As for Glomgold being a Boer or not...we're talking about Flintheart Glomgold, remember? Consider the context in which he told Scrooge he was a Boer: he was trying to put Scrooge at ease so he could later rob him.
In other words, it's always possible Glomgold was lying about being a Boer.
Did Glomgold state to Scrooge that he was a Boer in a Barks, or Rosa story? If he did that in a Barks story, I would take him to his word, unless Barks already had shown that Glomgold's ancestors emigrated from Scotland. I don't recall that he did that. I think that a lot of readers just assumed that, because he was a "carbon copy" of Scrooge in almost every other way.
In Don Rosa's Terror of the Transvaal, Scrooge, upon meeting Glomgold, asks him if he's a Scot as well. Glomgold answers that no, he is just a Boer.
In Don Rosa's Terror of the Transvaal, Scrooge, upon meeting Glomgold, asks him if he's a Scot as well. Glomgold answers that no, he is just a Boer.
Not exactly. I don't know about the French version, but in the original version Scrooge doesn't ask Glomgold if he's a Scot as he has no reason to ask it.
Here's the dialogue: Scrooge: My name is McDuck... Scrooge McDuck! From Scotland! How about you? Glomgold: Me? I'm a Boer!
By the way, we didn't conclude our discussion about the introductory article. In your version, how did Rosa define a Boer?
Boer (English pronunciation: /ˈboʊ.ər/, /bɔːr/ or /bʊər/;[2] Afrikaans: [buːr]) is the Dutch and Afrikaans word for "farmer". As used in South Africa, it was used to denote the descendants of the Dutch-speaking settlers of the eastern Cape frontier[3] in Southern Africa during the 18th century.
I fail to see where is the mistake on History.
I'm not saying Robb is mistaken, I'm saying Don Rosa is, because he only defined "boer" as "someone born in South Africa, but of European descent" in his commentary, if memory serves right.
If Don Rosa defined "Boer" as "someone born in South Africa, but of European descent", that is a grossly incorrect definition of the meaning of that word in South Africa. Both all The British settlers and their descendants, as well as the descendants of The Dutch settlers who were loyal to The Dutch Cape Colony, and The subsequent British colonial governments would be extremely offended if you were to refer to them as "Boers", and so would the actual Boers. They were predominantly Dutch settlers (with a few German and French protestant refugees, who migrated north in the late 17th century. to get away from the restrictive Dutch Colonial rule, to set up their own nation in the hinterland of southern Africa, first on the northeastern fringes of The Cape Colony's territory, in western and northwestern Natal, and later moving into the territory of The Orange Free State and The Transvaal. Both of those territories became Boer nation states, recognised by The British government and other nations. Boers had their own culture and dialect of Afrikaans, different from that spoken by the Afrikaaners (Dutch-speaking population of The Cape Colony and Natal. The real Boers are ONLY the population of The Orange Free State, Transvaal and those Boers remaining in the northeastern corner of Natal, whose ancestors left The Dutch Cape Colony long before The British took over in 1815. The idea of The Boers being ALL Caucasian residents of South Africa is ludicrous, a misconception only believed by people around The World with no connection to South Africa. The idea that Boers are ALL the Caucasian Afrikaans speakers in South Africa is incorrect, as The Boers are only a subset of that group. The Boers have been a separate group from The Dutch Cape Colonists and their descendants since the early 1700s.
Given all this, if we accept Rosa's idea that Glomgold says he is a "Boer", we can either believe him, and know that his ancestors would then, NOT have originated in Scotland. Or, we can believe that Glomgold was lying, only to fool Scrooge, and that his ancestors MIGHT have originally emigrated from Scotland.
If Don Rosa defined "Boer" as "someone born in South Africa, but of European descent", that is a grossly incorrect definition of the meaning of that word in South Africa.
Well, at this point I think the discussion could just go on in circles until someone can find a copy of Don Rosa's text and determine exactly what he wrote.
Given all this, if we accept Rosa's idea that Glomgold says he is a "Boer", we can either believe him, and know that his ancestors would then, NOT have originated in Scotland. Or, we can believe that Glomgold was lying, only to fool Scrooge, and that his ancestors MIGHT have originally emigrated from Scotland.
I believe the former as Glomgold had no reason of lying about that: as long as he could avoid revealing his name, it wouldn't. Also, on a meta level, an author wouldn't have him saying he's a Boer (without implying he's lying) unless that's what he wants the reader to learn about the character (even though it only served to provide the joke of Scrooge thinking he heard "I'm a bore").
If Don Rosa defined "Boer" as "someone born in South Africa, but of European descent", that is a grossly incorrect definition of the meaning of that word in South Africa.
Well, at this point I think the discussion could just go on in circles until someone can find a copy of Don Rosa's text and determine exactly what he wrote.
