Surely it's supposed to be a fact so obvious it doesn't even have to be stated that the Disney Duck universe was created by various comicbook artists, especially Carl Barks.
But according to the minority view of many researchers which apply the scientific method to the Duck universe - so-called Donaldists - it's supposedto exist in real life.
Correction, only some donaldist branches believe (or act as if they believe) the duck comics depict real events. It's definitely fun, it's fun to look at stuff like the bizarre family structures where parents dont seem to exist and take that as face value and try to think of theories to explain it, but I also like to look at the works from a more meta angle. (aka external donaldism where you look at the works as fictional) It's not any different from what most fandoms do though. I'd guess there are more LOTR fans who believe Tolkien's works are real seriously. (He did write his works as a fictional history after all...)
My mum likes to say she moved to Duckburg when she was young and I was born there tho so maybe she knows the truth.
Surely it's supposed to be a fact so obvious it doesn't even have to be stated that the Disney Duck universe was created by various comicbook artists, especially Carl Barks.
But according to the minority view of many researchers which apply the scientific method to the Duck universe - so-called Donaldists - it's supposedto exist in real life.
What do you think about Donaldists and their theories? Do you believe, too, that Duckburg is a real place?
I don't seriously believe it (neither do those D.O.N.A.L.D.I.S.T.S.), but I like the idea of thinking of the Disney comics universe as a coherent, self-consistent world. I wouldn't be building the Wiki if I didn't. However, I rarely agree with the Donaldist theories, since they keep using the fun, but inaccurate Fuchs translations of Barks.
Surely it's supposed to be a fact so obvious it doesn't even have to be stated that the Disney Duck universe was created by various comicbook artists, especially Carl Barks.
But according to the minority view of many researchers which apply the scientific method to the Duck universe - so-called Donaldists - it's supposedto exist in real life.
What do you think about Donaldists and their theories? Do you believe, too, that Duckburg is a real place?
I would saythat "Donaldism" is in the extreme in Germany, very strong in Finland, and also strong in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands and Italy. It seems to me, that Barks' Donald Duck has made a much bigger imprint on the culture in those nations than it ever has in USA. But, it will die out in ALL those places within the next 20-30 years. And, after that, it will be a distant, historical bit of trivia for the curious about how culture was in "ancient times."
Surely it's supposed to be a fact so obvious it doesn't even have to be stated that the Disney Duck universe was created by various comicbook artists, especially Carl Barks.
But according to the minority view of many researchers which apply the scientific method to the Duck universe - so-called Donaldists - it's supposedto exist in real life.
What do you think about Donaldists and their theories? Do you believe, too, that Duckburg is a real place?
I would saythat "Donaldism" is in the extreme in Germany, very strong in Finland, and also strong in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands and Italy. It seems to me, that Barks' Donald Duck has made a much bigger imprint on the culture in those nations than it ever has in USA. But, it will die out in ALL those places within the next 20-30 years. And, after that, it will be a distant, historical bit of trivia for the curious about how culture was in "ancient times."
20 years is a bit too short. Kids are still reading the comics and there's the new TV show to get new people interested.
Hardcore fans are always rare though. I'm Finnish and Donald Duck comics are popular and consistently referenced in real life but very few people would call themselves donaldists or even know the word.
But how fandoms overall will evolve in the future? Depends on how copyright laws and internet communities develop I suppose.
However, I rarely agree with the Donaldist theories, since they keep using the fun, but inaccurate Fuchs translations of Barks.
According to the D.O.N.A.L.D., only Dr Erika Fuchs received original text from Duckburg. Carl Barks only told us about the ducks in pictures and he used his American text as a placeholder only. One speaks German in Duckburg. Or maybe it's Danish, as most Danish Donaldists believe?
And what is "inaccurate"? She deliberatly used a loose translation. It's common in Germany to "localize" foreign material instead of using a literal translation.
But, it will die out in ALL those places within the next 20-30 years. And, after that, it will be a distant, historical bit of trivia for the curious about how culture was in "ancient times."
