Don Rosa video interview

Santiago Ceballos, William Van Horn, Paul Murry, Don Rosa, etc.

Postby Daniel73 » Sat Aug 05, 2006 6:30 am

Jimbo wrote:[Van Horn, Jippes and Lustig] Perhaps they were out of Barks favor at the time

If Van Horn, Jippes and Lustig were out Barks's favor at the time, or any time, they're among a huge crowd of people all being out of Barks's favor. Rosa is notorious for using Barks's name. Rosa answers questions about Barks by telling how he (Rosa) would have done it, even suggesting that a classic like the Penny Wise story is some mistake by an editor. (WDC 164)
The Penny Wise story just is a Barks-story as Barks would have made it, and the fact that Rosa has skipped Penny Wise from his (so-called) complete 'Life of $crooge' makes Rosa's denial even more disturbing. It's a miracle how canonic Rosa turned Penny Wise into some apocryphical woman. As it seems, just because Rosa much too easily went for some on-going soap between Scrooge and Goldie. There could be many ways to include Penny Wise, but Rosa rather reasons that Penny Wise should be seen as some outtake. Not just for 'Life of $crooge', but in a way that slams down the Barks story as being cooked up by some 1950s editor in the first place. Without any proof. Just because Rosa is asked about Penny Wise.

At Rosa's site, run by a friend, it is suggested that 'Life of Scrooge' has been applauded by virtually all Barks fans in the world. Which looks like an advertisement, ignoring a lot of critical comments about Rosa just excluding whatever he dislikes about Barks, or even just didn't know at all.
Rosa brags about being a Barks-fan, but on DCML there recently (in 2005?) has been a comment by him about skipping Donald's dog Bolivar. This was because Rosa didn't get his way about making it a special dog, and because his sister didn't buy the particular comic. But there are multiple Barks stories with Bolivar. So, apparently his sister skipped more issues.
As I understood it, Rosa reasons that he wants to honour Barks as he (Rosa) saw him in his youth, excluding the Barks comics his sister didn't buy. Some so-called Rosa-haters have had a big laugh in amazement. But in fact it's just a shame that a fan-boy like Rosa, can take advantage of a very limited view on master Barks.

Rosa could just be some average comics collector, claiming and over-shouting himself he knows everything. But in contrast, Rosa has made an on-going chaos, correcting errors in a story by either inventing excuses or new stories with new errors. Through the years it only gets worser and worser, as if Rosa's capacities are imploding. As if he's loosing his touch, so to say.
Rosa's B-chapter 'A Letter From Home' doesn't even match with Rosa's own 'Life of $crooge'. In the episode Lo$9, titled 'The Billionaire of Dismal Downs', Scrooge and his sisters leave their father, and then suddenly in 'Letter From Home' there's endless yearning of a sister about how bad Scrooge was to his father, as if it was only Scrooge who left and not the sisters. Of course, there will some excuse invented for it, but there are many more mistakes in 'A Letter From Home'. As if the story went through un-edited, without an editor even looking at it.

As a result, I think Rosa's new 'Prisoner of White Agony Creek' (2005/2006) will be the most terrible example of all B-chapters and Rosa-work in general. Even devoted Rosa-fans have said years ago that Rosa is getting too far. But Rosa just goes on. Now about a month between Scrooge and Goldie, as if to finish Barks's 'Back to the Klondike'.
The way Rosa has written about the subject of 'Prisoner of White Agony Creek', made it look as if Rosa isn't only just out of Barks's favour, but also a commercial thinker in how to get his (Rosa's) stories known. At cost of Barks's reputation. As if Rosa doesn't really care about Barks, but only about Rosa himself. As many people only think about themselves, if given the chance.

Jimbo wrote:[Van Horn, Jippes and Lustig] or those managers did not want them to have anything do with Barks or Rosa.

Maybe Van Horn, Jippes and Lustig weren't interested in Rosa at all. What do you think of that? Why would they be interested in Rosa? Because Rosa's ranting on internet about having to see Barks in real life?
I'd expect people to shy away.

