I'm a native English speaker and I had to look up what "Conflagration" meant. (an extensive fire which destroys a great deal of land or property.) I think just having "war" may have been a better way to get the same meaning across without referencing a specific event.
Anyone reading this have a copy of Donald Duck #295 they could check and see what this panel was reprinted there as? I can't imagine Holocaust going well in 1996 either.
Not sure how to feel about this change. To be fair, Daisy's "Let's start a holocaust!" is extremely inappropriate by modern standards and I 100% understand why anyone would want that altered. And even though these books are meant to be archival editions, they are still being read by young children. (My younger cousin's elementary school library had a copy of Lost in the Andes when he was there.) So I am not bothered at all by this one change.
What does bother though is how other stories that feature more notable "dated content" are going to be handled. Darkest Africa and Voodoo Hoodoo have been reprinted in these collections already unaltered so we don't have to worry about those two but there's still stuff like The Firebug and whatever story this page comes from. If they're already going to the trouble of censoring one word, then how are they going to deal with entire pages of similar content in the future?
Last Edit: Oct 13, 2019 15:38:56 GMT by squeakyboots
Anyone reading this have a copy of Donald Duck #295 they could check and see what this panel was reprinted there as? I can't imagine Holocaust going well in 1996 either.
Actually, it was reprinted unaltered in Donald Duck #295 in 1996 (below). And Joakim Gunnarsson has mentioned on Facebook that the story was also printed without changes in Another Rainbow's Carl Barks Library in the 80s.
Fantagrahics' new edition seems to be the first time it's been changed.
I'm a native English speaker and I had to look up what "Conflagration" meant. (an extensive fire which destroys a great deal of land or property.) I think just having "war" may have been a better way to get the same meaning across without referencing a specific event.
But how would "war" make sense in Daisy's follow-up line? "Let's kick up some sparks and have a war"?
I think maybe you're misunderstanding Barks' intent here. He isn't using "holocaust" to reference WWII (or a war at all), but simply as a word for an all-consuming fire, as RobbK1 already explained.
Just to get more historic and linguistic context: was the word "holocaust" commonly used in English with the figurative meaning that Barks gives it here before (what we now refer to as) "The" Holocaust? I guess so. A holocaust is a sacrificial firing, right?
I don't mind them replacing the word, either, and "conflagration" (looks like I learnt a new word today) sounds like a good replacement. Barks had a great way of using obscure words to phrase something in a funnier or more interesting way, and as a non-native speaker even today his stories often send me to the dictionary. "Conflagration" definitely sounds like a word that Barks could have used.
Now, as for the COLOR of these books.....Yeah, those are a much, much bigger disappointment. While I certainly think that using light/shadow effects or colors that are too flashy (like they used in some of those 2000s Uncle Scrooge reprints of Barks's stories) distracts from Barks's inking and doesn't match well with his art, they still could have just used a more appealing color scheme--just look at the way Barks stories are printed in European countries like France. Solid, nice looking colors, without too much (distracting) fancy coloring programme tricks. Fantagraphics' coloring of the Don Rosa library was much better, and seemed to have much more effort put into it...Barks himself often lamented in interviews how bad the coloring in the original prints of his stories was....
Just to get more historic and linguistic context: was the word "holocaust" commonly used in English with the figurative meaning that Barks gives it here before (what we now refer to as) "The" Holocaust? I guess so. A holocaust is a sacrificial firing, right?
A "holocaust" is a fire that consumes everything associated with it (e.g. all of something, or everything in the area of that fire). A sacrificial offering being totally burnt up can be a "holocaust". But not all "holocausts" are sacfrices which get totally burnt.
On the other hand, "THE Holocaust" refers to the horrific death toll in World War II, and especially, the purposeful, wanton, systematic, mechanised ethnic cleansing murder of millions of Jews, and Poles, and scores of thousands of Gypsies. Clearly, Barks made NO reference to that, whatsoever.
It was a bit odd for Barks to have Donald and Daisy having a "holocaust" occur in a wastebasket. I suppose that unexpectedness is what Barks thought was funny. Conflagration is also a very strange word for such an occurance, and equally unexpected, and to me, unfunny.
Just to get more historic and linguistic context: was the word "holocaust" commonly used in English with the figurative meaning that Barks gives it here before (what we now refer to as) "The" Holocaust? I guess so. A holocaust is a sacrificial firing, right?
It was a bit odd for Barks to have Donald and Daisy having a "holocaust" occur in a wastebasket. I suppose that unexpectedness is what Barks thought was funny.
But I am trying to play devil's advocate here (the devil being Barks). Is it possible that "doing an holocaust" was a common phrase to say before the genocide, so much that a man grown before WW2 would continue using it even in the late 50's/early 60's without even thinking of the Holocaust. We live in a world somehow founded on the shame and memory of the Holocaust, we learn about it at school, hear and discuss about it frequently, commemorate its victims and so on. For us today, unfortunately, that word has a specific meaning burned into history. But that may not be the case for Barks, a man born in 1901. So I am trying to understand if he just said that with no reference to the Holocaust.
It was a bit odd for Barks to have Donald and Daisy having a "holocaust" occur in a wastebasket. I suppose that unexpectedness is what Barks thought was funny.
