I think that, as years go by, retaining Barkses canonicity (that Scrooge became rich during the gold rush at Yukon in 1896-1898), becomes impossible, unless you decide, like Rosa, to keep Duckburg in 50s. However, i have also read stories with 2000s inventions where Scrooge keeps claiming that he became rich at Yukon's gold rush. I can come up with two explanations: -The duck stories take place in another version of Earth, where human history happened differently and, for some reason, technology developped faster. -Scrooge is immortal. No, seriously. Remember Barkses novel, ''Sand of time''? There, it was implied Scrooge can live indefinitely as long as he keeps swimming in money. Of course, there's still the problem of Donald's/nephews' age, but, maybe, in the newest stories, the way they're related to Scrooge can be retconned. For instance, Donald is is the great grandson of Scrooge's sister or something. In other words, we have an immortal, 150 year old or so, Scrooge, whereas Donald and the nephews were born much later, when Scrooge was already past 100.
-Scrooge is immortal. No, seriously. Remember Barkses novel, ''Sand of time''? There, it was implied Scrooge can live indefinitely as long as he keeps swimming in money. Of course, there's still the problem of Donald's/nephews' age, but, maybe, in the newest stories, the way they're related to Scrooge can be retconned. For instance, Donald is is the great grandson of Scrooge's sister or something. In other words, we have an immortal, 150 year old or so, Scrooge, whereas Donald and the nephews were born much later, when Scrooge was already past 100.
This. Barks specifically wrote that story so that kids fifty years from then could still believe Scrooge was still alive. In a blog post, I expanded on the information given in that story and in the DuckTales pilot (where villain El Capitan, a Spanish conquistador, was so driven by his quest for gold that he remained alive 400 years). Basically, my theory is that in the Disney Ducks comics universe, your physical age is, in great part, defined by your willpower. Donald likes being a twenty/thirty-something, and HDL feel best as children because the thing they love most in life is being Junior Woodchucks. Perhaps Quack Pack was them giving being teenagers a try, and by the end they realised they were better off as children and gradually changed back.
Post by Baar Baar Jinx on Jan 22, 2017 0:23:19 GMT
Scrooge MacDuck said:
This. Barks specifically wrote that story so that kids fifty years from then could still believe Scrooge was still alive.
Do you have a source for this claim? Did Barks ever publicly state that that was his intent in writing the story? I find this hard to believe. From what I can see, Barks tended to write his stories in the "here and now", rather than think ahead. I don't think he even considered that people would be reading his stories fifty years after he wrote them, far less than that they would be printed and reprinted in deluxe prestige collections and that they would spawn an entire universe, be dissected, analyzed and be the basis for have dissertations. Frankly, Rosa's solution .. having the stories be based in the 1950s .. is the only one that gels with my "realistic" view of the Duckiverse. I therefore have to ignore elements in non-Rosa stories ... like cell phones, laptops, and the Internet ... when they appear (otherwise, in an era of search engines and smartwatches, what's so special about the Junior Woodchucks' Guidebook? I wonder how the new DuckTales is going to spin that?). You idea about being able to choose what age we want to be through sheer willpower is intriguing though ... wonder what most people would do with such an ability?
EDIT: Okay, I read your blog post in its entirety and see the quote from Barks that you were referring to. Not sure if that was really his original intent or something he came up with afterwards (as I said, it's at variance with the rest of his work. When and where exactly is this quote from?). Still, I have to disagree with the Duck Man here. In my mind, the citizens of Duckburg are all "real" humans, and they have normal lifespans. So, I have to stick with the Rosa theory. Well-argued post, however!
I don't think he even considered that people would be reading his stories fifty years after he wrote them, far less than that they would be printed and reprinted in deluxe prestige collections and that they would spawn an entire universe, be dissected, analyzed and be the basis for have dissertations.
He wasn't stupid. He didn't say it out loud, because he was modest, but i'm sure, in his head, he knew.
I don't think he even considered that people would be reading his stories fifty years after he wrote them, far less than that they would be printed and reprinted in deluxe prestige collections and that they would spawn an entire universe, be dissected, analyzed and be the basis for have dissertations.
He wasn't stupid. He didn't say it out loud, because he was modest, but i'm sure, in his head, he knew.
Maybe after his retirement, once his identity became better known and he began getting due credit for his body of work. But I think he toiled in anonymity for most of his career, not knowing the impact his stories were having, since Disney/Western Publishing didn't want to credit individual writers/artists and did not, from what I understand, forward fan mail. He used to tell the story of how he would go to drugstores and wait to see if kids would pick up issues of WDC&S or Uncle Scrooge with his stories in them, and they never did. That must have been disheartening. His work wasn't ever given the recognition it deserved as consistently so much superior to what most of his contemporaries were putting out. I can't help but think he might have been a little more continuity-minded, and written at least some of his stories a little differently, if he had an idea of their longevity when he was writing them.
