[crashryan]

Black Swan, cont'd

Usually I don't read the text stories. This time my eye was caught by the peculiar names and I gave the story a read. Weird coincidence! When I was a junior high schooler I cracked up over an s-f short story. The gimmick was that earth people discover a sort of mini space warp. Anything tossed into it vanishes forever. The warps become the ultimate garbage can. Soon everyone on earth tosses their garbage into a warp. Instant cleanup. This goes on for years until one day the warps start spewing trash. Whoever is on the other end of the warps has gotten sick of the trash deluge and figured out how to send it all back. Now read this text story. Coincidence? One story ripped off the other? I wonder.

Gloomy Gus

This is a weird, weird concept. Gus can return from the dead if he finds a corpse to take over. He remains alive as long as his host doesn't get killed again. He's accompanied by a "guardian angel" who for some reason also craves a corpse to inhabit. The whole  thing is bizarre enough to be a cult comic, but the scriptwriter makes a mess of it by not thinking his idea through.

If Gus and Gabby are spirits, how can they be trampled by stampeding horses? Furthermore, Gabby is afraid the next corpses will "probably be us." He's an angel, right? How can he be killed? For that matter why does he want a corpse to inhabit? He talks like he's just another homeless ghost. Are they visible when they're "half dead?" If they're visible and can act upon real-world objects it sounds to me like they'd be better off as they are, not having to worry about their hosts dying. Kind of a mess.

Now about the townspeople. They gather the town's best good-guy gunmen, put them in the saloon, and have them kill each other until only one is left alive! What the hell??? They'd have been wiser to have all the gunmen band together and blow away Dead-Eye Joe as a team. Instead they're pissed that their tryout scheme worked too well. Meanwhile Gus and Gabby are ecstatic at the sight of a roomful of dead bodies. To top it off it's a continued-next-issue story in a reprint mag that never had another issue.

And by the way, being ghosts, do Gus and Gabby meet the spirits of the dead sheriff wannabe's as the latter head upward (or downward)?

All Suzy is good for is a couple of nice butt shots. The script lurches awkwardly from one obvious gag to another without raising a smile.

Stupidman ends the issue with a whimper. Was this written as it went along? What do the Three Stooges guys have to do with the story? Who cares if Stupidman has a tail? And, what's this? Another continued story? Pfui!

Sorry, but this comic is a dud.

[SuperScrounge]

Adventures of the Dover Boys

a.k.a. The Hardy Boys with the serial numbers filed off. 

Convenient how Carol's ankle just twisted for no reason other than plot. (Generic female with pre-twisted ankle! A must for lazy writers! Get yours today!)

I kind of laughed at them escaping from the Incas and then deciding to swipe their treasure as well. Hey, the Incas are already mad at them, how much madder can that make them. 

A pure clear piece of obsidian? That might be rare enough to be worth some money. Probably not the same as a diamond, but I was trying to think of all the types of obsidian I've heard of/seen* and didn't recall hearing of a perfectly clear stone as there are usually impurities in the molten silicon dioxide.

*Regular black obsidian (which can be translucent or wispy), mahogany obsidian (red mixed with black), snowflake obsidian (black with white spots), rainbow obsidian (multi-colored), brown obsidian, grey obsidian, green obsidian, probably some others that I can't recall.

Okay action adventure story, but not hard to see why they didn't get enough letters for more issues.

[The Australian Panther]

not hard to see why they didn't get enough letters for more issues. 

I would love to know why they didn't continue this. I wonder if copyright issues were a factor? 

[crashryan]

Super Duck #42

I knew nothing about Super Duck and having read this one I'm amazed he lasted 94 issues. 94 issues!

I tempered my criticism somewhat after reading Robb's introduction to Fagaly. The Super Duck stories aren't all that bad. They're more coherent than most funny animal comics of the period. The one that works best is the one that's the most Barksian in structure, "The Pick of the Crop."

"Once Upon a Crime" has its moments but the giant mentally-challenged baby doesn't work for me. Most of these Super Duck stories operate with "real world" logic, pushed to a cartoon extreme of course. The "Spider Man" in "Pick of the Crop" fits because in the context of the story he's a freak of nature and all the characters acknowledge this. Buster, on the other hand, is a grotesque, gigantic machine of destruction and all the characters behave as if he were an ordinary baby. A pain to take care of, maybe, but otherwise just another kid.

The main characters are grating. Uwanna is even more self-centered and needy than Daisy. Supe is entirely unlikable. I get that he's supposed to resemble hot-tempered Donald. However Supe blows his stack much too quickly and I don't recall Donald beating up his nephews when he got mad.

Al Fagaly's artwork is pretty good. I'm not crazy about the panels with the character's disembodied heads against a black background. Long exposure has made me accustomed to floating heads without background or panel border. Filling the background and boxing it in calls attention to the fact that the characters' bodies are missing. I'm sure if countless other artists had done the same thing, as is the case with floating heads, it wouldn't look weird to me. One thing bugs me about Super Duck's design: his mouth (or bill or whatever). Much of the time it's squared-off and the upper and lower parts are drawn flat. Supe's mouth looks like a mousetrap when it's open and the bill seems to be pasted to his face instead of growing out of it.

