Possible joke

Ole Nielsen ole2001 at gmail.com
Tue Apr 10 22:34:21 CEST 2012

"Cato Elder"  wrote:

> Ole: it is hard to say what might have happened.   "CLEAN treats can beat
> dirty tricks" does not seem to need censoring, and neither does
> "sweets...treats."  I checked the panel and it does seem that a longer word
> might have been replaced by "play."

Curiously enough you quoted me, as I actually intended it, rather  than as
I wrote it. This version is my preferred presumed original wording.
Possibly Barks simply realized that a pun on Halloween's "trick or treat"
didn't fit in an Easter story, and omitted it for possible later use,
without substituting it with a different funny.

(Perhaps a joke was not originally intended, but a life lesson?  If so,
> then the point is clear with "clean play" vs.  "dirty play.")

Barks' stories are smack-full of moral lessons on life, but Donald is
hardly ever the one to deliver the straight lines. Not unless he sticks
with them, even when the hard facts of real life truths trump his good
intentions, which was his recurring story theme around this time. There are
quite a few twists in the course of this story though and I'm still curious
to what the original wording was.
Just as it would be very interesting to know what Donald's *real* answer in
the last panel of WDC 152 to the talking dog's "Times are tough, huh,
bud?". Not "You're not kiddin'!" which again has been lettered distictively
Will the owner of the original artwork please allow it to be scrutinized
under UV light or X-rays, or we'll never know for sure.

Btw, doesn't an owl see in the dark and catch mice?

- ole
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nafsk.se/pipermail/dcml/attachments/20120410/1f371c57/attachment.html>

More information about the DCML mailing list