For the Mickey cameo in Don Rosa story, it was "Metaphorically Spanking" when everybody is running in the stadium, and in the far-right we can see Mickey running. Also, I really like the idea of Evert Geradts's gags with young Donald Duck and his sister Della. It fits better in my headcanon than the Donald Duckling series. I was only able to see them on Inducks, whith a little zoom on the images Hope they get translated to English or French. And I hope the author will be allowed to include the parents in future gags.
I'm also hoping that we get to see some of the Geradts "Donald's First ____" one-pagers in English. Only some of them could possibly make my headcanon, for various reasons, but I hope it's clear that I enjoy lots of stories that don't make my headcanon. Some of the ones that focus on Donald and Della, and mention their parents as living, and don't throw in younger versions of all the other characters whom I don't think they met in childhood--those could definitely fill historical gaps in my mental Duckworld.
I have Matilda's approach. But all my headcanon is built following this paramenter, I do no base the whole thing on Barks and Rosa. Of course, there is most of Rosa and basically all Barks therein, as I like them a lot. But everything is reset - I do not even know how - in the present.
(Matilda, I suspect you forgot to mention Van Horn senior among those who belong to your canon with more than one story...)
On William Van Horn--I often enjoy his stories as I read them, but seldom do they ensconce themselves in my mental Duckburg as "real" events. The one that definitely has done so is "The Ghost of Kamikaze Ridge." Hard to think of others that have "stuck" for me, though. Maybe "Creature Comforts" (the one with the Fermi).... I love the look of the spaceships in "The Black Moon" but, like GeoX, I can't get past the fact that the Ducks are apparently all DOOMED at the end (I know, I know, people come up with extra-narrative solutions). "No Room for Human Error" is absolutely "real" in my headcanon, but that's written by John Lustig.
EDIT: Oh, wait...I was just out walking and I thought of the trick-or-treat contest story, "It's in the Bag!" So, yes, that places WVH solidly in the "at least two" category for me. Monkey F, you officially know my mind better than I do myself.
For the Mickey cameo in Don Rosa story, it was "Metaphorically Spanking" when everybody is running in the stadium, and in the far-right we can see Mickey running.
Well, Rosa frequently did "hidden Mickeys" gags, but these jokes don't imply Rosa views Mickey as part of the Duck universe. If anything, they imply the opposite.
Also, I really like the idea of Evert Geradts's gags with young Donald Duck and his sister Della. It fits better in my headcanon than the Donald Duckling series. I was only able to see them on Inducks, whith a little zoom on the images Hope they get translated to English or French. And I hope the author will be allowed to include the parents in future gags.
I agree that the series fits better into Donald's youth compared to Donald Duckling, both for the presence of Della and for the fact that Donald is being raised by his parents rather than by Grandma Duck. Too bad that the editor forbade Quackmore and Hortense from appearing in the series.
That said, there are some aspects of the series that are not part of my headcanon, like the presence of Scrooge. Beside that, it would be fun if the series also tries having longer stories in addition to one-pagers.
I have Matilda's approach. But all my headcanon is built following this paramenter, I do no base the whole thing on Barks and Rosa. Of course, there is most of Rosa and basically all Barks therein, as I like them a lot. But everything is reset - I do not even know how - in the present.
Post by Monkey_Feyerabend on Jul 30, 2017 18:00:53 GMT
Because since 1930 Disney stories are always set in the present. (With the exception of a few Barks-fan writers, who seem not to have get this point, not even by looking at Barks's example.) So when I read a story I contexualize it to the year it was written (or the year the writer intended to set it.) But if I must have *my* haedcanon, then everything is taken to my time.
Post by Scrooge MacDuck on Jul 30, 2017 18:10:24 GMT
I have mostly kept out of this thread because I have no "exclusive" headcanon; most everything is canon to me, and the exceptions I find just too problematic to include are a literal handful. Of course, when a detail seems conflictuous with previous canon, I sometimes mentally "smudge" it a bit so the conflict goes away, but the stories are essentially canon.