Cubby the Bear does nothing for me. The artwork is meh and as has already been pointed out, the feather duster gimmick is bungled because all the dusters in the collection are identical.

In closing, the comic ain't that bad, but 94 issues???!

[crashryan]

The Dover Boys #only

I must agree with K1ngcat. The recent calls for the repatriation of artifacts looted from former colonies points up the contradiction at the heart of many European and American collections. In this story the professor at least wants the Inca gold for historical purposes. The Dovers are just in it for the dough. All of them operate under the unspoken conviction that they have a right to barge into the jungle and take whatever they want, even though the descendants of the treasure's original owners are still alive and are keeping it in their closet. Why are they surprised that the Incas want to keep their stuff?

It reminds me of a Sax Rohmer book I read decades ago. I think it was called The Quest of the Golden Slipper. A group of True Brit explorers lift the title McGuffin from its inscrutable owners. The owners want the slipper back. Our heroes face a succession of Fu Manchu-style perils trying to hang onto it. I credit Rohmer with an atypical ending: our heroes finally decide the hassle just ain't worth it and give the Mysterious East back its slipper. To the end none of them question their right to take the thing in the first place.

Anyway, with that out of my system, on to the Dover Boys. People have suggested they're knockoffs of the Hardy Boys. In fact they're knockoffs of the Rover Boys, created by legendary juvenile novel impresario Edward Stratemeyer in 1899. Their series ran until 1926, about the same time Stratemeyer created the Hardy Boys. There were three Rovers and they attended a boarding school, but in general the Dovers follow their formula. Like the Hardy Boys the Rover Boys were quite successful and even entered the vernacular: "Well, if it isn't the Rover Boys!"

An early Chuck Jones cartoon parodied the boys: The Dover Boys at Pimento University, or, The Rivals of Roquefort Hall (1942). This Warner Bros. cartoon had a great influence on later works. It's considered to have pioneered the more stylized "modern" look of 1950s cartoons.

I can't figure out why Archie decided to put out this comic at this particular time. Obviously someone remembered the Rovers and figured that a Stratemeyer-style boys' adventure comic would sell. It was an era during which comics publishers were trying to find the next big trend. Maybe this was another concept thrown against the wall to see whether it stuck. If so it's curious that they only released one issue. The way I understand it, publishers would commit to three or four issues of a new title because it took several months for sales figures to come in. If sales proved good they could just keep cranking out issues without a pause. If they waited for sales reports on a single issue and that issue sold well, six months or more might pass before a second issue hit the stands. In the meantime what momentum the title had may have evaporated.

As for the Dover Boys' story, welcome to Cliche-ville. Lost tribe, distressed damsel, superstitious natives awed by flashlight, erupting volcano yadda yadda. The feature's debt to juvenile novels shows in the way the story is divided into chapters with exciting titles. It's odd that for chapter five they broke their format of putting the title in the first panel. About that flashlight. The Incas have already sent emissaries into the outside world, as witness the guy who knifes Uncle Bill. Then how come they don't know about flashlights and pistols? And by the way, since when did Incas wear turbans? And since when did a turban look like the one on our page 7, panel 3?

Harry Lucey's art, if this be he, is decent if a bit cartoony for my tastes. Lucey puts honest effort into the panels with few cop-outs.

It just struck me: how did Tim know about the Evil Eye of Xaquixaguana? He must have done his homework before embarking for fame and fortune.

In all The Dover Boys is more interesting than it is good.

[Robb_K]

Super Duck #42
The Super Duck stories aren't all that bad. (1) They're more coherent than most funny animal comics of the period. The one that works best is the one that's the most Barksian in structure, "The Pick of the Crop."

(2) The main characters are grating. Uwanna is even more self-centered and needy than Daisy. Supe is entirely unlikable. I get that he's supposed to resemble hot-tempered Donald. However Supe blows his stack much too quickly and (3) I don't recall Donald beating up his nephews when he got mad.

Al Fagaly's artwork is pretty good. (4) I'm not crazy about the panels with the character's disembodied heads against a black background.

(5) One thing bugs me about Super Duck's design: his mouth (or bill or whatever). Much of the time its squared-off and the upper and lower parts are drawn flat. Supe's mouth looks like a mousetrap when it's open and the bill seems to be pasted to his face instead of growing out of it.

(6) Cubby the Bear does nothing for me. The artwork is meh and as has already been pointed out, the feather duster gimmick is bungled because all the dusters in the collection are identical.

In closing, the comic ain't that bad, but 94 issues???!

Thanks for your comments.  I agree with all of them. I like Fagaly's artwork, because it reminds me of Barks, and I like the movement and animation-influenced action.  He "stole" enough Barks plots and staging, for me to even like READING many of his stories.