As I've understood, many people rather avoid Rosa. If being bothered at all. Do these people all have managers? There are just people who have second thoughts on Rosa, including friends and fans. The Bolivar-example has been told to me by a Rosa-fan, who seemed a bit baffled about Rosa trying to get away with excuses about his sister not buying a Barks-story and therefore Rosa ignoring it, unless it would be some special Rosa-dog.
Rosa either thinks everyone is crazy, or he has ran out of excuses. And having limited himself to Barks and old pre-1954 settings, Rosa is painting himself into the corner. Which was to be expected. A good storyteller thinks of possibilities, but Rosa is concentrating on limitations and excuses for these limitations.

Instead of having a career on his own, with his own name, Don Rosa became some professional Barks fan-boy. Rosa protested against readers who ask him to leave Barks's work alone and become Rosa. But no, Rosa has to recycle Barks's story-plots over and over again. As if it were an obsession. Fueled by requests of the editors and friends, looking at Rosa being some surrogate-Barks. And who would want to be a surrogate-Barks? A good Barks-imitator like Jippes seems to thank for the honour.
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby GetAGrip » Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:07 pm

Daniel73 wrote:
Jimbo wrote:[Van Horn, Jippes and Lustig] Perhaps they were out of Barks favor at the time

Rosa is notorious for using Barks's name.

Rosa is loved by millions for making stories folks wanted to read.

Daniel73 wrote:the fact that Rosa has skipped Penny Wise from his (so-called) complete 'Life of $crooge' makes Rosa's denial even more disturbing. It's a miracle how canonic Rosa turned Penny Wise into some apocryphical woman.

You're talkin about Lo$ and Barks work like they a frickin' Quran and Bible. Apocryphical.. Maria Magdalene. Chill, mate, them are just comics. You take 'em more serious than Barks or Rosa ever did. Spanish inquisition is no longer hiring!

Daniel73 wrote:As it seems, just because Rosa much too easily went for some on-going soap between Scrooge and Goldie. There could be many ways to include Penny Wise, but Rosa rather reasons that Penny Wise should be seen as some outtake.

Fer cryin' out loud, buddy... You are not writing 'em stories and got no business whatsoever to tell anyone how they should write.


Daniel73 wrote:At Rosa's site, run by a friend, it is suggested that 'Life of Scrooge' has been applauded by virtually all Barks fans in the world. Which looks like an advertisement, ignoring a lot of critical comments about Rosa just excluding whatever he dislikes about Barks, or even just didn't know at all.

It's been applauded by a huge majority of all duck-fans around the globe. Every work gets critic, even those winning Eisners or Oscars. Your issues do not warrant some special attention in articles, websites and everywhere. Rosa included almost every Barks "fact", some didn't fit to _his_ or his editor's vision... and he even tells in those collections that he couldn't fit certain aspects. Much ado about nuthin'


Daniel73 wrote:Rosa brags about being a Barks-fan, but on DCML there recently (in 2005?) has been a comment by him about skipping Donald's dog Bolivar. This was because Rosa didn't get his way about making it a special dog, and because his sister didn't buy the particular comic. But there are multiple Barks stories with Bolivar. So, apparently his sister skipped more issues.
As I understood it, Rosa reasons that he wants to honour Barks as he (Rosa) saw him in his youth, excluding the Barks comics his sister didn't buy. Some so-called Rosa-haters have had a big laugh in amazement. But in fact it's just a shame that a fan-boy like Rosa, can take advantage of a very limited view on master Barks.

Those Rosa haters have then big mental issues. Some guy being greatly influenced by other does not mean he has to become him.

How did that big laff take place: "Eh, no doggie in his comics, his sister wasn't a collector... bwahahaha what an ignorant fool!", sounds like a lovely bunch, eh? They forget their medicine?

Daniel73 wrote:Rosa's B-chapter 'A Letter From Home' doesn't even match with Rosa's own 'Life of $crooge'. In the episode Lo$9, titled 'The Billionaire of Dismal Downs', Scrooge and his sisters leave their father, and then suddenly in 'Letter From Home' there's endless yearning of a sister about how bad Scrooge was to his father, as if it was only Scrooge who left and not the sisters. Of course, there will some excuse invented for it, but there are many more mistakes in 'A Letter From Home'. As if the story went through un-edited, without an editor even looking at it.

