Mr. George's Wife

[AIOTTO!]

I've always been greatly fascinated by the Mr. George's Wife strip.

It's such a pity we know so little about it, considering the mighty importance it has, retrospectively, in Disney Comics history, being the frist and only official foray of Walt Disney himself as a complete cartoonist, writing and drawing his own thing.

We've only been left with those four 1920 strips published in 2015 on the 8th volume of the Floyd Gottfredson Library.

I was wondering: Has any more strip been discovered in the meantime? Do we know the exact amount of strips Walt created with these characters? Where are those four kept?

In the end, we know that supposedly none of them strips was published.

Having the series been released in its times, it would be hailed nowadays as the start of Disney Comics as a whole. I consider it as such anyway.

Do you as well?

And should we consider George and his wife canonical Disney characters?

I'm really curious about your thoughts on the subject

[Mesterius]

Is Mr. George's Wife really all that important? I must admit I fail to see how it has had any significance to the production of Disney comics from 1930 onwards.

[Rrr]

I don't count them as canonical Disney characters, just something Walt made before the first real Disney comics. So no, I don't count them as part of Disney in total. But very interesting subject indeed.
Rrr

[AIOTTO!]

Jan 26, 2021 16:29:54 GMT Rrr said:

I don't count them as canonical Disney characters, just something Walt made before the first real Disney comics. So no, I don't count them as part of Disney in total. But very interesting subject indeed.
Rrr

What does distinguish, for you, a real Disney comic from this? I mean, after all they were made by Walt Disney himself and bore his signature just like any other that followed

[AIOTTO!]

Jan 26, 2021 16:20:13 GMT Mesterius said:

Is Mr. George's Wife really all that important? I must admit I fail to see how it has had any significance to the production of Disney comics from 1930 onwards.

I agree with you, Jan, that the strip didn't "had any significance to the production of Disney comics from 1930 onwards", because by then, ten years later, it was sort of a forgotten thing.

But we should still recognize it, I think, as a first attempt -Albeit a failed one- to establish such a things as a Disney Comic, in the very sense of the word.

[Mesterius]

Jan 26, 2021 16:46:10 GMT AIOTTO! said:

Jan 26, 2021 16:20:13 GMT Mesterius said:

Is Mr. George's Wife really all that important? I must admit I fail to see how it has had any significance to the production of Disney comics from 1930 onwards.

I agree with you, Jan, that the strip didn't "had any significance to the production of Disney comics from 1930 onwards", because by then, ten years later, it was sort of a forgotten thing.

But we should still recognize it, I think, as a first attempt -Albeit a failed one- to establish such a things as a Disney Comic, in the very sense of the word.

But it wasn't an attempt to establish a "Disney Comic" in the way you use the term, or in the way most people use the term today. It was just an attempt by Walt Disney to do a comic strip.

"Disney Comics", as the term is used today, all have a connection somehow to the Disney studio's animated output, which they were originally spun off from. Many new characters have been created specifically for the comics, of course, including whole original universes -- but even then, it has happened under publishers and production companies who had licensed the rights from Disney to do comics based on the studio's classic characters/concepts. It's a very different thing from a comic strip created by Walt ten years earlier with no connection to his animated films.

By the way, my username is Mesterius. Not sure where "Jan" came from.

[AIOTTO!]

Jan 26, 2021 17:05:51 GMT Mesterius said:

Jan 26, 2021 16:46:10 GMT AIOTTO! said:

I agree with you, Jan, that the strip didn't "had any significance to the production of Disney comics from 1930 onwards", because by then, ten years later, it was sort of a forgotten thing.

But we should still recognize it, I think, as a first attempt -Albeit a failed one- to establish such a things as a Disney Comic, in the very sense of the word.

But it wasn't an attempt to establish a "Disney Comic" in the way you use the term, or in the way most people use the term today. It was just an attempt by Walt Disney to do a comic strip.