Sadly I have to admit this may be going to become true. Disney comic sales are falling in Europe, mostly because many kids today prefer digital media like videogames and the internet, but also because Japanese "anime" are taking over the comicbook and animation market in the Western World. Another reason may be that fandoms and hypes go much faster and shorter today. Franchises that remain popular for decades and have a loyal fanbase over that time, like the Duckburg universe, Star Wars, Transformers and Lord of the Rings have become a thing of the past. Most new fandoms are born, get hyped and become inactive in a matter of several years today, like the MLP:FIM fandom.
But how fandoms overall will evolve in the future? Depends on how copyright laws and internet communities develop I suppose.
Well, as the latest attempt to reform EU copyright law has down, the government wouldn't hesitate to virtually destroy internet culture like memes and message boards for copyright. Instead of liberalizing copyright to give consumers, fans, the net community and independant artists more freedom and encourage creativity, they seem to have a restrictive copyright in their view that mostly serves the business interests of Hollywood and large publishers.
However, I rarely agree with the Donaldist theories, since they keep using the fun, but inaccurate Fuchs translations of Barks.
According to the D.O.N.A.L.D., only Dr Erika Fuchs received original text from Duckburg. Carl Barks only told us about the ducks in pictures and he used his American text as a placeholder only. One speaks German in Duckburg. Or maybe it's Danish, as most Danish Donaldists believe?
Sure, the Donaldist position is self-consistent, but that doesn't mean I like it one bit. For one thing, it limits you to the German-published stories rather than all Disney comics as I take into account.
And what is "inaccurate"? She deliberatly used a loose translation. It's common in Germany to "localize" foreign material instead of using a literal translation.
"Inaccurate", for me, is a translation that doesn't convey the same facts as the original text. I'm not necessarily using it in a pejorative sense; certainly, Erika Fuchs was being intentionally and artistically inaccurate. But inaccurate it is.
For one thing, it limits you to the German-published stories rather than all Disney comics as I take into account.
German Donaldists only accept the graphical reports from Duckburg by Carl Barks in combination with the Duckburgian texts discovered by Dr Erika Fuchs. So, it doesn't even matter that many foreign stories don't get translated. They're fictional anyway according to Donaldistic research and therefore they don't matter to science.
For one thing, it limits you to the German-published stories rather than all Disney comics as I take into account.
German Donaldists only accept the graphical reports from Duckburg by Carl Barks in combination with the Duckburgian texts discovered by Dr Erika Fuchs. So, it doesn't even matter that many foreign stories don't get translated. They're fictional anyway according to Donaldistic research and therefore they don't matter to science.
Again, I perfectly get that it's intentionally that they decided to stick to Barks and Fuchs. But that feels like a waste to me. The game is much more interesting if you try to fit together all Disney comics universe info, as I have done on the Wiki, rather than with the much smaller body of work that is Fuchs+Barks.
I suppose we all have our own vision of what "counts," given that there is no official canon per se. My personal rule of thumb is "everything Barks, everything Rosa, plus everything that doesn not contradict the former two." That's why, for example, I'm perfectly willing to include ancestors from Italian or Scandinavian stories in the same timeline as Quackly or Swamphole McDuck. However, I tend to cast aside stories that are too explicitely set in modern times. (Doesn't mean I can't appreciate them, but they simply don't count in my vision of what constitue the "real" Duckiverse.) Similarly, stories that depict additional brothers, paternal uncles, and paternal cousins of Scrooge don't "count" either in my eyes -- except perhaps Douglas McDuck.
Last Edit: Aug 19, 2018 11:32:05 GMT by juicymcduck
For me only Barks really 'counts'. That being said I have my own canon in my head which largely is based on Barks + what I like so... The true canon of my heart.
Don Rosa's comics are their own universe for me, sorta similar to William van Horn... I can for example accept the Goldie/Scrooge relationship in Rosa's work but outside of it just... no. Except as Scrooge having a thing for her and maybe there being something decades ago but... It just doesn't match my image of Scrooge.
Same for stuff like Rumpus McFowl. When I'm reading a comic where he is I accept he exists but outside of the comic I don't want to think about him.