(1). As I stated above, I think Fagaly's artwork is like a "Poor Man's Barks" (a VERY poor man's).  But, as far away from Barks' excellence as he was, he was 3-scales better(to my taste) than most of the other "Funny Animal" artists of the time.

(2) I agree that "Supe" is not a sympathetic, or empathetic character - and therefore, not likeable. I also agree that Uwanna (whose name should be: "YouWanna?"), is 50 times more selfish and bitchier than Daisy (who actually displays good, kind, loyal, and even loving qualities, at times).  And Fauntleroy gives his older brother back what he gets from him, so, he, too is not really a protagonist.  So, the series has a kind of negative feel to it.  I'm not sure why Fagaly chose to concentrate ONLY on Barks' characters' BAD traits.  That doesn't seem to be a good strategy.  But maybe he did that because he (and his editor) felt that IF he gave Supe's little brother and girlfriend well-rounded characters, his series would look much too much like Barks', and Disney would come gunning for MLJ (which happened, anyway).  Fagaly also had a "Grandma Duck" who looked and acted EXACTLY like Barks' Donald's Grandma.  And he also had a neighbour that hated Supe, and that attitude was mutual.  They had "garden Wars" similar to Donald's battles with his neighbour Jones. 

(3). I agree that it's tough to find a protagonist in this set of characters with the lead character physically pummeling his little brother (for whom he has custody, and the obligation to raise him and provide for his needs).  Of course, we'd never have seen that in a Disney comic book (or film).

(4) I absolutely hate the lazy use of disembodied heads, whether or not there is a panel boundary.  That only works for me when used as a chorus of ghosts or spirits of long past ancestors, or famous personages, that are warning the current character, giving him or her advice, or commenting on the story's situation.

(5) Unfortunately, I think the squared-off beak/mouth was implemented after MLJ was warned by Disney's threats, to change Super Duck's appearance enough that he no longer looks like Donald.  Supe started out in 1943 looking very like the animation Donald, when Barks' Donald also looked more like that.  Here are some examples, including Supe's gradual transformation into his "Super Duck" superhero state, complete with cape:


Dave Higgins and Bill Vigoda also drew a few "Super Duck" front covers and stories, each, in 1943 and very early 1944, and they had a more rounded beak.  Fagaly changed to the square beak, probably after a second warning from Disney, after Fagaly started copying almost entire Barks stories, not just in style and basic plots, but also in entire page layouts with virtually the same story.  He drew Supe dressing up like a girl to win a kite-flying contest for Faunt's clubhouse gang, which copied most of a Barks 1944 story.  As I stated above, most of my favourite Super Duck stories are almost exact clones of Barks stories, or stories pieced together combining 2 or 3 Barks subplots from different stories.  It's clear that Fagaly was a much better artist than writer, and having to write and draw a whole book every month, while also producing a "Fauntleroy" book once a year, and taking a foray into trying to develop a new newspaper strip every few years, was too much on his plate to be able to come up with so many new stories.  In my opinion, MLJ/ArchieSeries were lucky they never had to shut down the series due to Disney lawsuits.

Supe's beak started becoming squarish in 1948, and got more stiff and square gradually over 1948 and 1949.   It didn't actually get perfectly straight-lined in every pose until 1950 or 1951 (and even then, it was mostly the lower beak).  I think the squaring off made drawing him faster, because it took less time and care to just draw those straight lines.

(6). I agree that The "Cubby" stories are worthless to anyone over 5 or 6 years old.  The artwork is simple, but ugly (and not very much skill needed, at all).  The stories are for tots.  I wouldn't have enjoyed them even at age 3.  I just skipped them.

[crashryan]

Unfortunately, I think the squared-off beak/mouth was implemented after MLJ was warned by Disney's threats, to change Super Duck's appearance enough that he no longer looks like Donald.

Thanks for the retrospective of Supe's evolution, Robb. I see what you mean!

[The Australian Panther]

crashryan posted;- 

  An early Chuck Jones cartoon parodied the boys: The Dover Boys at Pimento University, or, The Rivals of Roquefort Hall (1942). This Warner Bros. cartoon had a great influence on later works. It's considered to have pioneered the more stylized "modern" look of 1950s cartoons.

I pointed that out and posted the link last week.
If any of you haven't seen it yet, here it is again.
After I wrote that, I remembered I had seen it before. I must be getting old, who could forget that one.   
And yes, it clearly was influential. Which makes me wonder, 'what influenced Chuck Jones?'

Now, searching for 'Dover Boys' brings up this wonderful 1942 Cartoon.
directed by Chuck Jones.[1] The short was released on September 19, 1942. The cartoon is a parody of the Rover Boys, a popular juvenile fiction book series of the early 20th century.
The Dover Boys (1942)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR0eBWDVAtw&ab_channel=CCCartoons
And in keeping with my theme, they are 'Tom, Dick and Larry'
And thank you Robb for unintentionally directing me to a Chuck Jones classic.