I think all stories can start in every moment. There's a story in which Donald lives in a fantasy universe? Within that story, Donald has always lived in that way. So, why don't get that in a new story we should pretend Donald, Scrooge and relatives live in the context in which they are, rather than asking strange questions?
in an era of search engines and smartwatches, what's so special about the Junior Woodchucks' Guidebook?
Apparently, modern Italian stories replaced the original Junior Woodchucks' Guidebook with an e-book (not sure if it was a temporary change or a permanent one). I can't find enough words to say how much I dislike this idea.
in an era of search engines and smartwatches, what's so special about the Junior Woodchucks' Guidebook?
Apparently, modern Italian stories replaced the original Junior Woodchucks' Guidebook with an e-book (not sure if it was a temporary change or a permanent one). I can't find enough words to say how much I dislike this idea.
If we're referring to the same thing, it was temporary. When a worldwide congregation of Woodchucks were gathered in Antarctica (something to do with global warming), a sudden snowstorm swept all the Guidebooks away from them and scattered the pages, so the rest of the stories is about gathering the pages and turning the whole thing into an ebook available to all woodchucks until they can print more copies of the Guidebook. So it's still stupid, but no, thankfully not a permanent change.
the official explanation in Italian stories is "It's a comic!"
And that's the only reasonable answer. I know that it may sound as a disheartening argument to someone. But that's it. Accept it.
A beautiful aspect of Disney comics is the fact that every single author and every single reader can create his/her own personal continuity, if he/she wishes so. And change it from one story to another if necessary. Or he/she can avoid caring about these issues, if he/she want. You are provided with an impressively huge amount of different (and inconsistent with each other) stories from 1930 to date, with new ones published at the rhythm of some 200 pages per week, I guess (quick and very approssimative account). What do you do of all of that (often bad) material? The only reasonable thing is taking only what you like the way you like. Did I enjoy that given Mickey's story? Yes? Well, then I decide that that adventure is part of the past of the character - i.e. it is in the continuity of Mickey existing in my mind. Otherwise, that thing never happened to Mickey, and I am happy with that. Does a certain story that I am reading conflict with my view of the character? Yes? Well, then for a while I forget my own personal interpretation of the Disney Universe, just the time to enjoy that specific reading. To be clear, I do love the amazing work done by Rosa in creating his "barksian" continuity. A really beautiful and acrobatic accomplishment (considering how deeply uncontinuous Barks' duck production is...it really goes in the opposite direction from a narrative perspective!), that adds some genial flavor to the work of Keno. But that's just one way to go. If you (try to) create a rigid continuity you break the magic: if you are a reader you put serious limits in your enjoyment of the material, and if you are a creator you tie your hands. Why doing that? Continuity in comics is a misconception introduced (relatively lately, by the way) by US mainstream superheroes stuff. Get rid of that, or at least please do not apply it out of that context.
So, back to the question: how do I explain the age of Scrooge? Well, if I am reading Barks, or Rosa (or maybe even Van Horn?), then he's born in the second half of the 19th century, and that's fine. If I am reading a story with a modern setting I consider him born some seventy or eighty years ago. Now, how can a guy born in 1937 speak about his participation to the Klondike gold rush? Who knows...maybe he followed a late wave of gold searchers. Who cares. What matters is how the story is told, far more than what.
He wasn't stupid. He didn't say it out loud, because he was modest, but i'm sure, in his head, he knew.
Maybe after his retirement, once his identity became better known and he began getting due credit for his body of work. But I think he toiled in anonymity for most of his career, not knowing the impact his stories were having, since Disney/Western Publishing didn't want to credit individual writers/artists and did not, from what I understand, forward fan mail. He used to tell the story of how he would go to drugstores and wait to see if kids would pick up issues of WDC&S or Uncle Scrooge with his stories in them, and they never did. That must have been disheartening. His work wasn't ever given the recognition it deserved as consistently so much superior to what most of his contemporaries were putting out. I can't help but think he might have been a little more continuity-minded, and written at least some of his stories a little differently, if he had an idea of their longevity when he was writing them.
I agree on that. When you live for decades as a retired praised literature authority (at least for a certain target of people), and you must give interviews about yourself, well...I don't want to say that you start making things up... but still, I think we should not consider what the 80 years old Barks said as what the 40/50 years old Barks used to think.
the official explanation in Italian stories is "It's a comic!"
And that's the only reasonable answer. I know that it may sound as a disheartening argument to someone. But that's it. Accept it.
