think Ive touched on this subject myself once or twice, I've 
noticed on the Gemstone MM letters pages that there's been a big 50/50 split 
as to what material should be seen in the Mickey book since the Gottfredson 
stories (which are what introduced many to the lost GOOD Mouse during 
Gladstones first run) sadly isn't available at the moment and probably won't 
be for a while. The Italian stories, while wonderfully closest to 
Gottfredson's vision, can be too long unless split into several parts. The 
characters in the Italian stories - ducks and mice - just feel so much more 
ALIVE. (Is it also true they won't print any dutch stories over there? I 
cant remember where I read that.) The European stories, while new and more 
accessible than the Italian pieces, are more often than not very hit or 
miss, depending on the art or the writer (I've yet to read one that emulates 
Murry's style that I like, and that seems to be almost all that have seen 
print here until recently). The classic comic Mouse stories while also being 
hit or miss can also be plagued by being extremely repetive concepts and 
bland execution. Carl Fallberg wrote decent MM stories and serials but 
someone somewhere said they all felt like dull Hardy Boys stories with 
Mickey attatched to them and I couldn't agree more. I recently came upon a 
huge treasure trove of Dell Mickey Mouse books for really cheap and it never 
ceases to amaze me during the Murry years just how many "professor friends" 
Mickey had (Let's leave it at Dustibones, Static, and Einmug please!), or 
how it seemed EVERY OTHER STORY was a detective story/bland adventure. Out 
of maybe 20 or so books that I obtained from the Four Color era to around MM 
in the 50's, there wasnt a true character piece in the bunch. Now compare 
and contrast that to Barks and can you imagine why people who grew up in 
that era like Don Rosa have such a stale view of the mouse?

I don't want to keep knocking Paul Murry though. I look at Paul Murry as 
"the other good Mouse artist" similar to Tony Strobl was to Carl Barks. And, 
like Strobl, its really only his VERY EARLIEST work that is the best and 
only stuff of his worth looking at. The first story I read in my Mickey 
Mouse collection was the four color book "Mickey Mouse and The Mystery Of 
The Double Cross Ranch." (the ending to this story is great BTW, one of the 
silliest endings to a Murry story ever!) Expecting "typical Paul Murry art" 
I was blown away at how fun the story was to me. It was certainly no 
Gottfredson, but considering the usual stuff I'd seen from Murry I finished 
reading that and found myself asking "What the heck happened?" Again, I'm 
not trying to knock the creatives behind the stories in general, it just 
always seems that for every good Mickey story there are about 2-3 equally 
bad ones. Another thing about Murry, thanks to the wonders of the internet, 
I managed to get a good glance at the newspaper strips Paul Murry drew for 
Mickey Mouse when Floyd Gottfredsom wasn't available and I was like, this 
CAN'T be the same person. His newspaper strips have an even better looking 
Mickey than his earliest Comic book pages. Then when you look at his work 
nearing the end of his tenure its not even the same anymore. Even Carl 
Barks' work degraded as he got older (Rabid Barks fans please dont hurt 
me!!!) but I can still find myself laughing at Barks ' later work like mad. 
(case in point his 10 page DD story entitled "Delivery Dillemma" which, when 
I first read it made me weak) In comparison to Barks, after Murry's period 
where he began at Dell and was paired with Carl Fallberg, theres a stark 
cutoff point (I've heard many say the mid to late 1950's) between stuff of 
his that is truly good VS truly mediocre VS BADBADBADBADBADBADSTAYAWAY. 
^_^;;

Another one of the things that sorely lacks from Mickey/Goofy stories as 
opposed to Donald/Scrooge stories is character development. With Barks we 
saw Scrooge, Donald, and the kids mellow into personalities. Scrooge 
literally morphed over time from a mean abrasive hermit into a loveable 
agitated miser. And to prove just how powerful a work Carl Barks did, you 
can even see it through the watered down Duck Tales series. For someone who 
was introduced to the ducks THROUGH that show, by the time I got to Barks' 
original material I was blown away. But for Mickey, we rarely if ever get 
that. Gottfredson stories were very good at developing Mickey (he was NOT 
perfect and had numerous flaws), Minnie (she was NOT always a nagging 
busybody), Goofy (he was NOT always stupid), Horace (he all but VANISHED in 
the comics), Clarabelle (she went from a hilarious overbearing-at-times 
gossip to annoying uber-nosy gossip under Dell), Eega Beeva & Pflip (I just 
adore Eega Beeva because he's quite simply the most absurd thing to hit the 
Mouse-verse ever), and to an extent even his nephew Morty (inventive and 
quiet with a slightly tomboyish side VERY different in personality from 
H,D,L). But the Gottfredson's biggest fault is that, unlike Barks, those 
stories aren't halfway near as accessible due to thier length and cost to 
reformat. And while we're left with some decent stories with good Paul 
Murry/Dick Moores/Bill Wright art - *very few* can even touch the originals.