Given all this, if we accept Rosa's idea that Glomgold says he is a "Boer", we can either believe him, and know that his ancestors would then, NOT have originated in Scotland. Or, we can believe that Glomgold was lying, only to fool Scrooge, and that his ancestors MIGHT have originally emigrated from Scotland.
I believe the former as Glomgold had no reason of lying about that: as long as he could avoid revealing his name, it wouldn't. Also, on a meta level, an author wouldn't have him saying he's a Boer (without implying he's lying) unless that's what he wants the reader to learn about the character (even though it only served to provide the joke of Scrooge thinking he heard "I'm a bore").
That is interesting, given that both the English "bore" (an uncultured, uneducated person whose repartee is uninteresting), and "boor" (an uncultured, uneducated brutish oaf) are derived from the Old English(or Germanic) word for farmer, "boer", which was an insult coming from nobility, burgers (citizens of cities and towns), and, indeed, even lower class townspeople). I agree that Glomgold probably had no reason to depend upon Scrooge thinking he was a farmer or of Dutch or German or French Protestant ancestry.
Well, at this point I think the discussion could just go on in circles until someone can find a copy of Don Rosa's text and determine exactly what he wrote.
I believe the former as Glomgold had no reason of lying about that: as long as he could avoid revealing his name, it wouldn't. Also, on a meta level, an author wouldn't have him saying he's a Boer (without implying he's lying) unless that's what he wants the reader to learn about the character (even though it only served to provide the joke of Scrooge thinking he heard "I'm a bore").
That is interesting, given that both the English "bore" (an uncultured, uneducated person whose repartee is uninteresting), and "boor" (an uncultured, uneducated brutish oaf) are derived from the Old English(or Germanic) word for farmer, "boer", which was an insult coming from nobility, burgers (citizens of cities and towns), and, indeed, even lower class townspeople). I agree that Glomgold probably had no reason to depend upon Scrooge thinking he was a farmer or of Dutch or German or French Protestant ancestry.
I… gosh. I actually never got that joke in the first place: it was completely erased in the French translation, for obvious reasons.
Well, at this point I think the discussion could just go on in circles until someone can find a copy of Don Rosa's text and determine exactly what he wrote.
I believe the former as Glomgold had no reason of lying about that: as long as he could avoid revealing his name, it wouldn't. Also, on a meta level, an author wouldn't have him saying he's a Boer (without implying he's lying) unless that's what he wants the reader to learn about the character (even though it only served to provide the joke of Scrooge thinking he heard "I'm a bore").
That is interesting, given that both the English "bore" (an uncultured, uneducated person whose repartee is uninteresting), and "boor" (an uncultured, uneducated brutish oaf) are derived from the Old English(or Germanic) word for farmer, "boer", which was an insult coming from nobility, burgers (citizens of cities and towns), and, indeed, even lower class townspeople). I agree that Glomgold probably had no reason to depend upon Scrooge thinking he was a farmer or of Dutch or German or French Protestant ancestry.
"Boor" does indeed come from "boer", but are you sure about "bore"? According to some online dictionaries, "bore" (meaning thing which causes ennui or annoyance, 1778; of persons by 1812) comes from the word "bore" itself with the meaning "to bore through, perforate"/"to cut with a sharp point, pierce". This use of "bore" comes from "bor" ("auger"), which in turn comes from Proto-Germanic "buron". As for "buron", it should originate from Proto-Indo-European *bhrē̆u- 'wellspring', ultimately from *bʰer-, *bʰrē- (“to bear”); it is also compared to Old High German brunno (“wellspring”), burjan (“to push up, raise”), Old English byrian (“to come up, occur”).
But I have to stop this off-topic here or I'll be the one to be called "a bore" instead of Flinthy.
I… gosh. I actually never got that joke in the first place: it was completely erased in the French translation, for obvious reasons.
The joke was also removed from the Italian version for the same reason. So, like you I never got it until Don Rosa explained it in the Papersera Forum back in 2012.
Here's the complete dialogue: Scrooge: My name is McDuck... Scrooge McDuck! From Scotland! How about you? Glomgold: Me? I'm a Boer! Scrooge: Oh, you're not so bad! I've met worse! Scrooge (thinking): Gulp! This might be a long trip!
Post by Scrooge MacDuck on Dec 24, 2016 23:04:39 GMT
The dialogue was left basically the same, actually, except since "bore" doesn't exist in French it just wasn't funny. I just interpreted it as Scrooge thinking he couldn't really sympathize with someone who wasn't of Scottish origins as well.
The nephews are played by adults? What kind of crazy is that? Not to mention, they're voiced by three different adults, which is making me more and more worried about whether the nephews are going to be different.