A beautiful aspect of Disney comics is the fact that every single author and every single reader can create his/her own personal continuity, if he/she wishes so. And change it from one story to another if necessary. Or he/she can avoid caring about these issues, if he/she want. You are provided with an impressively huge amount of different (and inconsistent with each other) stories from 1930 to date, with new ones published at the rhythm of some 200 pages per week, I guess (quick and very approssimative account). What do you do of all of that (often bad) material? The only reasonable thing is taking only what you like the way you like. Did I enjoy that given Mickey's story? Yes? Well, then I decide that that adventure is part of the past of the character - i.e. it is in the continuity of Mickey existing in my mind. Otherwise, that thing never happened to Mickey, and I am happy with that. Does a certain story that I am reading conflict with my view of the character? Yes? Well, then for a while I forget my own personal interpretation of the Disney Universe, just the time to enjoy that specific reading. To be clear, I do love the amazing work done by Rosa in creating his "barksian" continuity. A really beautiful and acrobatic accomplishment (considering how deeply uncontinuous Barks' duck production is...it really goes in the opposite direction from a narrative perspective!), that adds some genial flavor to the work of Keno. But that's just one way to go. If you (try to) create a rigid continuity you break the magic: if you are a reader you put serious limits in your enjoyment of the material, and if you are a creator you tie your hands. Why doing that? Continuity in comics is a misconception introduced (relatively lately, by the way) by US mainstream superheroes stuff. Get rid of that, or at least please do not apply it out of that context.
I am aware that there is very little intended continuity, but I'm like another Don Rosa (hope that doesn't sound more pretentious than it is meant to); I love the challenge of making those 200-pages-a-week of material fit together.
Apparently, modern Italian stories replaced the original Junior Woodchucks' Guidebook with an e-book (not sure if it was a temporary change or a permanent one). I can't find enough words to say how much I dislike this idea.
If we're referring to the same thing, it was temporary. When a worldwide congregation of Woodchucks were gathered in Antarctica (something to do with global warming), a sudden snowstorm swept all the Guidebooks away from them and scattered the pages, so the rest of the stories is about gathering the pages and turning the whole thing into an ebook available to all woodchucks until they can print more copies of the Guidebook. So it's still stupid, but no, thankfully not a permanent change.
I actually haven't read most of the recent stories, but the one you are talking about must be Le Giovani Marmotte e il vento della preistoria from 2013. According to some posts in the Papersera Forum, the very next issue of Topolino has another Junior Woodchucks story (it must be Le Giovani Marmotte e l'oasi contesa, by the same authors) in which they still have the e-book, and when they use it there's even a footnote that refers back to the story in the previous issue. Plus, messeges in that forum from as early as 2013 (if not earlier) mention the digital guidebook being present in one or more stories.
If I am reading a story with a modern setting I consider him born some seventy or eighty years ago. Now, how can a guy born in 1937 speak about his participation to the Klondike gold rush? Who knows...maybe he followed a late wave of gold searchers.
This explains very clearly why I prefer the 1950's theory and dislike current duck stories set in modern times.
If I am reading a story with a modern setting I consider him born some seventy or eighty years ago. Now, how can a guy born in 1937 speak about his participation to the Klondike gold rush? Who knows...maybe he followed a late wave of gold searchers.
This explains very clearly why I prefer the 1950's theory and dislike current duck stories set in modern times.
Yes, but my point is that it is insane to dislike a story only for such an irrelevant reason.
Let my state more clearly the idea. It seems to me that for many of you this wish for a temporal/logical coherence of the universe where the stories take place gives more stature to these funny animals comics, making them in some way be more dignified in your view. Well, that's a monstrous narrative misconception. Actually, according to me it is even a childish attitude. Do you search for consistence in the color distribution when watching a Goya or a Picasso painting? Do you speculate on what kind of light source there is outside the window in a Caravaggio painting? When you go to the movies for a James Bond film, do you sit down and enjoy the show or do you spend your paid two hours wandering what kind of plastic surgery has Bond used to pass from the Sean Connery face to the Daniel Craig face? Because that's exactly the kind of things that you are doing when you try to understand where to fit, I don't know, a Scrooge's brother invented by Scarpa or by Van Horn into Rosa's family tree, or when you wander if Fethry Duck exists or not in the duck universe (the answer by the way is: damn yes, Fethry exists, and you must love him ). Doing that for fun is ok. But not liking (so many) stories for that reason is weird.
I am aware that there is very little intended continuity, but I'm like another Don Rosa (hope that doesn't sound more pretentious than it is meant to); I love the challenge of making those 200-pages-a-week of material fit together.
I see, you like to make your continuity very complicated. That fits perfectly with my view. But I guess you do this kind of game only that after reading and enjoying the story, not while you are reading it.