[Robb_K]

Super Duck 42
(1) I've heard of Super Duck, via the "Stupid Comics" feature on the website Mr. Kitty, here:
https://www.misterkitty.net/extras/stupidcovers/stupidcomics136.html
Uwana looks very different in the earlier issues!
Let's see...
Once Upon a Crime: (2)Super Duck is very keen on getting Buster in trouble. Is there some backstory here? Why the hate?

Cubby the Bear: Is calling a bear "Cubby" like calling a human "Sonny"? I like his little suit, it's cute. The final joke...not so much. Which part did the writer come up with first? (3) How the heck did he land on "feather dusters into fake war bonnets"?

Super Duck ends up homeless in the next story? These are getting weirder and weirder and the jokes are landing less and less. Good thing there's no continuity between stories.

The Pick of the Crop: I was expecting the old "fake monster to make the owner sell" gag, but no, there's a six armed dog man. Well, props for subverting my expectations at least.

Overall, this one was a bit disappointing. Not a lot that grabbed my attention, aside from that monster!

(1) Ha! Ha!  I think Mr. Kitty's review of this stupid comic book series is one of the funniest diatribes I've ever read on The Internet!  I almost wet my pants when I first read it about 5-6 years ago.  It's absurdly true on every point (who could argue with that?).  So, it shouldn't be all that funny to someone familiar with the series (like me) (let alone someone for whom it has a special place in his heart, and on his pantheon of revered entertainment sources!  But, nevertheless, it cracks me up every time I read it.  Good thing you were warned about it before you encountered an issue on the newsstand.  Those 94 issues weren't published for naught! 

(2) "Supe" hates Buster because the little (er, giant) bugger cramps his style in the area of romance (with his hottie girlfriend).  Very often when "Supe" visits his ladyfriend, expecting a "roll in the hay", or, at least some time alone with her, Uwanna just happens to be babysitting her gigantic young nephew.  Not that the two of them would want Buster, even being well-behaved, to watch them make love......they couldn't expect him to stay in another room and play with toys, or sleep.  No, not THAT giant with a 3-year old 's mind.  He constantly wants them to play games with him, and left alone to entertain himself, he'd destroy the whole house, or wander off and commit some other form mayhem or destruction.  When Supe gives in and agrees to play with the young  Captain Destructo, the kid uses him for a toy, and always comes out battered and bruised, or stewing in a jail cell.

(3) This was probably one of Cubby's writer's more sensible stories.  It's incredible and unbelievable to me that MLJ ran this worthless series in 4 different titles for well over a decade.  I rejected it at 3 years old, and, so, never read one of his stories all the way through until I had to do it on this thread of mine, in order to comment on it, and other posters' comments.  And I agree with you, that feather dusters wouldn't make good facsimile Native American Great Plains tribes' war bonnets, and that it is a long, long way from being a funny, or even remotely passable ending for a comedy (or any other kind of story).

[Quirky Quokka]

The Dover Boys #only

I must agree with K1ngcat. The recent calls for the repatriation of artifacts looted from former colonies points up the contradiction at the heart of many European and American collections. In this story the professor at least wants the Inca gold for historical purposes. The Dovers are just in it for the dough. All of them operate under the unspoken conviction that they have a right to barge into the jungle and take whatever they want, even though the descendants of the treasure's original owners are still alive and are keeping it in their closet. Why are they surprised that the Incas want to keep their stuff?

Yes, I tend to agree. When I was in high school in the 70s, a Tutankhamun exhibition came through my hometown of Brisbane, and I thought it was great. I never questioned the fact that the British had gone in and taken things that should have stayed in Egypt. By the time I visited the Egyptian exhibit at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts in about 2007, it didn't seem to sit as well. I guess hindsight is a wonderful thing. It's good to see that some artefacts are being returned. I even saw something on the news here in Australia recently about a group of museum experts from Cambodia who were in Australia to evaluate whether certain pieces in our museums had been illegally taken from villages during the years of conflict (I think the idea was that collectors may have bought them without knowing where they came  from or at least without asking). Here's a link if anyone's interested.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-04/cambodia-over-100-stolen-artefacts-in-australian-museums/102684646

Glad to see that some treasures are being returned.

Cheers

QQ

[robbius]

Gloomy Gus
This seems to me to be an interesting idea for a series.  But, I've read most, if not all of them, and they are all very slapstick and silly, and offer little to think about, and have little entertainment value, other than the artwork remindful of slapstick animated short cartoons.  The comedy should have included some heavy Human issues related to death knitted together with heavy irony (e.g. Black Comedy) - related to issues regarding death, and also people's place in this short existence.

Agreed, in a book full of derivative takes, this story of a ghost and his cowardly guardian angel seeking bodies to inhabit felt original. Not refreshing, but original and with lots of room for dark humour. A room full of corpses is opportunity -- "we can pick up a couple of bodies while they're still hot!". Gabby the "Angel" at no point shows courage, intelligence, or good will, and wants to leave town before the baddie arrives, presumably to preserve his newfound body.