Furthermore - while Gottfredson Mickey seems to be the only Mickey that 
truly sells, Gladstone actually LOST money in the process of getting it to 
format the strips on paper. Would that hold the same truth today with new 
changes in printing and photoshop manipulation I wonder? And some fans were 
so taken aback by the Dell/Gold Key blitz on MM that they grew up on, that 
people were scared to buy it until it was too late and now you can barely 
find the things in stores that carry back issues of Disney's.

Having said all that, I'd like to make some suggestions.

One of the other differences between Mickey/Donald/Scrooge is variety in 
stories. With the ducks we have the LOL funny, the gripping adventures, 
short character pieces (10 pagers), and the sense of legacy and history with 
the characters. With Mickey we really have none of that minus a 
good/memorable, but often woefully under-utilized rogues gallery. Mickey's 
rogues - specifically Pete, The Blot, and to a tiny extent Sylvester Shyster 
- are as recognizable to me as Magica DeSpell, Flintheart Glomgold and the 
Beagle Boys, but you can't AND SHOULDN'T rely on them all the time, which is 
how IMO Pete eventually got so watered down. Gottfredson's hilariously 
dialogued Pete was stupid at times yes, but THIS PETE was actually a 
BONAFIDE THREAT time and time again that had true villian power and Mickey 
was actually SCARED of dealing with him at many points when Pete finally got 
serious. The Dell Pete on the other hand was "villian of the day" and by the 
time we got to the Disney Era, Pete seemed to be perpetually stuck on 
stupid. And whoever thought the name "Big-Bad Pete" was clever needed to be 
hit. Personally I have always thought, and still think' that "Pegleg Pete", 
whether he had his prosthetic or not, was the best name he ever had in the 
course of his history cause it evokes SUCH an image in your head.

My next beef is The Phantom Blot. The Blot should *never* under any 
circumstances be used as a villian in a ho-hum matter of fact story. Seeing 
him around should *always* be one of those "Uh-oh, Mickey's in for a *HUGE* 
load of @$%&$" kind of deals. I was NOT fond of Mickey's tenure during the 
Disney era minus a handful of stories, but (talking with several friends who 
aren't as knowlegeable on the subject that also agree) the 4-part "Mystery 
In Mouseton" arc where they brought Murry's Emil Eagle back for a long 
overdue revenge and the 2-part "Big Fall/A Phantom Blot Bedtime Story" where 
it was revealed that the Blot had a daughter were bar none two of the best 
stories ever done with the Mouse cast during the Disney era (excluding the 
Disney Adventures Perils of Mickey story: Return To Blaggard Castle which 
many have mentioned in the letters pages that were just as equally awesome). 
The problem with these stories is that they represent three different types 
of Mickeys. "Big Fall/Bedtime Story" was as close to Gottfredson as you will 
EVER get in the Disney books, but while the Phantom Brat added LOTS of 
layers to the story, did we really need a hood on her and everything else 
under the sun the entire time? That was silly and detracted from an 
otherwise marvelous story. "Mystery In Mouseton" with Emil Eagle was a 
wonderful way to bring back a dead character and make him FUN again (I 
really NEVER saw that plot twist coming),  but while I liked the concept 
behind that saga a lot it is the most Marvelised version of Mickey I have 
ever seen, which also puts it in the category of "close but no cigar." New 
stories were most certainly the way to go, but NOT like that.

Now we come to this current point in time. Gladstone didnt even bother with 
Mickey this time, having learned thier lesson with Series 1. When I found 
out they were taking over again I was ECSTATIC but at the same time, 
EXTREMELY dissapointed because Mickey and Gottfredson - my favorites were 
all but left out. And World Of Tomorrow/Monarch Of Medioka had already been 
seen in albums. Gemstone seems to be in a bit of a pinch as to what stories 
to use to print in Mickey currently - new or old. We know now what happens 
when you rely on the Dell/Gold Key Mickey and we also know what happens when 
you rely on too MANY changes (Disney Era Mickey). So  it seems to me that 
the solution should be so simple:

Both.