"Disney Comics", as the term is used today, all have a connection somehow to the Disney studio's animated output, which they were originally spun off from. Many new characters have been created specifically for the comics, of course, including whole original universes -- but even then, it has happened under publishers and production companies who had licensed the rights from Disney to do comics based on the studio's classic characters/concepts. It's a very different thing from a comic strip created by Walt ten years earlier with no connection to his animated films.

By the way, my username is Mesterius. Not sure where "Jan" came from.

Really sorry about the nickname mismatch, I was sure I read Jan, tough! Probably a mnemonic glitch, I apologize

Maybe we should consider who has the intellectual property of Mr. George's Wife to set things straight.

If the strips are under the copyright of Walt Disney Studios -Even if they preceded its foundation- they should be considered part of Disney comics, but I would think they could be considered somewhat related with the Studios even if they were under the, say, Walt Disney Family copyright.

Anyway, I understand your conception of the term "Disney Comics", as it is used today, in a straightforward way.

But, broadening a bit the view, we can consider this part of its history, or at least prehistory, like an "honourable" ancestor the main thing.

I was also thinking it might be cool to do a sort of modern day comic with these characters, like it was done with Oswald The Lucky Rabbit. Or just a cameo of Mr. George somewhere.

[Rrr]

Jan 26, 2021 16:39:43 GMT AIOTTO! said:

Jan 26, 2021 16:29:54 GMT Rrr said:

I don't count them as canonical Disney characters, just something Walt made before the first real Disney comics. So no, I don't count them as part of Disney in total. But very interesting subject indeed.
Rrr

What does distinguish, for you, a real Disney comic from this? I mean, after all they were made by Walt Disney himself and bore his signature just like any other that followed

By saying “real” I mean that Walt himself sorta’ forgot this when the Disney comic strip business began. Like, he didn’t really continue this project of his own in any way, which is why I don’t count it as part of the canon Disney world we know today, since everyone already forgot about it back in the 1930’es.

Rrr

[Mesterius]

Jan 26, 2021 17:24:53 GMT AIOTTO! said:

Jan 26, 2021 17:05:51 GMT Mesterius said:

But it wasn't an attempt to establish a "Disney Comic" in the way you use the term, or in the way most people use the term today. It was just an attempt by Walt Disney to do a comic strip.

"Disney Comics", as the term is used today, all have a connection somehow to the Disney studio's animated output, which they were originally spun off from. Many new characters have been created specifically for the comics, of course, including whole original universes -- but even then, it has happened under publishers and production companies who had licensed the rights from Disney to do comics based on the studio's classic characters/concepts. It's a very different thing from a comic strip created by Walt ten years earlier with no connection to his animated films.

By the way, my username is Mesterius. Not sure where "Jan" came from.

Really sorry about the nickname mismatch, I was sure I read Jan, tough! Probably a mnemonic glitch, I apologize

Maybe we should consider who has the intellectual property of Mr. George's Wife to set things straight.

If the strips are under the copyright of Walt Disney Studios -Even if they preceded its foundation- they should be considered part of Disney comics, but I would think they could be considered somewhat related with the Studios even if they were under the, say, Walt Disney Family copyright.

Anyway, I understand your conception of the term "Disney Comics", as it is used today, in a straightforward way.

But, broadening a bit the view, we can consider this part of its history, or at least prehistory, like an "honourable" ancestor the main thing.

I was also thinking it might be cool to do a sort of modern day comic with these characters, like it was done with Oswald The Lucky Rabbit. Or just a cameo of Mr. George somewhere.

You may consider it part of the history of "Disney Comics" (from what I'm seeing here, you already do), but others may disagree with you on that. The thing is that "Disney Comics" as we know them today would never have existed if it wasn't for the success Walt Disney found with his animation studio.

And Oswald, again, is a different thing to me than Mr. George's Wife, since Oswald *was* a product of the Disney cartoon studio. They lost the rights to him, of course, but later got back the rights to the specific version of the character that Walt and Ub Iwerks created. So nowadays it's possible to do 'Disney comics' with Oswald like you can with other classic Disney animated stars. (I would still find it weird if he showed up in the duck and mouse comics universe, especially since his design is locked to the 1920s style... but I guess it's possible.)