I can understand the idea of the Barks-Rosa-centered canon with satellite stories from other writers, but while it's an interesting thought experiment I never think this way when reading Disney comics.
The original story of how the nephews went to live with Donald (the story with them placing explosives under their father's chair). I don't see why that can't fit into Barkses/Rosa's universe. After that prank, their parents freaked out so badly that they decided to let someone else raise them.
Because since 1930 Disney stories are always set in the present. (With the exception of a few Barks-fan writers, who seem not to have get this point, not even by looking at Barks's example.) So when I read a story I contexualize it to the year it was written (or the year the writer intended to set it.) But if I must have *my* haedcanon, then everything is taken to my time.
I understand (even though I don't agree with) the idea of setting in 2017 the stories written in 2017, but imagining that Barks' stories also take place is 2017 seems just too much for me. Well, to each his own headcanon.
The original story of how the nephews went to live with Donald (the story with them placing explosives under their father's chair). I don't see why that can't fit into Barkses/Rosa's universe. After that prank, their parents freaked out so badly that they decided to let someone else raise them.
That firecracker thing has become sort of an urban legend in the last 20+ years. I mean, it's not that that the sequence in question doesn't exist, since it clearly does (it's the Sunday page of October 17, 1937):
However, that page is the first one of a 6-page storyline, which ends with the Sunday page of November 21 of the same year, in which they return home after their mother asks Donald with a telegram to send them back:
After that, they irregularly appear in a few daily strips of February and April 1938 but without explanation. Which makes sense: a strip has much less panels than a Sunday page, no need to show on screen something that can happen off-screen like HDL going to visit Donald sometimes before the strip started, and returning home sometimes after the strip ended.
Anyway, On May 23, there is this strip in which someone, supposedly their mother, asks Donald at the phone to keep them for a few days:
It seems that, after this point, they never returned home for some unknown reason.
Post by Monkey_Feyerabend on Jul 31, 2017 9:29:56 GMT
OT:
I recently bought (and just started to have a look at) the first volume of Donald Duck Sundays (DDS, from now on), whereas I do not have the Silly Symphonies Sundays (SSS), as the ones posted here above.Now watching them I realize what a great jump Karp and Taliaferro did with the DDS, from an artistic perspective. The DDS were enriched with a very free and imaginative page cage, nothing like the constrained page layout of the SSS that I see here.
I have zero knowledge of syndicated American comics of the pre-war, except for Disney. So I wonder whether there were already examples of Sundays with fancy layouts back in those days (I guess yes, but I have no example*), or if by any change Taliaferro and Karp were being also artistically innovative. It is rare to see technical innovation by Disney authors, even the best of them (innovation with reference to the whole word of comics, not just within the Disney-sphere).
[* Yeah, of course, Little Nemo and Yellow Kid...but those were pioneers from another age...]
EDIT: now I realize that the SSS were written by old good Osborne, whereas the DDS were signed by Karp. This is not a secondary observation...
I'd rather people just called it the "Rosa Universe". "Barks/Rosa" implies a consistency and continuity in Barks' work that he never intended or cared for, and that the two are inextricably linked, which just isn't the case (Rosa's work is to Barks', of course, but not the other way round).
I wouldn't want to use the phrase "Barks/Rosa universe" to imply a continuity that should be enforced on anyone (or indeed, that Barks himself would approve of!). Rosa himself has consistently been clear that it's fine with him if other creators put things together in other ways. Or don't put things together at all (looking at you, Geradts!).