Why is Gus in this ghostly state? Who is St Pete? When Gus and Gabby inhabit bodies, the bodies take on the physical appearance of Gus and Gabby (complete with wings): is this s visual aid for the reader, or the internal reality of the comic? If Gus or Gabby are killed in their inhabited bodies, what happens? Do their souls return to rest, or do they then need to find another body? And what's the deal with Gabby, least-angelic angel ever!?

A modern Gus might be more like Preacher, with a similar dark existential humour

[crashryan]

I pointed that out and posted the link last week.

You shore did. And I read it, then promptly forgot. Ain't age wonderful?

[SuperScrounge]

I never questioned the fact that the British had gone in and taken things that should have stayed in Egypt.

I think what people tend to forget is that the Egyptians of the time didn't really care.

If I recall correctly, there was a point where Egyptians were taking mummies and burning them to keep the trains running. So much for respect for the past.

They probably saw these rich Britishers as fools for wanting this old junk. It was only the prestige of being in museums and people realizing how interesting the past was and how important it is to honor it that most Egyptians began to realize what they had been ignoring.

[Quirky Quokka]

I never questioned the fact that the British had gone in and taken things that should have stayed in Egypt.

I think what people tend to forget is that the Egyptians of the time didn't really care.

If I recall correctly, there was a point where Egyptians were taking mummies and burning them to keep the trains running. So much for respect for the past.

They probably saw these rich Britishers as fools for wanting this old junk. It was only the prestige of being in museums and people realizing how interesting the past was and how important it is to honor it that most Egyptians began to realize what they had been ignoring.

Good point, SuperScrounge. It's easy to look back in hindsight and think how things should have been. I guess ending up in the British Museum is better than being in the hands of grave robbers and those who didn't care about it. Interesting what the response is now, and how many things will be returned to various countries.

It's been in the news in Australia in recent times, including a 6-part TV series called 'Stuff the British Stole'. It's available on streaming here. Not sure if it's also available overseas. It was a co-production between the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Canadian Broadcasting Commission. Here's the trailer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nvNMNiTXa0

And although it's called 'Stuff the British Stole', I'm sure the names of many different countries could be substituted, including Australia, so I don't mean any disrespect to our British friends. I'm half British myself.

Cheers

QQ

[Quirky Quokka]

The Dover Boys

According to the blurb towards the back, readers were asked to send postcards in if they wanted to hear more stories about the Dover Boys. Well, I guess not enough people wrote in, since this seems to be the only issue. It's a shame because it's obviously set up to continue, with lots of explanation about the characters and backstory. There's a little too much narration at times, especially the 'stay tuned' endings to each chapter. Probably good if it was a serial, but not when it's all here. I wondered at first if it was a compilation, but the narration refers to things like turning to the next chapter to find out what happens. I liked the short chapters. It would probably encourage kids to read rather than just having one long story with no breaks.

Looting of cultural treasures aside, I enjoyed the story. The leads were likable, they had the standard baddie and a nice girl to rescue. There was lots of action. Would Carol have appeared again if they'd continued? Alas, we'll never know.

I did wonder if Incas wear turbans like the thief who breaks into their house at the beginning. And isn't it amazing that the boys could hop into their uncle's plane and fly off to Peru at a moment's notice with seemingly little preparation, maps, equipment etc? But let's not get bogged down in the details.

A good tale. I'm sorry they didn't get a few more issues to see if they could pick up an audience.

As an aside, I was interested to see the ad for 'Puncho the Fighting Clown' - one of those plastic toys that you hit, and it keeps popping back up. I was a social psychology lecturer for 25 years (and tutored for a few years before that), and we always mentioned Bandura's famous Bobo doll experiment in which kids were left in a room with a toy like Puncho. If they'd previously watched an adult hitting the doll, they were more likely to copy that behaviour, thus prompting a wave of experiments to test the relationship between modelling and violence. Personally, I think the kids just didn't know what to do with the dumb Bobo doll, and the adults simply gave them some ideas of how you play with it. Ah, those were the days. Here's a short clip of the experiment. It starts with Bandura talking, but then they cross to actual footage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmBqwWlJg8U

Thanks for the selection, Robb.

Cheers

QQ

[EHowie60]

The Adventures of the Dover Boys

The Australian Panther already mentioned the WB short. That was definitely my first thought when I saw the title! Thanks to Crashryan for pointing out the common namesake here.

Tim and Dan, our red blooded American youth heroes! Very typical 50s, I love them. And we have our loving aunt and uncle, and our treacherous rivals to boot. As is so common for 50s adventurers they're planning a grand adventure to loot a foreign country's treasures for cash. Claude is arrogant, as his type always is, and Silas...I bet he's gonna try and get the treasure all to himself.

And here's one of the treasure's rightful owners come to try and get it back. Boy, I am really glad this trope has fallen out of favor nowadays. Did people point it out, even then, how the adventurer is clearly just stealing?

At least the American villains are fun to root against. Scheming Silas, sneering Claude, and the blackmailed Mike Foster make for quite a group.