The nephew drinking a bottle of water while the other two are adventuring looks a little odd… I hope they're not dividing their personalities again.
The triplets being one character split in three is honestly the worst part about them, and Quack Pack trying to give each of them a separate personality was a good thing. The problem wasn't the idea, but the execution. It's one thing with Rosa's triplets because he'd always use them for some visual interest, but in most cases, you could reduce the triplets to only one, or at most two of them, and it would've benefitted the work. Most of the time having all three nephews is bloat rather than a benefit.
Also "played by adults"
You do realize that every single version of them that has been voiced had them voiced by adults.
The nephews are played by adults? What kind of crazy is that? Not to mention, they're voiced by three different adults, which is making me more and more worried about whether the nephews are going to be different.
The nephew drinking a bottle of water while the other two are adventuring looks a little odd… I hope they're not dividing their personalities again.
The triplets being one character split in three is honestly the worst part about them, and Quack Pack trying to give each of them a separate personality was a good thing. The problem wasn't the idea, but the execution. It's one thing with Rosa's triplets because he'd always use them for some visual interest, but in most cases, you could reduce the triplets to only one, or at most two of them, and it would've benefitted the work. Most of the time having all three nephews is bloat rather than a benefit.
Also "played by adults"
You do realize that every single version of them that has been voiced had them voiced by adults.
I'm carefully optimistic for the cartoon now.
It's a matter of opinions, of course, but I think that the nehews being one character split in three is one of the best and funniest things about them, though I also agree separating them could have been much better executed than Quack Pack if they were going to do that anyway. As for the "adults" thing… they were either voiced by Clarence Nash, in a quacky voice, or by Russi Taylor, a woman. Now they're played by non-quacky adult men. Unless they're uncannily good at doing children's voice, I frankly don't see how they could be a good fit for the characters.
It's a matter of opinions, of course, but I think that the nehews being one character split in three is one of the best and funniest things about them, though I also agree separating them could have been much better executed than Quack Pack if they were going to do that anyway. As for the "adults" thing… they were either voiced by Clarence Nash, in a quacky voice, or by Russi Taylor, a woman. Now they're played by non-quacky adult men. Unless they're uncannily good at doing children's voice, I frankly don't see how they could be a good fit for the characters.
I agree with this. In my mind, HD&L are one character. As are the Beagle Boys. And yes, AFAIK, none of the actors chosen to play HD&L on the new show are known for their ability to do cartoony voices. I doubt that's why they were hired, so we're probably going to see them voice HD&L in their usual speaking voices. That doesn't strike me as a good fit either, but I guess we'll see.
It's a matter of opinions, of course, but I think that the nehews being one character split in three is one of the best and funniest things about them, though I also agree separating them could have been much better executed than Quack Pack if they were going to do that anyway. As for the "adults" thing… they were either voiced by Clarence Nash, in a quacky voice, or by Russi Taylor, a woman. Now they're played by non-quacky adult men. Unless they're uncannily good at doing children's voice, I frankly don't see how they could be a good fit for the characters.
I agree with this. In my mind, HD&L are one character. As are the Beagle Boys. And yes, AFAIK, none of the actors chosen to play HD&L on the new show are known for their ability to do cartoony voices. I doubt that's why they were hired, so we're probably going to see them voice HD&L in their usual speaking voices. That doesn't strike me as a good fit either, but I guess we'll see.
Yes — regardless of whether or not they're one character, it is equally essential to their characters that they're children. As in, primary-school-age children. Not teenagers.
It's a matter of opinions, of course, but I think that the nehews being one character split in three is one of the best and funniest things about them, though I also agree separating them could have been much better executed than Quack Pack if they were going to do that anyway. As for the "adults" thing… they were either voiced by Clarence Nash, in a quacky voice, or by Russi Taylor, a woman. Now they're played by non-quacky adult men. Unless they're uncannily good at doing children's voice, I frankly don't see how they could be a good fit for the characters.
"the nehews being one character split in three is one of the best and funniest things about them"
I don't necessarily disagree with that, but it needs to be done well, just as much as writing them separately is.
If them being three has no impact on anything and they are just a one character with three bodies, that's just bad bloat. If they are three, utilize that in the comic/cartoon- you don't need to separate the characters as such; but there needs to be a reason for there being three of them. Otherwise you might as well just use one of them and say the others are sick/visiting family.
Rosa and some of the other comic book artists are excellent at making the fact there are three of them count, despite them not having separate personalities. But most comic book stories starring them are bad at it.
If it's done well, I'd also like to see them. But most people aren't doing them the Rosa way, and instead are just lazy. I prefer a brave attempt at characterizing them over plain laziness.
"Now they're played by non-quacky adult men. Unless they're uncannily good at doing children's voice, I frankly don't see how they could be a good fit for the characters."