But I am trying to play devil's advocate here (the devil being Barks). Is it possible that "doing an holocaust" was a common phrase to say before the genocide, so much that a man grown before WW2 would continue using it even in the late 50's/early 60's without even thinking of the Holocaust. We live in a world somehow founded on the shame and memory of the Holocaust, we learn about it at school, hear and discuss about it frequently, commemorate its victims and so on. For us today, unfortunately, that word has a specific meaning burned into history. But that may not be the case for Barks, a man born in 1901. So I am trying to understand if he just said that with no reference to the Holocaust.
Yes, he DEFINITELY said it with NO reference to "The Holocaust", otherwise, he'd have used capital letters. I knew him. He didn't have a mean bone in his body. He might say something about someone when they have wronged others. But he would be sensitive enough to try to avoid giving others pain (unless they deserved it, due to hurting others. Yes, you are correct, that that word was used more before World War II, as were many other words that are seldom used now. And the fact that some people want to avoid bad memories is a contributor to that. But, conflagration is also used much less, because people are reading less, and speech is getting more simplified, and it seems that people are also getting lazier.
Post by Dr Ivo G Bombastus on Oct 15, 2019 10:17:19 GMT
The Shoah wasn't generally known as the Holocaust until the 1960s, and didn't become widely familiar until a 1978 miniseries by the same name brought the terminology into common parlance. This was long after Barks' 1958 story.
I wouldn't normally have a problem with them replacing the word, but if the Carl Barks Library is supposed to be as true to the original as possible, even down to the bad coloring, "minor alterations" like this are less forgivable. Where else are we gonna get the original dialogue? And if they kept the stereotyped africans, was it necessary to change this one word?
But I am trying to play devil's advocate here (the devil being Barks). Is it possible that "doing an holocaust" was a common phrase to say before the genocide, so much that a man grown before WW2 would continue using it even in the late 50's/early 60's without even thinking of the Holocaust. We live in a world somehow founded on the shame and memory of the Holocaust, we learn about it at school, hear and discuss about it frequently, commemorate its victims and so on. For us today, unfortunately, that word has a specific meaning burned into history. But that may not be the case for Barks, a man born in 1901. So I am trying to understand if he just said that with no reference to the Holocaust.
Yes, he DEFINITELY said it with NO reference to "The Holocaust", otherwise, he'd have used capital letters. I knew him. He didn't have a mean bone in his body. He might say something about someone when they have wronged others. But he would be sensitive enough to try to avoid giving others pain (unless they deserved it, due to hurting others. Yes, you are correct, that that word was used more before World War II, as were many other words that are seldom used now. And the fact that some people want to avoid bad memories is a contributor to that. But, conflagration is also used much less, because people are reading less, and speech is getting more simplified, and it seems that people are also getting lazier.
Aren't all of the letters capitalized? I'm not trying to insinuate in the slightest that Barks was making a reference to the Holocaust. Dr Ivo G Bombastus's post provides enough evidence that this is not the case. I just don't get the point you're making with capital letters, since all of the letters look capitalized to me.
No matter what I say or do, know that Jesus loves you.
Yes, he DEFINITELY said it with NO reference to "The Holocaust", otherwise, he'd have used capital letters. I knew him. He didn't have a mean bone in his body. He might say something about someone when they have wronged others. But he would be sensitive enough to try to avoid giving others pain (unless they deserved it, due to hurting others. Yes, you are correct, that that word was used more before World War II, as were many other words that are seldom used now. And the fact that some people want to avoid bad memories is a contributor to that. But, conflagration is also used much less, because people are reading less, and speech is getting more simplified, and it seems that people are also getting lazier.
Aren't all of the letters capitalized? I'm not trying to insinuate in the slightest that Barks was making a reference to the Holocaust. Dr Ivo G Bombastus 's post provides enough evidence that this is not the case. I just don't get the point you're making with capital letters, since all of the letters look capitalized to me.
No they aren't all capital letters. That is "Carl Barks Script". There ARE capital letters in that script that appear differently from the lower case letters in that script. They are slightly larger. But, I see that no capitals are used in that panel! Very odd to me. I read ALL the Barks stories all my life, and never remember seeing Barks' Script text using all lower case like this!
as a new member here: I want to first say "hooray for the feathery society !!" -and many thanks for this discussion. I recently bought the book in question here [vol.21], and yesterday I discovered that one little sentence, in the indicia. But what a bombshell ! -which left me wondering: how many stories were censored??? & did this reflect a new Fantagraphics policy? Fearing the worst, I was about to throw vol.21 in the bin today, when I came across this forum. Though any censorship is regrettable, I'm relieved to know it's only one particular word. Concerning which: Dr Bombastus [above] is right: The word "holocaust" was commonly used until well into the 60s [my teen years], to indicate any sort of gigantic disaster. As for the replacement word: if we must have any censorship here, "conflagration" is OK with me. As Robbk1 puts it, this word may only seem odd now "because people are reading less, and speech is getting more simplified". Overall, I love the Fantagraphics Barks series -and look forward to seeing all 34[?] volumes in print. Hopefully with no more censorship.