That Inca on page 20 was hiding for 30 minutes waiting for Tim to say something ironic before he attacked. And here's the old "human sacrifice" bit, of course. The end of chapter captions are getting almost hysterical by now.

Hah! There's Claude begging to be saved, the weasel. Serves him right.

I agree with Crashryan, clearly the Inca assassin must have traveled by plane or ship to get to the States. How are they surprised by a flashlight?

Our heroes escape, and grab all they can! Bill Foster shows up, and promptly gets himself killed. And the heroes return in triumph! (Never mind that any surviving Inca know where they live!). They never did mention that curse from the cover...maybe the curse is just Inca with knives.

All in all, an ok book, with solid art too. It's a bit of a shame that so much of the story relies on tropes that have worn thin today.

Thanks for picking these out, Robb_K. Despite not everything landing for me, I still had a fun time reading them.

[The Australian Panther]

EHowie60 said,

I agree with Crashryan, clearly the Inca assassin must have traveled by plane or ship to get to the States. 

The trope of the mysterious 'aliens' [In the original sense of that word] who travel to the west to get back something stolen, 'hover' outside  a house scaring everybody and then break in and steal the object or/and kill somebody, usually by poison or knife, goes at least as far back as Wilkie Collins, 'the Moonstone' in 1986.
The stolen object usually has a religious significance too.
You could probably make up a whole library of books, TV shows and comics with just that one trope.
At least one 'Indiana Jones' uses it, if I remember correctly.
I've sometimes thought it would be fun to write a story with every narrative cliche possible included in some way.
Actually, now I come to think about it, the Shock Gibson story that EHowie gifted us with, did exactly that with another set of troupes.
Cheers!         

[The Australian Panther]

Super Duck 42
https://comicbookplus.com/?dlid=22327

Cover.
Covers of characters about to fall into holes in ice while skating were quite common. Particularly for Harvey. Don't know why.
Why, 'Cockeyed wonder'? And why is he 'Superduck'? There is nothing super about him.
One upon a crime

Actually, the more I look at Al's work, which is very good, the more Disney swipes I see.
Gotta say, Robb that I can see 'Paul Murry' in his work too.   
Both the Jeweler and the cop, by their noses and coloring, are  clearly dogs. And the Villain is a rat which looks a lot like a Barks drawing.     
I was wondering why the supposedly adult Superduck would wear shorts which both make him look ridiculous and also childish.
I'm guessing, I think, that they did that to distinguish Harvey's characters from Disney's. [Our Ducks wear pants!'] As Marvel had to do decades later with Howard.
Thinks, ' Now that Disney owns Marvel, can Howard go back to not wearing pants?'
Carrie de Coffin
Both these stories so far are slapstick. Well drawn tho. This one ends abruptly and unsatisfyingly.
A feather in your bonnet
We never get the name of the young boy Cubby is talking to. He is apparently Cobby's nephew.
This would be the lamest story I have read for quite a while.   
It's a Bum's deal.
This could be a Donald story, although I don't think Disney would allow a story where Donald steals a car. 
Even accidentally.
'The Pick of the crop'
Could also have been a Donald story. 
He Goes From Bed to Worse
Likewise.

A good quality comic art-wise and the scripts aren't bad.
If I was a kid back then, tho, why would I pick this off the stand and not much better choices?
Whose idea was this I wonder.
I'm surprised Disney didn't theeaten to sue, as they did with Marvel, but probably 'Superduck' was too inconsequential to worry about.
This doesn't make me want to read the rest of the Superduck comics.     

[Robb_K]

Super Duck 42
https://comicbookplus.com/?dlid=22327

Cover.
Covers of characters about to fall into holes in ice while skating were quite common. Particularly for Harvey. Don't know why.
(1) Why, 'Cockeyed wonder'?

(2) And why is he 'Superduck'? There is nothing super about him.

Once upon a crime

Actually, the more I look at Al's work, which is very good, the more Disney swipes I see.
Gotta say, Robb that I can see 'Paul Murry' in his work too.   
Both the Jeweler and the cop, by their noses and coloring, are  clearly dogs. And the Villain is a rat which looks a lot like a Barks drawing.     
I was wondering why the supposedly adult Superduck would wear shorts which both make him look ridiculous and also childish.
(3) I'm guessing, I think, that they did that to distinguish HARVEY'S characters from Disney's. [Our Ducks wear pants!'] As Marvel had to do decades later with Howard.
Thinks, ' Now that Disney owns Marvel, can Howard go back to not wearing pants?'
Carrie de Coffin
Both these stories so far are slapstick. Well drawn tho. This one ends abruptly and unsatisfyingly.

A feather in your bonnet
We never get the name of the young boy Cubby is talking to. He is apparently Cobby's nephew.
(4) This would be the lamest story I have read for quite a while.  

It's a Bum's deal.
This could be a Donald story, although I don't think Disney would allow a story where Donald steals a car. 
Even accidentally.

'The Pick of the crop'
Could also have been a Donald story.

He Goes From Bed to Worse
(5) Likewise.