"Fiction (from the Latin fingere, "to form, create") is storytelling of imagined events and stands in contrast to non-fiction, which makes factual claims about reality." - From Wikipedia

It's like you can alter things for dramatic/comical situations, as opposed to be writing about real happenings [and even then they can do that way]. Every writer of fiction makes such choices or errors.



Daniel73 wrote:The way Rosa has written about the subject of 'Prisoner of White Agony Creek', made it look as if Rosa isn't only just out of Barks's favour, but also a commercial thinker in how to get his (Rosa's) stories known. At cost of Barks's reputation. As if Rosa doesn't really care about Barks, but only about Rosa himself. As many people only think about themselves, if given the chance.

OMG! someone asked him to tell about and he did! And made it sound like it was commercial! Surely that man is evil! Cost of Barks reputation? Yeah, right. Earth to Daniël.

Daniel73 wrote:Because Rosa's ranting on internet about having to see Barks in real life?
I'd expect people to shy away.

You are the only one ranting here or in DCML about comic artists. Don't be surprised if people indeed shy away from you.

Daniel73 wrote:As I've understood, many people rather avoid Rosa. If being bothered at all.

What I've understood they flood in by the hundreds to get signatures everytime he appears in any European city. You should try "not being bothered at all" approach, and concentrate on Barks. People could actually see past your obsession. Someone dedicating so much time on making someone else look bad is not generally doing himself any favors.

Daniel73 wrote:Do these people all have managers? There are just people who have second thoughts on Rosa, including friends and fans. The Bolivar-example has been told to me by a Rosa-fan, who seemed a bit baffled about Rosa trying to get away with excuses about his sister not buying a Barks-story and therefore Rosa ignoring it, unless it would be some special Rosa-dog.

That dog again! Every character Barks used but Rosa hasn't is a good reason for fans to start having second thoughts? Your view of mankind is severely flawed.

Daniel73 wrote:Rosa either thinks everyone is crazy, or he has ran out of excuses.

You seem to have lots and lots of pathetic excuses to tell us how bad person someone else is.
GetAGrip
 

Postby Daniel73 » Sat Aug 05, 2006 5:29 pm

GetAGrip wrote:You're talkin about Lo$ and Barks work like they a frickin' Quran and Bible. Apocryphical.. Maria Magdalene. Chill, mate, them are just comics. You take 'em more serious than Barks or Rosa ever did. Spanish inquisition is no longer hiring!

Rosa is using Barks's work like it should be a bible, by deciding what work of Barks should be seen canonical. Rosa is being some Spanish inquisition, or Crusader, trying to convince people into believing that Barks made mistakes at points where Rosa "couldn't" fit in Barksian facts.

Rosa could have easily fit in Magic Hourglass and Penny Wise, but Rosa just didn't want these stories. Instead, Rosa kept on self-promoting how complete he was. While any Barks fan can see that Rosa either doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's just fooling his and Barks's fans.

When asked why 'King Scrooge the First' wasn't included, with it's detailed history on Scrooge's Eastern ancestors, Rosa replied that he thought the Barks story was a bit lame. Critics have suggested that Rosa just wanted an easy way out, as 'King Scrooge the First' needs extra effort. That extra effort would be at cost of Rosa's own ideas and vision, which gives reason to just skip the whole Barks-story and to just hope that no one really cares, as long as you keep on claiming to be just complete.

GetAGrip wrote:Fer cryin' out loud, buddy... You are not writing 'em stories and got no business whatsoever to tell anyone how they should write.

Do you mean that only creators have the right to complain on DCML and McDuck, because they have a profession as creators? Any Barks fan can see that Rosa mixing up Barks at his (Rosa's) own will, and you expect critics to shut up?

GetAGrip wrote:['Life of Scrooge'] It's been applauded by a huge majority of all duck-fans around the globe.

Have you investigated the majority of Barks fans who have a lot of criticism to Rosa's work method? There are Barks fans who read Rosa just for laughs, because Rosa's vision on Barks is completely missing the point. Rosa is interesting because it's so terribly bad fake-Barks stuff.
Duck-fans around the globe have told Rosa how bad he is in drawing, and Rosa just turns that amateurism into his "style" and seems to expect all people to get along with that.
But having an own style, emphasizes how different Rosa is from Barks.

