Disney-comics digest #145.

[Geir.Hasnes@DELAB.SINTEF.no]

Hello Mattias,

some comments to your comments:

>There is however two kinds of nothing-but-Barks publications in Sweden: the
>"Kalle Ankas B{stisar" series (translates as approx.: "Donald Duck's Favvies"),
>which is an album format soft-cover series that's been running for at least 15
>or 20 years or something like that. Also there are the "Guldb|ckerna" (The
>Golden Books), subtitled "Gamla, goda {ventyr av Carl Barks" (Good Old Stories
>by CB). These are hardcover, comic-BOOK format and often includes rare or
>never-before translated material, nicely translated, coloured and printed.
>Neither series have any chronological ambitions.
>
The soft-cover series was in Norway Barks-only until some years ago when
they started mixing in other artists. The book series is identical in
Sweden and Norway, but the translations are in my opinion not especially
good, rather the oppsite. I would love to have a Rosa Library, but I fear
we have to wait until they have earned what they may earn on comic book
printings and reprints and scattered albums. The last few days, I reread
all the Rosa stories I had available in English and also searched out all
the Norwegian translations, and I even compared some of the translations (I
was ill so I had to do something easy) and the translations werent that
bad! Please Don, help give us a Rosa album series in Norway, I dont want
that Vicar crap.

> anyhow, I certainly DON'T agree with Geir's
>analysis as it was presented on this list!
>
>Geir: one of your major misconceptions, in my opinion, is of what should and
>does constitute "adult" subject matter in a comic book, and in connection with
>this your notion that Barks' comics was originally intended for an adult
>audience. The latter is, I would say, completely wrong, even by Barks' own
>statements. His comics were exclusively made for the comic book market, which
>in it's turn was aimed at CHILDREN. The newspaper strips of, e.g., Taliaferro
>and Gottfredson is another matter - the newspapers themselves were of course
>primarily adult reading, and there was, I believe, no doubt at the time that
>the daily comic strips were read by young and old alike. But this is not true
>for Barks!

When they started doing comic strips nearly 100 years ago they didnt think
of it as aimed to either adults or children. In the 30s Disney didnt
present his cartoons as something for children, neither was the Gottfredson
/ Taliaferro strips intended that way. The whole time, it was a natural
thing for children to take part in the adults culture, and get whatever
they might out of it. Disney appealed to both adults and children and was
meant that way. The Disney stories / cartoons were not made especially for
children, but of course they appealed especially to children.

When Barks started doing his series, he was well into his 40s and he
thought as people of that generation did, that his stories would be aimed
at both adults and children. Just like fairy-tales. The Disney comic book
started with printing Taliaferro and Gottfredson (etc.) and these strips
were as you said yourselves primarily intended for adults. 

50 years ago they didnt have the chasm between childrens entertainment and
adult entertainment which you have today. So when Barks wrote his stories,
he wrote something that adults could fully understand and children
understand up to a certain point. Have a look at that new years resolution
10-pager from 1945 I think where Daisy hits Donald as a result of him
mentioning that she flies off the handle much easier than him. That is what
I call an adult dialogue, intended for adults. Children have no idea of
what is going on or the context for the male chauvinist joke. 

I started reading the comics when I was three years old and I can remember
what I felt about them. I was four and a half when I read about the lost
crown of Genghis Khan. I could not understand why the people in the last
panel wanted Scrooge to tell them about Gu. I understood that many years
later. I was six when the square eggs mystery was printed in Norway. I did
not see the fun in Donald being low down in the hierarchy at the museum.
That was an adult thing. The older I got, the more I understood.

I can vividly remember when it dawned upon me that I was no longer reading
the comics with they eyes of Huey, Dewey and Louie, when I realized that I
began to see it all through the eyes of Donald. I now see that in a few
decades, I will possibly even see it all from the viewpoint of Scrooge.

The genius of Barks is shown in (among other things) that he was able to
tell a story so that he did justice to both the adult and the kid in the
story.

I have read Barks aloud for my children for nearly 8 years and we have been
though most of it, I think. I have learnt a lot from that, and shall not
discuss that here. But I have seen that very often, Barks makes fun of
something that only makes sense for an adult.

That Barks during the 50s and 60s had to lower his content because it
became more and more obvious that he was read mostly by children, is a
fact. But that cant hide the fact that he wrote about things that
interested himself and that in many ways cannot be fully understood by a
child, not even an intelligent 12-year old boy (of the Junior Woodchucks).
And that has got to do with the adult dialogues and relations.

>Now, your interpretations of the sexual content in Barks'  duck comics can
>basically be viewed from three different, equally possible perspectives:
>
>a) they are the conscious effort of Barks to make statements at the
>allegorical/symbolical level about sex in general and duck-sex in particular.
>If this is true, your analysis (and mine in that dratted article) is
>defendable;

This is what I believe, yes.

>b) they do, without any intent on Barks' part, reflect his subconscious - i.e.
>they have something to tell us, not about the sexual attitudes of Donald Duck,
>but of Carl Barks. This is of course entirely POSSIBLE, but how do you  think
>Barks himself would feel about such an attempt at "shrinking" him? This is the
>perspective I myself like the least, and it's because of these ramifications
>that I now disapprove of my own article, too. I think it would be both RUDE and
>also unscientific to try to psychoanalyse Barks as a sexual being on the basis
>of comic books for children, made from 25 to 50 years ago;

I happen to know something about literary criticism. So I have in fact
written to Barks and told him that it is OK for him now to be just adored,
but he cannot defend himself against all possible interpretations of his
works in the future. It will certainly come, and it will not be regarded as
unscientific. Neither do I think it shrinks him. He detested the articles
in the CBL, but in a way started to understand that there was some sense in
them. I have spoken at length with Geoffrey Blum about these things also. I
must say that I have seriously tried to write about how Barks thought when
he worked (not about sex), and I have got some incredibly nice letters from
him about what I have seen, so that I do not think that I am completely far
out on this matter. And I have told Barks that the best thing would be to
have some statements about for instance his depiction of sexual symbols,
before people start to speculate wildly about it. In that letter, I
mentioned explicitly those things mentioned in the Dagbladet interview. He
hasnt answered that yet. I dont think it wild, but it may be done in a rude
way, yes. Rudeness often depends on peoples attitudes, though.

Barks was a serious artist and only serious artists can be analyzed and
discussed. There is nothing to discuss in most Duck stories. Try to say
something about the development in the Murry stories, for instance. I loved
them as a boy and love them still, but they are formulaic, and of very
little depth. Barks gave of himself in his stories, unlike (I think) all
the other Disney artists).

>c) they are projections of your (and in my case, my) dirty mind - what we
>have been analyzing is with some probability, as is often enough I believe the
>case, nothing but ourselves!

Well, yes, of course, but I am not alone about having seen all the things I
have seen, and other people have written about these things also.

>Now, I agree readily enough that Barks as a private person, and of course
>during his tenure at "The Calgary Eye Opener", has often enough given examples
>to show that he, too, could be dirty-minded (I use the word "dirty", not
>because I think sex or related matters are actually just that, but because it
>is the common expression for sexual jokes and innuendos) when he had a mind to,
>but I don't believe that he intentionally carried that into his duck stories,
>with the POSSIBLE exception of the abduction sequence in "Back to the Klondike"
>which I also think has undertones of sexual tension between $crooge and Goldie.
>IF this was intended by Barks, or if it is once again nothing more than what we
>chose to read into it, I don't know. Your other examples, Geir, you'll have to
>pardon the expression; but I find them unequivocal at best or (the "phallic"
>interpretations in particular) even downright silly! Sorry!!!

Barks was continually dirty-minded during the Calagary Eye-Opener period.
He intentionally carried that into his Duck stories. Sometimes I do think
that he intentionally hid it in order to see what he could get away with.
And since you dont seem to know it - the reason for censoring four of the
five pages of Back to the Klondike was that the sexual undertones were too
clear. I dont remember where I read that now but I have it in my archive so
I could try to find the reference. The fifth page was censored because
Scrooge actually did something unlawful.

>Another thing, Geir, about this "Duck Comics Should Be For Adults" thing. I
>don't see what is the problem with aiming comics primarily at children. Barks
>did that, too. The (possible, almost certain) difference between him and the
>policies of the Disney Corporation or e.g. Egmont, is that he never tried to
>talk down to the kids, but rather tried to make stories that would satisfy
>himself. I think this is one of the reasons his work still appeals to so many
>of us, adults and children alike. The same thing could be said about any number
>of writers of childrens books, for instance, of musicians and what-have-you.

As I have said before, the problem of writing for either children or adults
didnt exist (almost) in Barkses formative years. Barks was satisfying
adults also. The reason for me to point out these things is primarily that
I read the stories with new eyes and see the greatness in it from another
viewpoint - why, it is much better for me now than when I was a kid! And I
have met so many people who had fond memories of their childhood Donald
comics, and when I showed them how good they were for adults, nearly all of
them said wow! and rushed to the bank to pay for their own copy of the
Barks Library. 

>I could go on, but for the time, this'll have to be it. And Geir: no personal
>offence intended, I assure you! I just don't agree with some of the things you
>have seemed to say recently; and I'm very eager to hear what you think about
>all this.

I love to have controversy and there are no bad feelings with me for your
points of criticism. I am very glad that you took the time to write what
you did and I find it a healthy viewpoint, and with all respect, I am sorry
to say that I mean you have got Barks a little wrong if you want to defend
him from this kind of "psychoanalysis". It would however have been boring
if we couldnt have this kind of discussion between us hardcore Duckfans.

Don:

Have you ever thought of calling the girl scouts Junior Woodchicks? Excuse
me if the pun is bad or if it has been used before, but I couldnt resist
it.

To all:

I just got Barkses schedule in the mail for his visit to Europe next year.
Do you want me to print it in the list or have you all got the info some
way?

Geir Hasnes