A good quality comic art-wise and the scripts aren't bad.
If I was a kid back then, tho, why would I pick this off the stand and not much better choices?
Whose idea was this I wonder.
(6) I'm surprised Disney didn't threaten to sue, as they did with Marvel, but probably 'Superduck' was too inconsequential to worry about.
This doesn't make me want to read the rest of the Superduck comics.

Panther, this is the first time I can remember your commenting on a book chosen be me, apparently WITHOUT having read my previous posts on the thread, which answered your questions.

(1)
Super Duck's being assigned the nickname of "The Cockeyed Wonder" occurred roughly at the same time as he received his new clothing outfit, his Tyrolian feathered cap and lederhosen, as well as making his head much larger (seemingly 3 or 4 times too big for the remainder of his body).  Given the timing in 1944, less than a year after his first story in MLJ's "Jolly Jingles", I'd guess that that change, as well as the others I just mentioned, came as a desperate response to Disney's threatening to sue MLJ due to Super Duck's being almost a clone of Donald.  So, in addition to his new clothing and head size, Fagaly made Super Duck cockeyed as well.  That trait was never used in any of the plots in any of the stories in his 101 comic books.  It was but one of a group of changes in his looks that MLJ was hoping would add up to enough to avoid the lawsuit, and any compensation penalties that might come from it.

(2) As I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread, also providing scans of Super Duck in his superhero caped costume, Super Duck started out as a superhero, who gained super strength (and the ability to run so fast and leap so high and far that he appeared to fly), by swallowing vitamin pills containing ALL vitamins, "A" through "Z".  He was the superhero in all 7 of his "Jolly Jingles" books (appearing on all their front covers, and being the lead character in all their lead stories.  After that series ended, he starred in his superhero state, in at least one, if not two, stories in each book his own series, in the first 5 issues (in 1944) of that 94-issue series (which ended at the end of 1960). 

If you scroll back looking at the scans in this thread, you'll find a single page containing poses of Super Duck in his superhero outfit, and also swallowing his vitamin pill and morphing into his superhero state.

(3) Super Duck Comics were a product first of MLJ Magazines, Inc. - NOT Harvey Comics!  I guess you didn't notice the prominent "Archie Magazine" seal on the front cover of this issue.

(4) I agree with you totally about "Cubby".  It was certainly aimed at 3 to 6 year olds.  It's artist, Red Holmdale (MLJ's veteran "Funny Animal", and young children's stories specialist seemed to be lazy and unimaginative on this series, drawing poorly.  Who could blame him for not being inspired, given the boring story? (although, I have the feeling that Holmdale, himself, might have written it.

(5). Absolutely!  It looks even like a Barks story, especially with it co-starring Super Duck's Grandma Duck, who is the spitting image of Barks' Donald's Grandma Duck, and with "Supe" displaying Donald's impatience and bad luck with machines.

(6) As I stated above in answer to Crash Ryan's comments, Disney DID threaten to sue MLJ/Archie (perhaps on two separate occasions), which resulted in changes in Super Duck's appearance.  And, from my recollection, "Super Duck" and his 104 comic books (including 3 "Fauntleroy" special issues) sold enough and were popular enough to get noticed by Disney's Comics and Disney Studio higher-ups.  I think they didn't go through with their threat to sue because they felt that, after the second changes in his appearance, that character was different enough from Donald.  He was certainly popular enough in North America to have his own series in Canada, and also in Australia, which had a decent run during the 1950s (which, I would guess, you must have noticed back during your youth). They were published by H. John Edwards Publishing, Ltd. first, through Issue #49, and then by Archie Publications, Ltd. through, at least #87.  I have scans of a portion of many of them (from The "Australian Reprints" website.  They were also sold in New Zealand and South Africa (both in English and in Afrikaans).  Archie distributors had quite a reach during the 1950s and 1960s.

[Robb_K]

The trope of the mysterious 'aliens' [In the original sense of that word] who travel to the west to get back something stolen, 'hover' outside  a house scaring everybody and then break in and steal the object or/and kill somebody, usually by poison or knife, goes at least as far back as Wilkie Collins, 'the Moonstone' in 1986.
The stolen object usually has a religious significance too.
(1) You could probably make up a whole library of books, TV shows and comics with just that one trope.

Cheers! 

Including almost every long "Uncle Scrooge" comic book adventure lead story, and most of his "DuckTales" animated film series (both TV and Cinema).

[SuperScrounge]

goes at least as far back as Wilkie Collins, 'the Moonstone' in 1986.

1986?!?  Were any of us even alive at the time?  I think you meant 1886. 

[Robb_K]

goes at least as far back as Wilkie Collins, 'the Moonstone' in 1986.

1986?!?  Were any of us even alive at the time?  I think you meant 1886. 

Yep!  If it was written in 1986, how did it appear in Classic Comics in the 1940s?  As far as I remember, that book was many literature historians' very first mystery-solving detective novel written in The English Language.

[The Australian Panther]

1986? OK, you got me!

Robb, apologies, I did think I would post without reading most of the previous posts. Not a good idea huh?