[AIOTTO!]

Jan 26, 2021 17:48:41 GMT Mesterius said:

You may consider it part of the history of "Disney Comics" (from what I'm seeing here, you already do), but others may disagree with you on that.

Of course, this is just my point of view, and I was looking for others' opinions on the subject . I don't want to impose anything!

And yes, I know that Oswald is a totally different thing, having been conceived and produced by the already established -By then- Walt Disney Studio.

Anyway, re-reading David Gerstein article regarding MGW in FGL 8, I noticed a "link" to the Studios that may, in part, "salvage" the strip from the darkness of un-canon-ness:

David conjectures that the "Georges"' white faced black cat, who appears on the second of the four strips, is actually the same Julius The Cat character we see in the very early Laugh-O-Grams and Alice Comedies, therefore the very first mainstay created by the soon to be called Walt Disney Studio.

His allegiance with the Studios, or his "officialdom" as a Disney character, is the same as Oswald's.

So, if we should consider Julius' debut that particular 1920 strip, we can -Following a very large route, I concede- consider the MGW strip part of a Disney Studio's official character history, hence the strip itself loosely connected to the Studios history, or, so to speak, to the "canon".

I know it's a bit of a mess, though.

[caballero]

Wow. How have I never heard about these strips before? So four strips have survived but is it known how many Disney has made?

[Mesterius]

Jan 26, 2021 18:17:53 GMT AIOTTO! said:

Jan 26, 2021 17:48:41 GMT Mesterius said:

You may consider it part of the history of "Disney Comics" (from what I'm seeing here, you already do), but others may disagree with you on that.

Of course, this is just my point of view, and I was looking for others' opinions on the subject . I don't want to impose anything!

And yes, I know that Oswald is a totally different thing, having been conceived and produced by the already established -By then- Walt Disney Studio.

Anyway, re-reading David Gerstein article regarding MGW in FGL 8, I noticed a "link" to the Studios that may, in part, "salvage" the strip from the darkness of un-canon-ness:

David conjectures that the "Georges"' white faced black cat, who appears on the second of the four strips, is actually the same Julius The Cat character we see in the very early Laugh-O-Grams and Alice Comedies, therefore the very first mainstay created by the soon to be called Walt Disney Studio.

His allegiance with the Studios, or his "officialdom" as a Disney character, is the same as Oswald's.

So, if we should consider Julius' debut that particular 1920 strip, we can -Following a very large route, I concede- consider the MGW strip part of a Disney Studio's official character history, hence the strip itself loosely connected to the Studios history, or, so to speak, to the "canon".

I know it's a bit of a mess, though.

Interesting point about Julius the Cat.

But at the same time... is un-canon-ness such a dark thing? If you ask me, talking about "canon" and "non-canon" in Disney comics is kind of a futile exercise to begin with. Just to take one example: I love much of what I've read of PKNA, but I can't align a Donald who is a real superhero (Duck Avenger) with the Donald in Carl Barks' classic stories. They're different versions of the character.

[AIOTTO!]

Jan 27, 2021 1:57:12 GMT Mesterius said:

But at the same time... is un-canon-ness such a dark thing? If you ask me, talking about "canon" and "non-canon" in Disney comics is kind of a futile exercise to begin with. Just to take one example: I love much of what I've read of PKNA, but I can't align a Donald who is a real superhero (Duck Avenger) with the Donald in Carl Barks' classic stories. They're different versions of the character.

Hi there Mesterius!

I'm totally with you on this subject of "canon" or "non-canon", I don't buy into the canon-ness that much. Matter of fact I consider Mr. George's Wife part of Disney Comics .

I was just making that remark concerning Julius being born in the strip in order to try to persuade people with a more strict (Or canonical) view on the subject to "try to see things my way", as Paul McCartney once sang.