Parrot Gag vs. Barks

[Daniel van Eijmeren]

ROB KLEIN, Digest Vol 1 #337, 28-11-2000:

> Regarding Daniel van Eijmeren's theory that Barks MAY have written
> the 1951 Parrot gag drawn by Frank McSavage:  When the information
> in the Western Pub. payroll documents refers to "one page Donald 
> Duck gag", that indicates that barks submitted a rough sketch layout
> of a one-page gag.  He got payed for the "writing" of that gag.  It
> was accepted for use, but not assigned to a particular magazine.

In Michael Barrier, the intended issue is mentioned as being OS 356.
Maybe you're referring to some other lost/unidentified gags, which
are described as being "for future use" and "to be used as needed"?

> The gag itself has the flavour of a Barks gag, but the intensity
> of Donalds changes in emotion are weak.

A reason for this could be that Carl Barks didn't draw the gag
himself, so he didn't have much control on how his expressions
would look in the published result. This, for example, happened
in the Junior Woodchuck stories, which are known to be by Barks.

> Also, I am SURE Barks would not have used the EXACT same dialogue
> in each of Donald's balloons.

Even though Donald keeps on repeating the same line, the emotion
differs because of the bold lettering which underscores Donald
getting more and more frustrated in making the parrot talk. 
So, at least for me, the lines are *not* exactly the same.

The US 61 parrot also uses a repetition of exactly the same line, 
but then *without* bold lettering. Even though this gag is art
only, this does not mean that Barks could have decided using a
different dialogue if he objected to this repetition. Apparently,
he didn't. (This is guessing, of course.)

Apart from this, a parrot has to *learn* a line before it can
imitate it. So, it's even nescessary to keep on repeating the
same line (as in OS 356), otherwise the parrot will never learn it.

And when one wants to make a parrot say a certain line it already
knows (as in US 61), then one has to say the line exactly the
same way as the parrot learnt it. 

> If McSavage indeed, received the originals, he did a masterful
> job of butchery ("McSavagery") as did Tony Strobl and Kay Wright
> to Barks' later story sketches.  My instinct tells me this is
> NOT a Barks script, or it is a well-changed version.

What's the difference between an "instict" and an "opinion"?


Best wishes,

--- Daniel