Swedish voice acting has had adult men do young male characters for a long time, and they are by and large as good or better at it than the female american VAs. There's really no issue with adult men doing this, a more reasonable fear is Baar Baar Jinx's comment about them using their normal speaking voices(which would suck), much like what happened with Dipper in Gravity Falls (the dude sounds nothing like a kid). Again, the idea is not the problem, it's about the execution.
I agree with this. In my mind, HD&L are one character. As are the Beagle Boys. And yes, AFAIK, none of the actors chosen to play HD&L on the new show are known for their ability to do cartoony voices. I doubt that's why they were hired, so we're probably going to see them voice HD&L in their usual speaking voices. That doesn't strike me as a good fit either, but I guess we'll see.
The Beagle Boys have been characterized differently in the comics for ages outside the Barks/Rosa comics(and benefitted from it), and even in the Barks/Rosa comics, 176-167 stands out from the rest. All animated versions of them have separated them and characterized them differently as well(with the one exception being Sport Goofy), and it has pretty much always been a good thing.
They are a unit of characters, not one character split in pieces like the nephews often tend to be portrayed as.
It's a matter of opinions, of course, but I think that the nehews being one character split in three is one of the best and funniest things about them, though I also agree separating them could have been much better executed than Quack Pack if they were going to do that anyway. As for the "adults" thing… they were either voiced by Clarence Nash, in a quacky voice, or by Russi Taylor, a woman. Now they're played by non-quacky adult men. Unless they're uncannily good at doing children's voice, I frankly don't see how they could be a good fit for the characters.
"the nehews being one character split in three is one of the best and funniest things about them"
I don't necessarily disagree with that, but it needs to be done well, just as much as writing them separately is.
If them being three has no impact on anything and they are just a one character with three bodies, that's just bad bloat. If they are three, utilize that in the comic/cartoon- you don't need to separate the characters as such; but there needs to be a reason for there being three of them. Otherwise you might as well just use one of them and say the others are sick/visiting family.
Rosa and some of the other comic book artists are excellent at making the fact there are three of them count, despite them not having separate personalities. But most comic book stories starring them are bad at it.
If it's done well, I'd also like to see them. But most people aren't doing them the Rosa way, and instead are just lazy. I prefer a brave attempt at characterizing them over plain laziness.
"Now they're played by non-quacky adult men. Unless they're uncannily good at doing children's voice, I frankly don't see how they could be a good fit for the characters."
Swedish voice acting has had adult men do young male characters for a long time, and they are by and large as good or better at it than the female american VAs. There's really no issue with adult men doing this, a more reasonable fear is Baar Baar Jinx's comment about them using their normal speaking voices(which would suck), much like what happened with Dipper in Gravity Falls (the dude sounds nothing like a kid). Again, the idea is not the problem, it's about the execution.
I agree with this. In my mind, HD&L are one character. As are the Beagle Boys. And yes, AFAIK, none of the actors chosen to play HD&L on the new show are known for their ability to do cartoony voices. I doubt that's why they were hired, so we're probably going to see them voice HD&L in their usual speaking voices. That doesn't strike me as a good fit either, but I guess we'll see.
The Beagle Boys have been characterized differently in the comics for ages outside the Barks/Rosa comics(and benefitted from it), and even in the Barks/Rosa comics, 176-167 stands out from the rest. All animated versions of them have separated them and characterized them differently as well(with the one exception being Sport Goofy), and it has pretty much always been a good thing.
They are a unit of characters, not one character split in pieces like the nephews often tend to be portrayed as.
About the Beagle Boys: I'm not so sure about that. Sure, "special" cousins visit the Duckburg Beagle Boys every other story, but the "main three" who are always seen in Egmont and Italian stories are basically identical, with maybe the exception of that one Beagle who likes plums.
I don't agree on that at all. Most Beagle Boys stories have each Beagle Boy have a certain sets of traits, and these are usually the same traits.
Leader/voice of Reason. Dumb or impulsive(if the plums are involved, they usually go on this beagle boy). The aggressive one that usually gets angry at the dumb one.
It tends to shift from story to story which Beagle Boy has which trait, but that's probably because keeping their names straight, and their numbers straight is a challenge all to itself(as a general rule, it's common for them to shift the actual numbers on their shirts, but as a rule they tend to keep the first number that differ correct).
Scrooge's Last Adventure(the comicbook arc) shows my point beautifully: 176-176 is the dumb and impulsive one, 176-761 is the leader/smart guy, and 176-671(or 176-617- I did note the common numbering mistakes above) is the temperamental one.
This is why I say that they are a unit or a set; they have different traits within the stories, they are not one character in them. The nephews don't have this most of the time(and it's why I much prefer the Beagles to the Nephews).