GetAGrip wrote:Every work gets critic, even those winning Eisners or Oscars.

As I understood, Rosa has complained about Eisner being a fraud. At the time when other Disney creators got an Eisner, around 1997, after Rosa's got his award, thet were slammed down for being frauds. But if these Disney artists got frauded, then Rosa's Eisner award can be frauded as well.
So, in short, this is another example where Rosa throws in his own windows, by putting his own Eisner award in doubt.

GetAGrip wrote:Your issues do not warrant some special attention in articles, websites and everywhere. Rosa included almost every Barks "fact", some didn't fit to _his_ or his editor's vision... and he even tells in those collections that he couldn't fit certain aspects. Much ado about nuthin'

Just compile a list of all Rosa's errors and so-called exceptions. You'd be surprised how many errors have been found so far, and there are still new errors being reported. Rosa is notorious for his errors.

GetAGrip wrote:Those Rosa haters have then big mental issues. Some guy being greatly influenced by other does not mean he has to become him.

Why raising up a matter of "big mental issues"? That way, I could also easily suggest that Don Rosa himself is having big mental issues, with his paranoia about Barks being an "evil genius".

GetAGrip wrote:How did that big laff take place: "Eh, no doggie in his comics, his sister wasn't a collector... bwahahaha what an ignorant fool!", sounds like a lovely bunch, eh? They forget their medicine?

Well, at least they remember Bolivar. In contrary to the "ignorant fool". :P

GetAGrip wrote:"Fiction (from the Latin fingere, "to form, create") is storytelling of imagined events and stands in contrast to non-fiction, which makes factual claims about reality." - From Wikipedia

So, please explain to me why does Rosa use terms like "fictious fiction" (or "fictional fiction" or whatever). What is fiction within a fiction? Can you explain that with Wikipedia?

GetAGrip wrote:It's like you can alter things for dramatic/comical situations, as opposed to be writing about real happenings [and even then they can do that way]. Every writer of fiction makes such choices or errors.

Every writer of fiction makes choices or errors. Agreed. Difference is that Rosa is making a lot of mistakes in comparison with master creators like Barks. With Rosa it seems that the reason that every writer of fiction makes choices or errors, can be freely used as some lame excuse to claim Rosa is right.

GetAGrip wrote:[subject of 'Prisoner of White Agony Creek'] OMG! someone asked him to tell about and he did! And made it sound like it was commercial! Surely that man is evil! Cost of Barks reputation?

Have you seen the quotes? They don't necessarily mean that Rosa is evil. I think that Rosa is either immoral or just terribly stupid.

GetAGrip wrote:
Daniel73 wrote:Because Rosa's ranting on internet about having to see Barks in real life?
I'd expect people to shy away.

You are the only one ranting here or in DCML about comic artists. Don't be surprised if people indeed shy away from you.

I don't see the comparison between an artist and just a reader. And there are more people "ranting" about how Rosa mistreats Barks. Is this another example of a reader being blamed for criticizing Rosa's work and behaviour? Another example of overprotection?

GetAGrip wrote:What I've understood they flood in by the hundreds to get signatures everytime he appears in any European city.

By the hundreds? Is that all? That regularly happens in The Netherlands, with Dutch artists like Daan Jippes, Mau Heymans, Bas Heymans, Sander Gulien, etc. etc. There are lines and people waiting for more than an hour, holdng a ticket with a number.
And interestingly, Daan Jippes, Mau Heymans, Bas Heymans, Sander Gulien, etc., don't have their names advertised on covers, like Rosa. They are popular without such commercial tricks.
If you investigate Rosa's popularity, then also investigate how popular other Disney artists are.

GetAGrip wrote:You should try "not being bothered at all" approach, and concentrate on Barks. People could actually see past your obsession. Someone dedicating so much time on making someone else look bad is not generally doing himself any favors.

I have a hobby in researching the life and works of creators. Rosa is dedicating much time in seeing a few mistakes in Barks's work, and I'm dedicating much time in seeing a lot mistakes in Rosa's work. And on contrary to Rosa, I'm just a reader.

GetAGrip wrote:[Bolivar] That dog again! Every character Barks used but Rosa hasn't is a good reason for fans to start having second thoughts? Your view of mankind is severely flawed.