I agree with everyone when I say editorial should be VERY selective about 
*what* stories should be seen. But IMO that goes for both new and old 
stories. New stories should reflect the spirit of Gottfredson while trying 
new ideas and being thier own entity and old stories from the Dell/Gold Key 
era should only be THE BEST OF THE BEST. End of story. If Gemstone expects 
Mickey Mouse to survive they can't look at it from a solely nostalgic sense 
right now like many Barks purists do, but moreso (and I hate to say this 
because when this happens sometimes people go overboard, but I trust the 
minds at Gemstone) from the sense of what is best in the business standpoint 
story wise for Mickey Mouse. No offense to the European writers and artists, 
but if the story is new, Gemstone should make absolutely positively sure 
that said new story is THE BEST they have to offer in both writing AND art. 
Really the same should go for the Ducks, but with talent like Barks, Scarpa, 
Vicar, Rosa, etc etc we don't have anything to worry about. (Now if only we 
could get more Italian stories...)

For the life of me I have no idea why no one in the past several years: 
Gladstone, Gemstone, or Disney has thought of reprinting Paul Murry and Carl 
Fallberg's very first Mickey Mouse serial - "The Last Resort". I've never 
read it myself, but considering the era and its historical significance, 
this would be PERFECT for the Mickey book. And its only - what 8 to 10 pages 
each installment? Gemstone can easily run new and old this way. Furthermore, 
look at the format Gemstone has going now. They can flipflop easily between 
new and old material IF they are selective about what they run - which is 
paramount for Mickey's success.

Why not run a new story in the front (preferably ANYTHING by Cesar Ferioli 
because he is just too awesome), then the "and friends" portion possibly 
Goofy or Donald, and then conclude the book on a special serial story most 
preferably an EARLY Serial story. Or to flip flop it, a classic EARLY Paul 
Murry or Dick Moores in the front and new story serialized in the back like 
when WDC&S ran Ferioli's stories serialized? Sprinkle in a classic book 
length story at random to be special here and there you've got it. Certainly 
NO Strobl Mickey, LITTLE Bradbury (while Bradbury is good and I prefer him 
to Bill Wright, he has the same story issues that Murry had. VARY the 
stories so we get those character pieces, those adventure piece, and special 
things like they do with the ducks - and most importantly DONT be afraid to 
experiment until you get something that works, and when you do, go for it 
you know? I would even be so BOLD AND BRAZEN to say reprint that Disney MM 
story with Blot or Mystery In Mouseton and give commentary on things like 
they did with the Ducks. Sometimes the commentary can be more interesting 
than the story itself, which is saying something.

If I can suggest only three serial stories that I really and truly think 
should have BEEN seen print by now it would be "The Last Resort" MAYBE "The 
Return Of The Phantom Blot" and MAYBE "Case Of The Dazzling Hoodoo". I 
suggest the latter if only because I'm very curious to see the origin of the 
villian that sparked that odd Disney Emil Eagle VS Mickey Mouse story in the 
first place and that one seems a much better candidate as opposed to his 
other MANY lackluster 70's appearances. As far as "Return Of The Phantom 
Blot" goes, I'm not sure how it is in terms of quality either as IMO Murry's 
blot is the weakest interpretation of the character ever (I detest the 
pupils in the eyes and it goes against everything I said before on the Blot, 
but I know that serial in particular was one of the longest Murry ever did 
so maybe it WAS good?). It's also (I think) Fallberg/Murry's first attempt 
at the Blot which is at least something in and of itself. HOWEVER, if both 
stories mentioned are bad and typical of what defined the lackluster Mickey 
of the long Dell era then feel free to perfectly ignore me AND STAY AWAY.

This leads me to one last thing.

This letter gives off a strong tone that I dislike Murry and all others 
associated with the Dell era but in all honesty I REALLY TRULY DONT. Early 
Dell Murry and especially Moores IMO is the most likeable you'll get with 
Dell Mickey Mouse. Furthermore I will not under any circumstances subtract 
Paul Murry's contribution to the mouse world, but I have to say again to 
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not print any of his later work. It seems like such 
a mean thing to say but again, Gemstone *needs* to stick with his EARLY work 
only such as Westward Whoa, Double Cross Ranch, or Sign of the Squid.  Stuff 
like these are the kind of stories you should really look out for. And right 
now I truly believe Mickey Mouse can't take anything from that era that gave 
him such a bad reputation if they expect the book to survive in the long 
term. "Mickey Mouse and the Monster Whale" which I know you all have already 
reprinted was nice, but its got NOTHING on some of the other gems of that 
earlier period. Selectivity is key. Just because its nostalgic doesn't make 
it great.