But to describe my own starting point, I have to say "Barks/Rosa," not just "Rosa." For one thing, there are a slew of Barksian characters (mostly one-shots) who have achieved enduring reality in my headcanon who never showed up in a Rosa story: the Phantom of Notre Duck, Miss Penny Wise, Mr. Birdmind, etc. For another thing, I had a whole Barksian "real" Duckiverse inside my head long before Rosa starting publishing Duck stories. I came largely to accept Rosa's family tree, his timeline and his Life & Times history, plus some characters he added to the world. So now it's a Barks/Rosa Duckiverse, with additional characters and stories from other creators which seem to fit into that world from my POV. (Even the pre-Rosa Barksian Duckiverse in my head had characters and stories from a few other creators: Jeb and Zeb Clinker (Fallberg), for instance, and the flying-carpets-from-the-wool-of-flying-goats story (Fallberg), Ludwig Von Drake and Madam Mim.) >end quotation<
Would you be any happier with "Barks & Rosa universe"?
I've been thinking about this, and I guess I make a distinction between "universe" and "headcanon". What you are saying in your post above, I believe, is that you have a personal headcanon that is based mainly on Barks' and Rosa's work (which for the most part align or at least do not contradict each other, because Rosa designed it that way), but includes characters and elements that appear in Barks' work but not Rosa's (Miss Penny Wise, Phantom of Notre Duck), and a few that appear in the work of neither creator (Mim, Belle Duck, etc.). You (and I) include in our headcanons characters that Rosa created, that did not appear in Barks' work, like Quackmore, Hortense, Matilda, Fergus, Downy, etc. (some of them were named by Barks in an unpublished family tree, but having never been "officially" used by him, are not part of his universe). Similarly, you (and I) mostly agree with his detailed version of Scrooge's life, and the origin of the Junior Woodchucks, and the provenance of Gladstone's luck, etc., none of which were expounded by Barks. They are all a part of a Rosa universe, but not part of a Barks universe. But they're all a part of your (and my) headcanon. So, we could both say we have a headcanon that is based on the the Barks and Rosa universes, but I still maintain that it's somewhat limiting to other creators to say "Barks/Rosa universe". Barks may not have agreed with everything Rosa has decided, and Rosa has already chosen to disregard some of what Barks has written (eg., "September Scrimmage", "The Magic Hourglass" and yes, Miss Penny Wise). It would be, for example, unfair to accuse someone of of violating Barks continuity (even if you qualify it as "Barks/Rosa continuity") if they decided to give Scrooge different parents than Fergus or Downy, for example, or have a different view of how the Junior Woodchucks Guidebook came to be (they would be violating Rosa canon, though). Rosa is but one of several creators who has written stories based on Barks' characters. A Barks/Rosa-based headcanon is fine (that's what mine is too), but I still prefer the term "Rosa universe" rather than "Barks/Rosa universe"; an alternative would be "Rosa-based-on-Barks universe"; unwieldy, perhaps, but more appropriate, IMHO.
Post by Monkey_Feyerabend on Jul 31, 2017 20:33:01 GMT
What about Rosa's Bark's Universe. With the genitive to be considered - mathematically speaking - "associative on the right" and not "on the left", i.e. formally as
Barks/Rosa universe does not have to include all stories Barks ever made. There are stories that obviously don't fit in what is later established, like the story Gladstone first appears.
I've generally used the adjective "Barksian" rather than "Barksist"--and now you make me realize why that may be so. Not just because Barksian is easier to say (though it is!), but because Barksist brings to mind Marxist. It's already enough of a challenge to verbally introduce newbies to Carl Barks! (I generally say "Carl with a 'C', Barks like a dog barks.")
So I propose "Barksian Rosa universe." Not that it really matters much to me, if no one will be offended if I persist in talking about my Barks/Rosa headcanon.
Barks/Rosa universe does not have to include all stories Barks ever made. There are stories that obviously don't fit in what is later established, like the story Gladstone first appears.
I'd say Gladstone being a jerk is a key part of his personality in addition to him being very lucky, so it's normal that some stories would focus on the former aspect rather than the latter. Of course, on a meta level we know that Barks hadn't thought up yet the concept of Gladstone being lucky, but the story may work even in the "Barks/Rosa universe", to repeat your expression. By the way, I feel that said expression is so common in the fandom that any attempt to change it into something else would probably be unsuccessful.