Does anybody know if fantagraphics will re-release the box sets of Rosa's library? Now on amazon you can only find the last two boxes.
Boxsets 1&2 and 3&4 are currently scheduled for a reprint. They are up for pre-ordering on Fanta's online store, but they haven't made it to Amazon yet, unfortunately.
I hope Amazon gets them, I can't buy directly from Fanta cause I don't live in the US.
Sadly enough, some dialogue has been censored in the latest Carl Barks Library volume from Fantagraphics, "Christmas in Duckburg". This was brought to attention on the Facebook group Carl Barks - The Good Artist, where a member pointed out a disclaimer in the book saying, "Some dialogue in this edition has been updated." In the comments, it was made clear that the disclaimer refers to this panel from Barks' ten-pager in WDC 225, The Lovelorn Fireman. The word "holocaust" has been replaced with something else in Fantagraphics' new book edition.
I'm selling all 15 volumes that were released when I got them early this year. Somebody interested? I'll give you a good deal.
For me, it's the colouring that's just too problematic. I cannot enjoy the stories this way, the colours take realism and immersion completely away.
"Some dialogue in this edition has been updated."
Uh, in this case, this really could sound inappropriate nowadays, so I see no problem with this tiny change. But still, if they advertise it as a "nostalgic original edition" yet can tolerate small changes in Barks' original texts, I wonder why then they didn't even bother to correct the many obvious colouring mistakes from Dell and Western Publishing?
Well, Fantagraphics changes tiny parts of dialogue that could sound inappropriate nowadays, but doesn't even bother to correct obvious colouring mistakes.
While I agree with you about the silliness of not correcting Western's color mistakes (because everything those colorists did was clearly high art), I strongly suspect the censoring of the dialogue was enforced by Disney. It's still a real pity, of course.
Uh, in this case, this really could sound inappropriate nowadays, so I see no problem with this tiny change. But still, if they advertise it as a "nostalgic original edition" and still can tlerate such small changes in Barks' original texts, I wonder why then they didn't even bother to correct the many obvious colouring mistakes that weren't even created by Barks?
I see you edited your comment. Well, to me, this kind of censoring is still problematic, because this is a collected Library edition of Barks' work. If a story can't be published uncensored here, that basically means it can't be published uncensored anywhere. (Censoring it in a regular comic book edition, on the other hand, would make complete sense.)
And yeah, it IS a problematic word. But I really wish they could have found a way around it with an opening article putting the dialogue in historical context. Sadly, it seems that wasn't enough in Disney's eyes to allow this panel to be printed unmodified.
Well, Fantagraphics changes tiny parts of dialogue that could sound inappropriate nowadays, but doesn't even bother to correct obvious colouring mistakes.
While I agree with you about the silliness of not correcting Western's color mistakes (because everything those colorists did was clearly high art), I strongly suspect the censoring of the dialogue was enforced by Disney. It's still a real pity, of course.
Well, Disney is a Hollywood company and... uh... did you ever hear those rumours about who supposedly controls Hollywood? I heard stuff from an overweight immature 10-year-old boy with a tendency to use foul language, somewhere in the rural Rocky Mountains...
While I agree with you about the silliness of not correcting Western's color mistakes (because everything those colorists did was clearly high art), I strongly suspect the censoring of the dialogue was enforced by Disney. It's still a real pity, of course.
Well, Disney is a Hollywood company and... uh... did you ever hear those rumours about who supposedly controls Hollywood? I heard stuff from an overweight immature 10-year-old boy with a tendency to use foul language, somewhere in the rural Rocky Mountains...
Uh, in this case, this really could sound inappropriate nowadays, so I see no problem with this tiny change. But still, if they advertise it as a "nostalgic original edition" and still can tlerate such small changes in Barks' original texts, I wonder why then they didn't even bother to correct the many obvious colouring mistakes that weren't even created by Barks?
I see you edited your comment. Well, to me, this kind of censoring is still problematic, because this is a collected Library edition of Barks' work. If a story can't be published uncensored here, that basically means it can't be published uncensored anywhere. (Censoring it in a regular comic book edition, on the other hand, would make complete sense.)
And yeah, it IS a problematic word. But I really wish they could have found a way around it with an opening article putting the dialogue in historical context. Sadly, it seems that wasn't enough in Disney's eyes to allow this panel to be printed unmodified.
Agreed 100%! That dialogue sounds really, really bad in modern times. Daisy's line in particular sounds very, verywrong. It'd be great to see it corrected in some printings, but in a library that is (from my understanding) dedicated to preserving Barks's work as it was originally published, I think it should stay. If you truly want to keep things like they were when they were originally published, keep in the problematic word. If you want to tweak that word, why not tweak the coloring and other possible issues, too?
No matter what I say or do, know that Jesus loves you.
I see you edited your comment. Well, to me, this kind of censoring is still problematic, because this is a collected Library edition of Barks' work. If a story can't be published uncensored here, that basically means it can't be published uncensored anywhere. (Censoring it in a regular comic book edition, on the other hand, would make complete sense.)
And yeah, it IS a problematic word. But I really wish they could have found a way around it with an opening article putting the dialogue in historical context. Sadly, it seems that wasn't enough in Disney's eyes to allow this panel to be printed unmodified.
Agreed 100%! That dialogue sounds really, really bad in modern times. Daisy's line in particular sounds very, verywrong. It'd be great to see it corrected in some printings, but in a library that is (from my understanding) dedicated to preserving Barks's work as it was originally published, I think it should stay. If you truly want to keep things like they were when they were originally published, keep in the problematic word. If you want to tweak that word, why not tweak the coloring and other possible issues, too?
Regardless of what you do with the coloring, the argument for keeping the dialogue as it is in such a Library edition is a sound one. Barks had nothing to do with the colors, but he wrote the dialogue and drew the art.
Using "conflagration" there, instead of "holocaust" is fine. Although I must admit, I had no problem with the use of the word holocaust there, in the first place, despite the fact that fully half of my extended family had been murdered in WAK death camps, and my grandparents were still bringing the survivors to Canada to live with us until they could get employment and save enough extra money to live on their own, when that story was printed. The Holocaust of World War II must use upper case (capital) letters, so it is a proper noun, to distinguish it from just any fire that consumes all of something. So, if it is spelt using all lower case letters (as in that Barks story), it does NOT refer to The WWII event. Despite having Auschwitz/Birkenau survivors in my house all my young life up to the point when that book was printed, and I bought it, I had no problem with Barks' use of that word (which did NOT use capitals, and thus, wasn't a proper noun referring to the WWII event.
I can't speak for all people, and I can't know how every different person will feel in any situation. But I can't imagine someone having many family members and friends murdered will EVER stop thinking about that, and having a completely unrelated use of a word happening to be the same word that came to be known for that horrible event, having that use give them even more pain. Still, it's very harmless to simply change the word to another, which means almost exactly the same, which Barks may well have used instead due to sheer chance,; and, to me, even as a Barks' work worshipper, doesn't taint his "original work" one iota.