On a similar tangent, and I know this will probably make me enemies, but I 
also say PLEASE dont print any more of the European stories that try to 
imitate Murry's style because on that same specturm, only MURRY can do 
MURRY. Disney Era backstories were loaded with those and...well. To say I 
found them dull if not on par with the worst of Gold Key is really an 
uinderstatement. Sorry but thats how I feel. =\

To be perfectly honest, I know its a book length story but if Gemstone ever 
reprinted Double Cross Ranch in MM and Friends (namely so I could finally 
have a copy that isnt worn - heehee) they would be my hero. I can't remember 
if Dick Moores' "Goofy's Mechanical Wizard" or "The Wonderful Whizzix" ever 
saw a reprint (I think one of them ran during the Disney run but I dont have 
those copies on me to confirm) but if you want some good Moores stories then 
there ya go. And on an equal extent I'd take him over Bill Wright any day. I 
know Mr. Moores didn't do many stories before he migrated to Gasoline Alley 
but if his other Mouse work was anywhere near as nice to read as those two, 
then he had a flair about his adventure stories that did Mickey a world of 
good for the short time he was there.

As far as new stories go - Ceasar Ferioli, Byron Erickson, and David 
Gerstien lately seem to have Mickey and company on point more than anyone 
else it seems. It wasnt Ferioli, but "Steambot Willies" while not deep or 
meaningful actually kinda worked. I havent read "River Of Time" from MMA 
yet, but I know people were raving about how they liked the story which made 
me happy. :) That Mickey story with the genie, or the one with the Island of 
lost people however. Didnt like it as much sadly. Dunno if it was the art or 
the story what did it, but...meh.

I know there was some debate to it earlier but I actually liked the 
Riverside Rovers backstories with Morty, Ferdie, and Gilbert. When they 
weren't laden down with soccer speech I couldnt make heads or tails of it 
served as a stretch. BUT they were cute and a good diversion PLUS they gave 
the nephews CHARACTER. And what they did for Gilbert Goof's personality was 
something akin to a tiny miracle. :) I think varying stories with selective 
reprints is really the way to go especially since Scarpa and Gottfredson 
just feasably aren't on tap. I don't know if this would be considered "too 
soon" but I'd love to see really see that DA Perils Of Mickey serial 
reprinted in proper form somewhere on down the line if Gemstone can get 
thier hands on it. Heck, I'd go so far as to LOAN my copy of the story (I 
have it somewhere) if it meant other people finally got to see it in print 
proper. Plus Stephen DeStefano was a wonderful Mickey artist.

The quality and the continuity of Mickey is OBVIOUSLY there, but the 
character development and the small things are good to see too? VARIETY is 
the next thing the book needs. With Dell/early Gold Key it was almost ALL 
detective/fluff. With Gold Key/Whitman it was ALL reprints of 
detective/fluff. With Gladstone it was ALL Gottfredson. With Disney it was 
ALL "NEW HARDCORE MICKEY" with no reprints whatsoever until it was too late. 
And now with Gemstone it feels like no one really knows what direction to 
ultimately take him in to succeed while the ducks have clear and sunny skies 
ahead. And, as a friend a fellow comic artist, that makes me sad. :( I can 
only hope my suggestions as a fan who grew up reading ducks and mice helped 
some, but I also dont want to see Mickey Mouse and Goofy and Horace, etc 
turned into duck clones either at the expense of thier 
personality/individuality. And I especially never want to see another Mickey 
hiatus like the Disney/Gladstone II era either ever again if I can help it. 
:(

_____


In conclusion, sorry this letter was so long, but I felt the need to say it 
for some reason while it was on my mind. Classics are nice when - in 
Mickey's case - they're *carefully* chosen. Just because its classic Murry 
or Bradbury doesn't make them *good* classics. Not even Barks or Gottfredson 
- the greats that they are - produced good hits all the time. Its too bad we 
have yet to discover the true succesor to the Gottfredson era, but I hope 
that one also never forgets that you can't know how to best respect your 
history until you know what was both wrong and right about it. New stories 
are nice to see, but lets not have new stories OH MY WORD just because 
they're new. That doesn't make them any good and that was Disney's biggest 
mistake with the mouse. Let's not retool Mickey and put him in an adventure 
just because we can, and let's not turn him into Donald Duck either just 
because thats what worked for Donald Duck (which seems to be some of the 
European mistakes as of late). But at least people are trying again and that 
makes me happy. Continue to give Mickey his individuality and acknowledge 
the stories that make his true comic fans know what's been there the whole 
time and above all debunk the "cute, dry giggling mascot" image that plagues 
Mickey even to this day.

Concentrate less on the "old" and the "new" and more on the "good", the 
"edge of your seat", and  the "alive" and I guarantee that Mickey Mouse in 
comic form will be just fine. Know what I mean?

.....

So yeah, thats it. This is what happens when I get bored and have no work to 
do so you all had to suffer! HAHAHAHAHAHA! **cough**And if you read this 
post all the way through you get a cookie. :)

Jonathan H. Gray
Sonic The Hedgehog Artist

Comics - http://chipandwalter.adiversions.com/
Portfolio - http://chipandwalter.adiversions.com/jongraywb
The CKC Message Board - http://www.adiversions.com/forums/