I find it interesting that in "Life and Times" Rosa chose to portray all the historical figures as dogs. Except Soapy Slick (based on the real Yukon criminal Soapy Smith) who's a pig, and that was inherited from Barks.
In one of several stories titled "Birthday Blues", coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=S+65030 by Lockman & Strobl, first published 1965, the millionaire who invites Scrooge to visit for Scrooge's birthday is a vaguely Arab cat-person, and all his people are also cat-people. You can see the millionaire on the French first page on Inducks (since the Journal de Mickey printing put more panels on each page). I personally love the panel where the cat-people put on an acrobatic show for Scrooge...if I have time, I'll try to post that panel here.
Oh yes, I read that story too. Another example of an "all-cat" one-shot country is the "Felonia" that was rectonned into being Brutopia in the localization, in that DuckTales Fabergé Egg story. Both are interesting feline counterpart to "Mousepotamia", too.
I've also noticed there seem to be two "types" of dog-people: ones that are basically normal humans with dog noses and occasionally ears (the "Dognoses/faces"), and the ones that are more explicitly anthropomorphic dogs like Scottie McTerrier and the extended Goof clan.
I find it interesting that in "Life and Times" Rosa chose to portray all the historical figures as dogs. Except Soapy Slick (based on the real Yukon criminal Soapy Smith) who's a pig, and that was inherited from Barks.
It's not just in "Life and Times": all of Rosa's stories dealing with historical characters portray them as dognoses. The only exception is Francis Drake, who is portrayed as a duck for the sake of a reference about his surname:
I don't count Soapy Slick as a historical figure since, no matter how many elements he may have taken from Soapy Smith, he is still a fictional character. And, like you said, Rosa took it from Barks.
I've also noticed there seem to be two "types" of dog-people: ones that are basically normal humans with dog noses and occasionally ears (the "Dognoses/faces"), and the ones that are more explicitly anthropomorphic dogs like Scottie McTerrier and the extended Goof clan.
After reading this, I think I should ask again the question that I previously asked in another thread:
who came up with the terms "dognose" and "dogface" (which I guess are fan-made words) and when? And what is the exact definition of them? I thought they were used to indicate characters who were basically 4-fingered humans with a round black nose (and, sometimes, dog ears) in opposition to the more generic term "anthropomorphic dog"... and yet I see that Wikipedia regards them as having the same meaning, since the article Dogface (comics) claims that "The most famous Dogface is probably Goofy".
I find it interesting that in "Life and Times" Rosa chose to portray all the historical figures as dogs. Except Soapy Slick (based on the real Yukon criminal Soapy Smith) who's a pig, and that was inherited from Barks.
It's not just in "Life and Times": all of Rosa's stories dealing with historical characters portray them as dognoses. The only exception is Francis Drake, who is portrayed as a duck for the sake of a reference about his surname:
I don't count Soapy Slick as a historical figure since, no matter how many elements he may have taken from Soapy Smith, he is still a fictional character. And, like you said, Rosa took it from Barks.
I've also noticed there seem to be two "types" of dog-people: ones that are basically normal humans with dog noses and occasionally ears (the "Dognoses/faces"), and the ones that are more explicitly anthropomorphic dogs like Scottie McTerrier and the extended Goof clan.
After reading this, I think I should ask again the question that I previously asked in another thread:
who came up with the terms "dognose" and "dogface" (which I guess are fan-made words) and when? And what is the exact definition of them? I thought they were used to indicate characters who were basically 4-fingered humans with a round black nose (and, sometimes, dog ears) in opposition to the more generic term "anthropomorphic dog"... and yet I see that Wikipedia regards them as having the same meaning, since the article Dogface (comics) claims that "The most famous Dogface is probably Goofy".
If we really wanted to be precise, I'd make a gradation, like so:
Anthropomorphic Dog: Truly dog-like heads (with fur and everthing), their level of anthropomorphism is most similar to owls'. Rare nowadays, most I know come from early Gottfredson stories.
Classic Era Dog: Stylized in the same style as Mickey, with black fur surrounding a white face. Also getting rarer, though some Italian comics have created new ones. Popular examples include Goofy, any of his relatives, the original Mr Jones or Viltus Doublejoke.
Dogface: No fur, but a clear muzzle and canine ears. Often used along with dognoses in modern comics.
Dogmuzzles: Similar to dogfaces in that they have a prominent muzzle, but with human-like ears. Also very, very common. The Beagle Boys can be this sometimes.
Dognose: Should properly be used for characters with little to no muzzle. They still have four fingers usually.
Superhuman Dognoses: Where the artist clearly wanted to draw a human, but had to slap on a dognose because an editor was pointing a shotgun at him. Depending on the artist, this can either result in the nose being colored black (the King in Barks's Ancient Persia) or the dognose being slapped onto the nose as if the nose were the muzzle (the Princess in the very same story).
Dogears: Very unusual combination found in some Italian and Al Hubbard stories: canine ears and four fingers, but a caricatural human nose.
If we really wanted to be precise, I'd make a gradation, like so:
Anthropomorphic Dog: Truly dog-like heads (with fur and everthing), their level of anthropomorphism is most similar to owls'. Rare nowadays, most I know come from early Gottfredson stories.
No, wonder they are rare nowdays, they look so animalistic to the point of being almost creepy.
As for characters having "fur" vs having "no fur", this often depends on colorists. I image the Beagle Boys and Chief O'Hara as having no fur (i.e., having pink skin), and yet some colorists gave them a brown face:
Classic Era Dog: Stylized in the same style as Mickey, with black fur surrounding a white face. Also getting rarer, though some Italian comics have created new ones. Popular examples include Goofy, any of his relatives, the original Mr Jones or Viltus Doublejoke.
