This week on Totally Tintin, Ian and Dave take a look at The Red Sea Sharks – slavery, a cast of thousands (of characters we’ve seen before), and not very many sharks. We’re still basking in glow this late period hot streak!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
About the lack of sharks, uh, you do realise the submarine was code named “Shark”. Perhaps the title refers to the submarine, Gorgonzola and the slavers?
The DC3 was also the work horse of the air cargo transport fleet of the allied powers in WW2, which is one reason post-war there were so many around to convert into passenger aircraft.
Glubb Pasha was not the military leader of the Arab League but of the Arab Legion, an all arms military force of around 6,000 men, which would later form the basis of the Jordanian Royal Army. It was the best Arab fighting force in the Middle East in 1948 and occupied the West Bank after some serious fighting (although the king of Jordon was later accused of colluding with the Jews in carving up Palestine) in what was a complex and difficult situation for King Abdullah and his British officers.
If it was a reference to the submarine then it should have been called The Red Sea Shark.
Real sharks really do come to a bad end in these stories.
Thanks for all the other info!
What I want to know is why did the Captain and Tintin even think to go to Mecca? Isn’t it off limits to non-Muslims?
The swingey thing that hit the captain is called a block.
The part of the ship that they were standing on, I don’t know if this is too simplistic but wouldn’t it be the deck?
I’ve seen the raft of the Medusa in the Lourve and it’s rather overwhelming. It’s based on a true incident were after a ship sank the passengers were abandoned on a raft while the crew got away on a rowboat. After much suffering the surviving passengers were rescued and the incident caused a scandal in France. I read somewhere when the painting was unveiled it caused a riot.
Kon-Tiki was built in South America to test if the Inca’s could’ve sailed a raft to Polynesia, not the other way around. I remember seeing the documentary film as a kid in the theatre.
There’s an interesting discussion about what motivated the early cartoonists. Sure, some of them were fans of the pulps (Siegel and Shuster) and others (Kurtzman, Eisnar) were true visionaries but I get the impression that many artists who worked on the early comics really didn’t want to be there. For many it was just a paycheck in hard times, people who did not make it as painters, illustrators, join the respectable ranks of newspaper comics or faced other barriers. I believe one reason why so many early comic creators were Jews is that they faced racism and were unable to find work in more respectable trades like illustration. Early comics was not a respectable trade, being somewhere in the continuum between gangsters and pornographers in the public eye! Remember, for every EC comic there were dozens of comic books no one remembers… for good reasons. One of the most inventive and influential early EC artists, Bernie Krigstien, had a relativily short career as a cartoonist (around 5 years?) and went on to illustrate, paint and teach although now he’s remembered mostly for his comics.
Gericault filled his studio with corpses and shaved his head while painting it, to help make the painting (and the process, presumably) as harrowing as possible.
But seriously, do North Americans not use the term ‘fortnight’?
It’s an uncommon phrase, perhaps better known in Canada than the USA.
I personally only use it every once and a fortnight.