Yes, that's REALLY Donald Duck's oddball cousin Fethry Duck in this ad!
A unusual character selection for this 1973 ad, considering Fethry had only had THREE appearances in American Gold Key comic books - all in 1965-1966!
I wonder if anyone knew who he was... Much less why he and Donald were BLUE!
17 comments:
Maybe they're blue in the face from laughing at something in "Disney's Wonderful World of Knowledge."
Interestingly, this reminds me of a set of Disney picture cards I had when I was a kid. These cards were my first -- and for many years my only -- exposure to many of the Disney characters that appeared primarily in comic books, including but not limited to Chief O'Hara, Scrooge McDuck, Morty and Ferdy, Gladstone Gander, and Fethry. There were also multiple pictures of Mickey. Since I wasn't familiar with most of the aforementioned obscure characters, I assumed at the time that the Fethry picture was a picture of Donald wearing a nightcap!
I still have a few of those cards... and I'm sure there's more of them lying around somewhere in my parents' basement or attic. I sure would love to find them someday, though I don't have high hopes of that. If I ever get around to blogging again, I'll share the ones I do have.
Sergio:
Or, maybe they’re blue in the face in order to show the spoiled kids in the audience how to get their parents to spring for the full set of "Disney's Wonderful World of Knowledge."
“If you don’t buy me that set of books with the strange looking duck wearing a nightcap, I’LL HOLD MY BREATH ‘TILL I TURN BLUE!” (…takes a deep breath and holds it)
After all, there *really were* ads in the comics of the 1950s that “instructed” kids on how to get your parents to buy you model trains, bicycles, and B-B guns – so maybe Donald and Fethry were simply engaging in a more covert version of that classic ploy.
I sure hope you find more of those cards – and “get around to blogging again”.
These books were possibly put together either by the same department that made the S-coded comics or one of Disney’s foreign licensees and then translated into English. A good Disney historian might know the answer to that one. D’ya know any? (Kidding…of course you do!)
Anon:
If you DO see any “good Disney historians” walking about, kindly direct them to this humble Blog. I could use their help with this mystery! :-)
Perhaps this may be less of a “mystery” if, as you suggest, the books’ origin is tied in with the “S-code” folks to whom Fethry would have been just another everyday character. Same for some of the foreign licensees.
Of course, whoever assembled the ad to run in American DC Comics probably had no clue as to Fethry’s history (…or, lack thereof) in the USA. …And so it goes.
That might even explain the “Dale-less purple Chip” also seen in the ad!
I concur with the "outsourced artwork" theory: note that this isn't just an incongruous number of years after Fethry's three original US appearances, but that this is employing the mostly-bald European design rather than the original Al Hubbard version with the full mop of hair!
Achille:
I have to agree with the "outsourced artwork" theory as well… but the question becomes "outsourced" to WHOM?
It is clearly not produced by Western, save maybe the appearance of the Mickey (and maybe Donald) figures looking like something out of Western’s Little Golden Books division – especially Mickey! None of it came from the comic book side of things.
The Fethry image adorning the BOOK itself certainly looks more European in origin. (Something American readers of this ad, myself included, would NOT have known, nor understood, in 1973!) And, if the source WERE European, it would help explain the unusual presence of Fethry on the book and in the ad as, unlike in the USA, he was just another everyday member of the Duck family.
Finally, while we’re still fancying ourselves in 1973 America, remember that "the original Al Hubbard version [of Fethry] with the full mop of hair" was completely unknown – even to avid readers like myself. If anyone remembered Fethry AT ALL, those memories would have been of the Western/Tony Strobl version – and that’s why I chose that version to use in the post.
For what it’s worth, had I seen that ad in 1973, I believe that *I* would have recognized that odd character as “Cousin Fethry” (as I referred to him when I read that trio of stories back in the mid-sixties), but I seriously doubt many others would, given the passage of time and the character’s “non-Stroblian” look.
TO DIGRESS: At the time, I wouldn’t even have known WHO Tony Strobl was, beyond my sixties/early-seventies designation of him as “The DONALD Guy”, because he drew the DONALD DUCK title. Similarly, Carl Barks was “The SCROOGE Guy”, and Paul Murry was “The MICKEY Guy”! Say what you will about the Gold Key comics of that particular period, at least they presented a very CONSISTENT (and dare I say “comforting”) look – in contrast with the hodgepodge stew of styles we regularly see today! END OF DIGRESSION.
Finally, the character congregation gathered directly below the illustration of the “Fethry book” (including Fethry himself) is clearly made up of randomly selected – and randomly placed – elements of standard clip art. Note Tramp is not with Lady, but carousing around with Pluto while one of the “101 Dalmatians” (…let’s call him #73, in honor of this ad) is running along with them instead of Scamp!
…I suppose it also explains the “Dale-less purple Chip”… but not really!
So far no one has weighed in with reporting on the actual books. I received a flyer in the mail advertising the "Wonderful World of Knowledge" series and placed an order. The deal was, Volume One was free, and the rest you had to pay for, but you could cancel your subscription at any time, the reasoning likely being that once a child had received that first volume, the child and parents would be so impressed that they would continue ordering the rest. In any case, what I did was perfectly legal. I ordered the free book and then cancelled. (Later, I discovered some of the other volumes in a used book store.)
Now, regarding Volume One. This was touted as a Donald Duck book. Some of the drawings look like Donald in a stocking cap, while others are more definitely Fethry. According to the indicia inside, the books had been translated from Italian. Doubtless the text in the Italian made full reference to Fethry, but for American readers this was translated to read Donald. Yes, that was supposed to be Donald Duck on the cover! As for myself, I knew about Fethry only from the Gulf-sponsored "Wonderful World of Disney" magazines, which printed some stories involving Donald's cousin Fethry Duck. But while I had an uneasy feeling that it was Fethry in most of the illustrations, I went along with the conceit that the book was being narrated by Donald. That was what it said, in black and white. There were later volumes that clearly "were" hosted by Donald in his customary sailor suit, and no other volume tried to pass off Fethry as Donald. Of course, now I recognize the ploy. They should have used the "real" Donald for the first volume and saved Fethry or "Fethry as Donald" for a later one. (Comment to be continued.)
Now as for the layout of the books. Unlike an encyclopedia, each volume was written out in chapters, with headings and sub-headings. They covered in easy-to-read fashion the given volume's topic, such as animals in this first one. The text was accompanied by photographs and by Disney-rendered illustrations, rather in the manner of those Ranger Woodlore or Ludwig Von Drake episodes on television. My chief frustration was that very seldom did the given page's text line up with the photo and the illustration. In fact, I rejoiced whenever I found a page in which all three were coordinated together.
Later volumes were narrated by Daisy Duck, Gyro Gearloose, Ludwig von Drake, Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, HDL, Jiminy Cricket, and even Peg Leg Pete (oddly referred to as "Peg Pete" which is doubly ironic to anyone familiar with the Goof Troop TV series). I eventually got a complete set. The writers did not demonstrate a strong knowledge or awareness of the characters. However, the final volume was a special treat, because it contained a mini-biography of Walt Disney and profiles of the Disney characters. (A little confusing, because the supporting characters from Gottfredson's comic strip are shown as currently popular Disney characters. I did not recognize more than one or two at the time. Also Chip 'n' Dale are referred to as Chip and Chop.)
So these books were a mixed bag. Might have been better if they had been designed as encyclopedias with individual entries, rather than written as chapter books. And certainly the writers (and translators) needed to be more knowledgeable about the Disney characters. But visually, they were a real treat. Anyway, it explains the Fethry/Donald ambiguity.
WOW! That’s a great look into those books, Scarecrow!
I would almost certainly suspect that “no one has weighed in with reporting on the actual books” because no one had – or still has – them for reference, including your truly!
It’s almost a shame they didn’t go “Full Fethry” in that first volume as it might have better established his character in the USA (maybe – and I’m dreaming here – encouraged Western to consider him for the few original stories they were still doing in the ‘70s), and not caused confusion among the very small number of (perhaps ironically) “knowledgeable readers of The Wonderful World of Knowledge" like yourself – or me, if I had the book. …Wake me up, I’m still dreaming!
“According to the indicia inside, the books had been translated from Italian... ”
“The writers did not demonstrate a strong knowledge or awareness of the characters.”
Hey, now we know what a certain person with the initials “E.B.” (not Eega Beeva), or maybe her parents (?), were doing in 1973!
Even as a high school kid in ‘73, I would have done better than the on-again / off-again confusion of Donald and Fethry, gotten the other character names right – and resolved the “Dale-less purple Chip” matter once and for all! …If you haven’t figured it out by now, I just love writing “Dale-less purple Chip”!
Why, even David Gerstein would have done a better job – and he WOULDN’T EVEN BE BORN until the following year!
“Anyway, it explains the Fethry/Donald ambiguity.”
Yep, I think we can “close the books” on this one! Thanks for all the great information!
Am I saying this because I want an excuse to get on the “Dale-less purple Chip” game? Yes. But… …purple, you say? An incongruously purple rodent… Records being doctored… I sense the hand of the Horde of the Violet Hare in this! I wonder what Fethry did for them to give him the “1984” treatment. No doubt Chop the Chipmunk is a Horde agent, and Chip was hypnotized (via a ray whose side-effect is to turn people a violet hue!) into not noticing the difference, while the real Dale was held in a Horde containment facility somewhere…
…Alright, nonsense off now.
I concur these are fascinating insights from Scarecrow… I am reminded of such occasions as the Yellow Beak/Seven Dwarfs story being translated in French in such a manner as to suggest that Yellow Beak was actually just José Carioca! But I had assumed that such shenanigans were purely the purview of our European translated editions. It is rather amusing to hear that American publications got the same treatment!
I'm also genuinely curious about this “Chip and Chop” business. Have those names been used anywhere else? Was this a case of one-off mistranslation from their Italian names? Odd naming glitches do seem to happen now and then, even in fairly recent Disney products — such as those semi-animated cyber-security online comics the Disney website used to have up, which gave the Three Little Pigs' names as “Brickster, Strawman and Wood”. Or, for that matter, “New DuckTales” deciding that its Dewey Duck's name was short for “Dewford” instead of “Deuteronomy”! I wonder if Ramapith knows anything more about this Chop affair. If anyone knows (setting aside a lucky coincidence like Scarecrow's experience with these “Wonderful World” books), surely it would be him?
Achille:
By all means feel free to hop aboard the “Dale-less purple Chip” bandwagon! You must admit it’s a fun phrase to write – and just as much fun to speak aloud! I heartily recommend that everyone attempt it audibly at least once – it almost tickles! …Just don’t try it at the office, or on a train, or the like.
And small surprise to find that the Horde of the Violet Hare may have been “black-ops-ing” (…or would that be “PURPLE-ops-ing”) back in 1973, well below the world’s radar, while we were all too concerned with Viet-Nam to notice. Though, what I wouldn’t have given to see Henry Kissinger negotiating world peace with a delegation of purple rabbit-themed terrorists! …Okay, I’ve clearly digressed a bit TOO FAR, haven’t I?
“I had assumed that such shenanigans were purely the purview of our European translated editions. It is rather amusing to hear that American publications got the same treatment!”
American publications “got the same treatment” during the last year or so of IDW, and it wasn’t nearly as amusing.
While some of those misnomers are the result of someone just wanting to put their own stamp on things ( “Brickster, Strawman, and Wood”… Disney let a translator call a character “WOOD”? I guess it REALLY IS a “New Disney”, these days) or total ignorance of history or convention (“Dewford” instead of “Deuteronomy”), I have heard – or read of – the use of “Chip and Chop” before. And it might be a natural mistake for a European translator to make, as it might have actually been the translation of “Chip and Dale” they knew.
Of course, that still fails to account for “Dale-less purple Chip”! …I LOVE that phrase! Ya think it could become the NEW “Bad Goat Jokes”?
A goat, a Dale-less purple Chip and a guy named Bertram walk into a bar, and…
…nope, got nothing.
I suspect "Dewford" wasn't a case of ignorance, but rather, of an overeager Disney censor who worried it might be somehow provocative to have a character named after a book of the Bible. It would surprise me if the core writer's room of New DuckTales, people who went around making background references to Plain Awful and the Duke of Baloni, had simply *overlooked* Dewey's conventional given name!
To be clear, the Brickster-Strawman-Wood thing was from the early 2000s — and not a translation at all, just a gimmicky little online extra. So not that New a Disney, especially, just a lot later than I'd have expected these sorts of thing to still be in flux.
Achille:
“ A goat, a Dale-less purple Chip and a guy named Bertram walk INTO a bar, and…”
…And …and …Broke their noses because they didn’t walk THROUGH THE DOOR? …The bar was made of bricks, you know! … Dale-less purple Chip’s nose was even MORE PURPLE than before!
Okay, not much – but better than “nothing”!
The vernacular connotation of “Wood” aside, why did they break with convention and call him “Wood” rather than call him “Sticks” (or something like “Stickton” or “Stickmeister”) if they were going for a more “slang-y” vibe?
You know like House of Straw, House of STICKS, and House of Bricks? …I guess I’m just too fannishly traditional and common-sense-y to understand.
Chip and Chop are their Italian names...spelled Italianately as Cip and Ciop. So, as this copy was translated from Italian, the Italian names were just transliterated.
Elaine:
Ah, YES! That must be where I saw it before, when I had an Italian Duck story that had a Chip ‘n’ Dale cameo in it. If not, it must have been for “forward pages” of the Abbeville Press “Mickey Mouse” hardcover book from 1978. What a revelation THAT book was to me at the time!
Thanks for the info! When we all work together like this, we solve more mysteries than even Scooby-Doo!
Joe:
You always manage to find interesting oddities. For some reason blue pie-eyed Donald gives me anime vibes... and I have no idea why I feel that way.
It’s interesting to me that you viewed Barks as the Scrooge guy and Strobl as the Donald guy. So much modern writing on the 50s/60s Disney Comics fandom claims that folks called Barks "the good duck artist" implying that everyone else were bad duck artists. To be clear, Barks was the supreme talent... but that didn’t make all of his contemporaries work BAD. Nor does it mean that EVERYONE called Barks the good duck artist. I wasn't around in the 50s and 60s but something I've learned from my own research is that opinions are often less uniform than history books/articles present them.
Finally, I wanna give a quick thanks to Scarecrow33 and Elaine for the information they shared in the comments :)
Ryan:
“Find[ing] interesting oddities” is one of my many middle names… he says with a rather awkwardly phrased metaphor.
About the “Scrooge/Donald/Mickey Guy” thing… to best understand it, you’d have to have been a young reader in the early-mid 1960s as I was.
These people had “no names” at the time but, unlike a great deal of the Italian stuff being done in modern times, they each had very distinctive and identifiable styles. I did not learn the name of Carl Barks until 1971, courtesy of THIS AUTHOR’S GROUNDBREAKING BOOK! The names of Strobl and Murry (and others) would come in dribs-and-drabs about a decade or more later.
But, surveying the situation from the perspective of a late-period Dell and early-period Gold Key Comics reader, this is how my overly-observant-when-it came-to-comics-mind pieced it together while working devoid of the sort of information we so take for granted today…
Carl Barks was the artist you found regularly in UNCLE SCROOGE. Tony Strobl was the artist you found regularly in DONALD DUCK. Paul Murry was the artist you found regularly in MICKEY MOUSE. Yes, sometimes one artist would cross over into another’s book or “designated character”, or Jack Bradbury (whose work didn’t appear frequently enough to earn himself a “name”) would occasionally be thrown into the mix – but that’s pretty much the way the lineup was set, month after month, and year after year, during that formative period. Pretty much through 1967, when Barks’ last stories would appear.
By 1969, things would begin to unravel with Kay Wright (Ugh!) gradually replacing Strobl and, by 1973, Bob Gregory (a great writer, who should never have picked up a pencil) would follow suit. All you need do is look at the new Disney stuff from Western from that time onward to see the sad results of that “unraveling”.
“…something I've learned from my own research is that opinions are often less uniform than history books/articles present them”
VERY WELL PUT, Ryan! And so true! I may not be infallible (far from it), but one thing of which you can be certain is that, from me, you will always get the perspective of one who “was actually there” – unless I say otherwise. With so much of this information fading into lost history by the day, it becomes more important (at least for the people for whom stuff like this matters) to record it somewhere.
And, since I will never write a book, the places I’ve chosen as a repository are this humble Blog, and my indexing at GCD.
Oh, and how ‘bout that “Dale-less purple Chip”!, eh?
Post a Comment