[in Australia, which had a decent run during the 1950s (which, I would guess, you must have noticed back during your youth). They were published by H. John Edwards Publishing, Ltd. first, through Issue #49, and then by Archie Publications, Ltd. through, at least #87.  I have scans of a portion of many of them (from The "Australian Reprints" website.]
probably in the early 50's. I would have been about 3 at the time. I had seen Superduck before CB+ but had never read any.
So yes, Superscrounge, some of us were alive in 1986!
Ain't we got fun!
Cheers!
Oh and Robb, can you get me a link to that 'Australian Reprints' website. Thanking you!

[Quirky Quokka]

Movie News in Super Duck

Okay, so this is a bit of a tangent, but I enjoyed the two-page movie news in the Super Duck comic. I've usually seen those kinds of columns in magazines rather than kid's comics. As a movie buff, I like to read about stars of the day, from magazines written at the time. So here are a few things I learned (with some help from Dr Google).

Doris Day has just married third husband Marty Melcher. After his death in 1968, she discovered he had embezzled millions of the dollars she made during their marriage, leaving her deeply in debt. Poor Doris.

I hadn't heard of Nancy Olson, but she was nominated for best-supporting actress for 'Sunset Boulevard' in 1950, and lived to the ripe old age of 95.

I've seen good old Mary Wickes in many movies over the years, the last of them being the Sister Act movies. A good example of someone who had a very successful career as a character actress rather than leading lady.

I haven't seen the movie 'Jim Thorpe - All-American', though I did wonder if there was any controversy over Burt Lancaster playing the role of a First Nations sportsman. The article notes that Warner Brothers didn't consult with the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the making of the film, but that the Bureau 'will follow its impact on the large Indian population in Oklahoma, New Mexico, the Dakotas and elsewhere'. I wonder if anything came of that?

I was also interested to see that Raymond Massey had been to the National Conference of Christians and Jews. I'd never heard of it, but Dr Google tells me it was established in 1927 to foster better understanding between Protestants, Catholics and Jews. In 1998 it changed it's name to the National Conference for Community and Justice, with the aim of promoting 'inclusion and acceptance by providing education and advocacy while building communities that are respectful and just for all'.

Historical movie buff tangent complete.

QQ

[Robb_K]

1986? OK, you got me!

Robb, apologies, I did think I would post without reading most of the previous posts. Not a good idea huh?

[in Australia, which had a decent run during the 1950s (which, I would guess, you must have noticed back during your youth). They were published by H. John Edwards Publishing, Ltd. first, through Issue #49, and then by Archie Publications, Ltd. through, at least #87.  I have scans of a portion of many of them (from The "Australian Reprints" website.]
probably in the early 50's. I would have been about 3 at the time. I had seen Superduck before CB+ but had never read any.
So yes, Superscrounge, some of us were alive in 1986!
Ain't we got fun!
Cheers!
Oh and Robb, can you get me a link to that 'Australian Reprints' website. Thanking you!

Here is the link to AusReprints' website homepage:   https://ausreprints.net/
Just click on "Super Duck" in the search box to find The H.J. Edwards 1st Australian series. 

Here is the link to AusReprints website page with Issue #87 (and takes you to the page with the 2nd Austr. Series entire issue list:   https://ausreprints.net/issue/92096/0

It seems, that The Australian run went all the way through the entire Super Duck run, which ended in 1960.  Australian Archie Publications, which took over at #30 (or possibly 50), MAY have not continued DIRECTLY after the H. John Edwards run, which seems to have started in 1950 and ended in 1953 or late 1955, or early 1956.  So, you were roughly 5 to 8 when the 1st series ended.  That was a reprint Series, reprinting much or most of the content of whole US issues, and adding a their own indicia and a couple 1-page gags of Australian-produced material with Australian characters.  So, that first series is covered by the Aus Reprint website as a domestic reprint series.   Australian Archie then issued #30 or 50 through, at LEAST 87, ending in 1959, with that number, or finishing at US #94(IF the Website is incorrect based on lack of information, and only seeing issues in Australia, lasting until 87).  It's 38 or 58 issues would have covered from 5 years, if they were issued monthly (as both the Edwards and US series were.  If it was issued bi-monthly, it would have covered 2.5 years.  So you SHOULD have at least had a CHANCE (age-wise) to see some of the 2nd Australian Archie-directed series on the newsstand shelves.  It seems that the proprietor of Aus Reprints may have misjudged the point in the series issue # run, where Archie, themselves took over for Edwards, with Archie starting off its OWN run, at LEAST with #30, as shown by this website's own entries for US-directly-imported issues starting with THAT number.  So, it seems that starting with June, 1955, Archie was delivering US issues for sale to Australia, and that series ran, at least to #87 (September 1959).  So, you had, at least a chance to see them on the shelves from 1956-59.

Here is a scan of Australian Archie Super Duck #87 (which was taken from a Sept. 1959 US issue, and so, absolutely HAD to be issued in 1959 or later: