Ludwig Von Drake Jul 29, 2017 15:09:48 GMT
Post by drakeborough on Jul 29, 2017 15:09:48 GMT
There is also this DCML quote from 1993:
And what other changes did I make in Barks old Family Tree? The only other one I can think of is that I eleiminated the business of Gladstone's parents dying from overeating at a free picnic, so he was never adopted by $crooge's sister Matilda. I saw no purpose behind such a "plot twist" which would have been very hard to get included in a comic book. Unfortunately, this left Matilda an "old maid"; I wanted to have her married to Ludwig Von Drake; I like Ludwig and that would be the ONLY way he could actually be a relative of Donald. But I was vetoed by everyone from Bob Foster to Carl Barks on that one... so poor Matilda is still an old maid. (Actually, she'd be DEAD by now, anyhow. $crooge is the last McDuck alive.)
Of course, Rosa later changed his mind about Matilda being dead. In this DCML message (also from 1993), he discussed the changes the editor made to his article in WDC #600, the one that was just uploaded by Zantaf in this thread:
You seem to have gotten a wrong idea due to the way they editted a few lines out of my text piece that accompanied my Duck Family Tree in WDC&S #600. I had written that the only way Ludwig Von Drake could be Donald's uncle is if he were married to Matilda... but I went on to say that various editors and such asked me not to include Ludwig for reasons I don't recall. So I left him out. But in my own private notes, I have Ludwig married to Matilda McDuck. The same way that, in my private notes, Fethry Duck does NOT exist.
This is from Matilda's entry in Gilles Maurice's explanatory table of Rosa's family tree (at the moment I can't find the origin of the quote in italics):
"Don Rosa first wanted her to be married to Ludwig von Drake for several reasons : he grew up with Ludwig on TV and liked the character, Barks didn't create the character but used him once in "Flowers Are Flowers" (1961), she is the only way Ludwig Von Drake could actually be a relative of Donald, and it would be a "perfectly logical idea having the two European members of the Duck family being married and living far away". But neither Barks, who had a low regard for the character, nor the publisher, who considers Ludwig as "officially dead", agreed. So what happened here is kind of the opposite of what happened with Fethry."
The following quote is from a Papersera message dated 2010:
>>>>>I am puzzled. Are you implying that Matilda is a barksian character? When did he use it? I thought it was your own creation.
Gosh, no! I did not create ANY characters in that Duck Family Tree *except* those required to link already existing characters, created by Barks and others, together. I think that involved only creating husbands for wives or vice-versa. My purpose was never to create new characters in Barks' universe... only to solidify the Universe he had already created.
Matilda McDuck, $crooge's sister, was created by Barks in a Family Tree he constructed for his own private reference in the early 1950's. Her original purpose was to explain Gladstone Gander's position in the Duck family -- Matilda and husband Gustave Gander (another Barks creation) were Gladstone's adoptive parents. But that involved the death of Gladstone's actual parents in a sort of black humor scenario. (Apparently they were deadbeat bums and "died of overeating at a free-lunch picnic".) It was a morbid joke that was never intended to be seen by readers and also the adoption idea was needlessly complicated.
When I was asked by Egmont in 1991 to create a Duck Family Tree, I contacted Mr. Barks for his assistance and to be sure he was in agreement with what I did with his characters. He sent me some new versions of a Tree and he & I developed a different and less morbid way for Gladstone to be in the family, by moving Barks' Gustave Gander over to Donald's side of the Tree. This left Barks' Matilda character without a husband or adopted child, so I decided (as previously discussed) she would now serve the obvious function of being Ludwig Von Drake's only possible link to the family. Egmont, however, nixed that idea, which left Matilda a bit lonely. But she still existed in Barks' old notes, so I still inserted her into the Tree."
There are other similar quotes here and there, but I think it would be pointless to report all of them.
I understand your point of view.
Yes, it should, and I know what you're going to say: why then should anything stated about Cartoon-Ludwig (such as his being Donald's father's brother or being a bachelor) apply to Comics-Ludwig? And you'd have a point. So I guess it comes down to personal preferences. To me, Ludwig somehow fits better as being related to Donald on his father's side and both he and Matilda seem to be suited to being unmarried for life, but I understand that others feel differently (and this late in the game, even a published story by showing them married, like the story showing Della alive and lost in space, would represent just "one version" of events).
While I don't think the supposed marriage between Matilda and Ludwig is an important matter, I am curious of something: does you theory that the animated and comic book version of Disney characters are basically different also apply to Ludwig?
Well, it's the only way if youdon't make up new character and interpret "uncle" in a close sense, meaning either direct uncle ("mother's brother" or "father's brother") or uncle by marriage ("mother's sister's husband" or "father's sister's husband").
Of course, it's not the only way if you make up a new aunt for Donald (either maternal or paternal), if you interpret "uncle" in a looser sense, or if you imagine some contrived stories of people not getting their fathers' names and/or people divorcing, remarring, and having children from each marriage.
As I said above, the text has been shortened by the editor. Here is the extended version, though it contains some bloopers (like "Of Ducks and Dimes and Destinies" mentioned as Downy's debut, or "Bear Mountain" said to be from 1948), which I am not sure if were corrected for the printed version.
But then why Scrooge treats Gladstone like a nephew, according to Rosa?
Far from being a joke, that panel comes right after the one in which Donald said Scrooge was his uncle on his mother's side (which was already obvious, since Donald and Scrooge have different surnames). Why did Barks have Gladstone say "Scrooge McDuck is my mother's brother's brother-in-law"? Simple, it's because that was one of the only two ways Gladstone could be related to Scrooge while being Donald's cousin and not having the surname Duck or McDuck. Barks obviously took the time to think up of a relation that makes sense and is coherent rather than making up a nonsense funny expression.
Then, in "The Trail of the Unicorn"(1950), Barks hints again at Gladstone not being actually related to Scrooge, as the former says "My noisy cousin, Donald Duck, going toward his uncle Scrooge's place!"
Finally, in "Some Heir Over the Rainbow" (1953), Barks says for a third time that Gladstone is not related to Scrooge. In fact, Scrooge says "My only relatives are my nephew, Donald, and his nephews, Huey, Dewey and Louie, and my distant nephew, Gladstone Gander!"
Barks' first family tree, made sometimes in the 1950's, is coherent with this, as it shows Gladstone is not an actual relative of Scrooge, and in the tree Scrooge is his mother's brother's brother-in-law, just like in "Race to the South Seas". However, and this is clearly the (private) joke, Barks also added a twist where Gladstone's parents had died from overeating at a free picnic so that Gladstone was adopted by Scrooge's sister Matilda and her husband.
In Barks' second tree (1991), which he made without remembering the first, Scrooge is once again Gladstone's mother's brother's brother-in-law, and Barks specified he used "Race to the South Sea" as a source for that bit. However, the needless and morbid idea of dying by overeating was not there this time. Then, after seeing his first tree, Barks created a third one that combined the first and the second, with the adoption bit being absent as it was pointless. Rosa started from here, and he didn't include the adoption bit in his tree or in his stories.
This should sum up everything about the history of the adoption idea, but if you feel something is incomplete or unclear feel free to ask.