Wanna win a Junior Woodchucks Merit Badge the easy way? Just get yourself a copy of THE COMPLETE CARL BARKS DISNEY LIBRARY Volume 25 "Donald Duck Balloonatics" from the great folks at Fantagraphics - on sale November 16, 2021!
...Specially included are some of the earliest Barks-written stories for Gold Key's HUEY, DEWEY, AND LOUIE JUNIOR WOODCHUCKS title circa 1970-1971, but the versions drawn by Daan Jippes in that "Late Dell Period Carl Barks Style" - perfectly fitting in with the rest of the contents of the book. Five stories in all!
Some of Barks' original pencil-rough layouts for these stories are also included!
This volume marks my writing debut for this particular series of books, and I chose the Woodchuck stories as my initial topic because, having read those stories hot off the newsstand (and having purchased the first one on the very first Earth Day in 1970), these stories are very special to me, and I hope I've done them proud!
It's a bit more difficult to write about Carl Barks than it is to write about Floyd Gottfredson or Paul Murry, as I've previously done for Fantagraphics, because so much has ALREADY been written about Barks that I don't wish to duplicate, or inadvertently appropriate, the observations of others.
However, when it comes to these special stories from HUEY, DEWEY, AND LOUIE JUNIOR WOODCHUCKS #6-8, I feel I've hit a satisfactory number of original beats.
Finally, for anyone interested, to end my Woodchuck observations, I created a new "exclusive to Fantagraphics" Junior Woodchuck rank acronym... because I just LOVE to do those!
6 comments:
I LOVE those early Woodchuck stories; I'll be looking forward to reading your ramblings about them!
By the by, since Christmas is on the way, may I suggest a piece on Letter to Santa for the season? I love that story so much.
Also, for what it's worth, Balloonatics is a classic.
As soon as I can get my hands on a copy, I’ll tell you what I think. I ordered this one through my local comic shop rather than Barnes and Noble. If all Fantagraphics books get to comic book shops this slow, it’s back to B&N for the next one. It seems a bit odd that they broke with chronological order to put the Woodchuck stories in this volume, but I suppose that’s better than yet another go-round of Daisy Duck’s Diary after the Grandma Duck stories. I know Barks has another Daisy one-shot coming up, and then thankfully he didn’t have to draw any more of them.
Deb:
The New Comics List I subscribe to says it was released to comic shops on November 11 – this past Wednesday. Considering that I received my author’s copy a week or less before that, I’d say that’s in line.
Now, these curious “supply chain issues” that are plaguing everyone these days, also affected comic shop deliveries for the PRIOR week. DC was unaffected, as they now have their own distribution system (meaning that I did get THE BATMAN AND SCOOBY-DOO MYSTERIES #8 – and indexed it at GCD HERE, but didn’t get GROO MEETS TARZAN #4 in time to do the same). …Fear not, Groo Crew, that index is coming! Meanwhile, chew on GROO MEETS TARZAN #3 HERE! “Chew on Groo”.… Heh!
So, for all we know, that (“supply chain issues”, not “chewing on Groo”) could be why you don’t have it. Can anyone confirm or deny?
Austin:
I LOVE those early Woodchuck stories too! And I’d like to think I did them proud in my commentaries! You will let me know, I’m sure. …That goes for ALL of you!
“Also, for what it's worth, Balloonatics is a classic.”
Also, for what it's worth, I seem to be agreeing with you a lot, lately! Balloonatics is indeed a classic. And the composite cover image on the book just enhances that weird and wonderful sense of fun! Donald isn’t even truly on the cover – but, a huge (yet simultaneously squat) gas-filled representation of him is! Kudos to the designer of that cover!
And, since we’re “doing things proud” and tossing around GCD indexes, I should tell you that I have submitted a lavishly detailed index for this volume to GCD! When it is reviewed and approved, I will add a link to it to this post! …Let’s see INDUCKS try and top that, eh?
My copy is on its way and is scheduled to arrive at my doorstep some time today. One quibble I have with Amazon, however, is that the book is listed as "recommended for ages 9-12". Could they not have written "for ages 9 to adult"? My understanding is that Donald Duck's popularity first and foremost was among adult audiences, and this is one reason why Disney used him as a PSA representative to encourage citizens to pay their income taxes during WWII. Also, Donald's tendency toward self-sabotage is something adults more than kids can relate to. I realize that in recent years the Disney company has downplayed the adult appeal of its mainstream characters and has employed them in material aimed at the 5 and under crowd. However, I still maintain that much of the humor of Barks is above the heads of children--while appealing at different levels, so that kids and adults can both enjoy, but with a different reading experience based on age and understanding. I would venture to guess that the majority of purchasers of the Fantagraphics reprint books are adults. As a teacher, I frequently point out to students that fairy tales and cartoon shorts were originally aimed at adult audiences, their appeal to kids being a byproduct but not the initial purpose.
Scarecrow:
I feel your pain… at least partially. I’ve long “quibbled” with Amazon over such labeling and categorizing. But I also find there is no consistent logic to it.
I’ve seen books like this categorized [paraphrasing here] as “Comics and Graphic Novels”, “Children’s’ Books”, and even “Art Books” – and have the SAME book in multiple categories! But, as you suggest, I think Disney itself is as much responsible for the perception you and I bemoan as any other involved party. It shouldn’t be too difficult to cast something as “appropriate for ages 9-12” OR “appropriate for all ages” – but, somehow, it seems to be.
On the other hand (thus that “partially” stuff), it was EXACTLY age 9-12 when I became a fan of this stuff for life – as noted in THIS OFT-REFERENCED POST, so I cannot completely object to Amazon’s labeling because it certainly has some basis in fact – for many people I know! Again, why can’t you simply say BOTH?
Carl Barks and Jonathan Harris (“Doctor Smith” from LOST IN SPACE) both contributed immensely to the expansion of my vocabulary as a youngster by their respective uses of unfamiliar words and phrases. And, as I’ve said elsewhere, if in MY Disney comic scripts I can send a curious kid to the dictionary (or now Google), as Barks and Harris sent me, then everyone involved is all the better for it.
And, just to show how pervasive this is with me, here’s an exchange I had with Esther just this morning over the Averi’s 4th Birthday post.
I preface this by saying that Esther is, without question, one of the most intelligent, well-read, well-informed persons I have ever met – and ABSOLUTELY SO of anyone I have ever had a “relationship” with! Does the New York Times crossword puzzle – IN PEN! But, as with all of us, there is the occasional “unfamiliar word and/or phrase” to be encountered… and she found such a “word and/or phrase” in that post. HINT: It’s highlighted in ORANGE!
She asked me about it, and I explained what it meant (as she would do just as often with me – we both love and enjoy words), to which she replied:
“Did you learn that from Uncle Scrooge?”
“No, from Lost in Space!”
BONUS POINTS to anyone who can tell me which episode of LOST IN SPACE I’m referring to!
You close with “As a teacher, I frequently point out to students that fairy tales and cartoon shorts were originally aimed at adult audiences, their appeal to kids being a byproduct but not the initial purpose.”
And *I* close with: Very commendable, my friend! VERY COMMENDABLE INDEED!
Post a Comment