His design seems to be based on Mortimer Mouse, who is generally regarded as an anthropomorphic rat. The only notable difference seems to be that Mortimer has Mickey-like ears.
What is the difference between Classic Era Dog and rat? For example, Sharky is probably a rat, and yet his ears are neither like Vito's nor like Mortimers':
Dogmuzzles: Similar to dogfaces in that they have a prominent muzzle, but with human-like ears. Also very, very common. The Beagle Boys can be this sometimes.
One interesting fact is that the dude above has five-fingered hands.
Superhuman Dognoses: Where the artist clearly wanted to draw a human, but had to slap on a dognose because an editor was pointing a shotgun at him. Depending on the artist, this can either result in the nose being colored black (the King in Barks's Ancient Persia) or the dognose being slapped onto the nose as if the nose were the muzzle (the Princess in the very same story).
These are the closest we get to humans, and sometimes is even hard to differentiate them.
Dogears: Very unusual combination found in some Italian and Al Hubbard stories: canine ears and four fingers, but a caricatural human nose.
O'Hara also has a similar nose in some stories, like "Mickey's Dangerous Double" (Walsh/Gottfredson, 1953):
I'll close by saying that even TV Tropes' article Dogfaces includes Goofy among them, and lists a series of character traits that a dogface may or may not have.
By the way, we often see the word dognose associated with Barks, and yet he was not the one who came up with them, since for example Taliaferro had been using them since as early as September 20, 1936:
This doesn't mean that Taliaferro created them, as the concept could appear in some earlier work, i.e. Gottfredson's comics and/or the animated short. Which is the first appearance of a dognose? Of course, the answer depends on which of the above mentioned definitions we decide to use.
If we really wanted to be precise, I'd make a gradation, like so:
Anthropomorphic Dog: Truly dog-like heads (with fur and everthing), their level of anthropomorphism is most similar to owls'. Rare nowadays, most I know come from early Gottfredson stories.
No, wonder they are rare nowdays, they look so animalistic to the point of being almost creepy.
As for characters having "fur" vs having "no fur", this often depends on colorists. I image the Beagle Boys and Chief O'Hara as having no fur (i.e., having pink skin), and yet some colorists gave them a brown face:
Classic Era Dog: Stylized in the same style as Mickey, with black fur surrounding a white face. Also getting rarer, though some Italian comics have created new ones. Popular examples include Goofy, any of his relatives, the original Mr Jones or Viltus Doublejoke.
His design seems to be based on Mortimer Mouse, who is generally regarded as an anthropomorphic rat. The only notable difference seems to be that Mortimer has Mickey-like ears. (2)
Dogface: No fur, but a clear muzzle and canine ears. Often used along with dognoses in modern comics.
I'm not sure if you picked the best example of a dogface with canine ears, since his ears in the picture above look almost human ears. (3)
(1): I think the "brown face" of the Beagle Boys in the second image is just badly-rendered, low-quality beige skin.
(2): Though I took Doublegag as an example, the quintessential Classic Dognose is, of course, Goofy, who is obviously not a rat. It's all in the ears, I think: a Classic Dognose's ears are long and often flabby, while a Classic Rodent (a la Mickey and Mortimer)'s are round.
(3): I beg your pardon? Scottie's ears are clearly pointy. If it's not canine, it's elvish, not human.
(2): Though I took Doublegag as an example, the quintessential Classic Dognose is, of course, Goofy, who is obviously not a rat.
By saying "Classic Dognose" I guess that you mean "Classic Era Dog", since according to your definitions Goofy is a "Classic Era Dog" and not a "Dognose". But Goofy's design is indeed that of a dog head put onto a black four-fingered human body. He and Pluto are so similar that, if their bodies are not drawn, a colorist can consfuse them:
I am pretty sure the head under O'Hara is Pluto's, since Goofy's head is on the top left and there's no reason why he would be drawn twice, not to mention that the missing teeth are a giveaway.
This makes me wonder about people who can't understand which kind of animal Goofy is. I mean, I could understand some people not getting the concept of anthropomorphic animal, but that they wouldn't recognize that he has a dog face seems hard to believe. Of course, unlike Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse etc., he doesn't have a surname that reveals his species, except in his old name Dippy Dawg that virtually nobody know about. Funny thing is, it's only fairly recently that I figured that "dawg" is slang (or phonetic spelling of someone talking with a heavy accent) for "dog". Maybe it's because I see that name so rarely that it took me a while to even realize that it was "Dawg" and not "Dwag".
(3): I beg your pardon? Scottie's ears are clearly pointy. If it's not canine, it's elvish, not human.
Well, of course they are pointy, that's why I wrote "look ALMOST human ears" rather than "are human ears". Still, they are not what I imagine when I think about a dogface's dog ears, as their genear shape looks more similar to (caricatural) human ears than to dog ears, though "elvish ears" would be a better definition. Still, some people actually have pointy ears, though not as prominent as Scottie's:
Anyway, these are the kind of ears that I consider canine:
And of course, they are very different from Scottie's ears:
What do you mean, non-anthropomorphic? That would mean he doesn't wear any accessory at all, does not speak, and does not behave in a way that would be unusual for a real-life-snake. Somehow I don't believe that's the case.
Not-Anthropomorphic means "Not looking like a human"
Wearing clothes and writing verses doesn't make a snake more anthropomorph than would an egg.
I would have to respectfully disagree here. "Anthromporphism" means giving a non-human character human characteristics, not making them look like a human. If shown wearing clothes and writing verses, a snake is definitely more anthropomorphic than an egg (unless the egg is also given those attributes, not sure if that's what you were trying to say).