Interesting. Every time a character is mentioned as an exception, it's mentioned as if its just the only exception. As if walking through a dark tunnel with a torch.
It's not only the dog Bolivar, but also Penny Wise and Santa Claus who are princiaplly missing from Rosa's stories. And then there are Barks characters recycled by Rosa, which are terribly out-of-character in comparison with Barks.

That dog is just one remarkable example, with its reasoning about a sister not buying a comic. I've seen a photo of Rosa at home at his desk, with the Carl Barks Library in front of him. Easily researchable, as he apparently kept them out of the cases. So, why didn't Rosa find Bolivar? Bolivar can be found in about two or three of the sets, and Bolivar has been used by Taliaferro. So, the fact that Rosa tends to forget abouty Bolivar, gives an interesting insight in Rosa's work methods.

When being asked for help by Rosa, Carl Barks spend (according to himself) hours of investigating in the CBL, for Rosa, searching for family relations. Does this mean that Rosa expects others to find what he is too ignorant to check himself? That he would bother Barks with that? Does this explain Rosa's public questions to DCML, asking if people know any Barks ingredients that he (Rosa) might use?

GetAGrip wrote:You seem to have lots and lots of pathetic excuses to tell us how bad person someone else is.

Take a look at your excuses. They sound like an advertisement for Rosa.
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Ridder ter Geit » Sat Aug 05, 2006 5:38 pm

Hmmm..

But Rosa did not state he did not know about Bolivar, did he? He just stated that Bolivar was not part of his youth with Barks-comics.
Ridder ter Geit
Member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:25 pm

Postby Rockerduck » Sat Aug 05, 2006 5:58 pm

Get a grip, GetAGrip. Just like all other Rosa-fans, you can't come up with any counter-arguments when your idol Rosa is rightfully criticized. Instead, you shoot down the messenger (in this case Daniel). Why is it like that with all Rosa-fans? Why can't they *for once* just answer the points that are being made and come up with real counter-arguments, instead of trashing the critic or saying "it are just comics"? Can't Rosa-fans do that? I know it's a hard, almost impossible job, because I tried, when I was a much bigger Rosa-fan than I am today. Nowadays, I'm just a reader, not a fan.

GetAGrip wrote:
Daniel73 wrote:Rosa is notorious for using Barks's name.

Rosa is loved by millions for making stories folks wanted to read.

That's true, no doubt about that. But what does popularity say about quality? Isn't it right that the most horrible, irritating and un-inspired songs always end up being the number 1 in the music charts, meaning that most people buy that drivel?

Popularity doesn't mean anything. Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler were the most beloved political leaders of their times.

GatAGrip wrote:
Daniel73 wrote:the fact that Rosa has skipped Penny Wise from his (so-called) complete 'Life of $crooge' makes Rosa's denial even more disturbing. It's a miracle how canonic Rosa turned Penny Wise into some apocryphical woman.

You're talkin about Lo$ and Barks work like they a frickin' Quran and Bible. Apocryphical.. Maria Magdalene. Chill, mate, them are just comics. You take 'em more serious than Barks or Rosa ever did. Spanish inquisition is no longer hiring!

Instead of trying to make these matters look trivial, just try to refute Daniel's point. Come with counter-arguments. Miss Penny Wise is the *only* person Scrooge is afraid of and the only person would could ruïn him. Doesn't that sound like a person that should be included in Rosa's Lo$? And if not: give me one good reason.

People who think Rosa is giving out the true Barks-message -and there are a lot of those!- are led to believe some editor changed the story to include Penny Wise, and that it's a reason to dismiss her. That's Rosa's fault, and I think you can look critically at those things.

If it really all matters nothing to you, like you claim, then why making such a big deal out of Daniel's message? Why even respond at all? Do you know that Rosa himself, your big idol, doesn't thing of Scrooge as just a comic character, but as a real living person (well, 'living'... according to Rosa Scrooge even died in 1967). So if Daniel is over-reacting according to you, then so is Rosa.

GetAGrip wrote:
Daniel73 wrote:As it seems, just because Rosa much too easily went for some on-going soap between Scrooge and Goldie. There could be many ways to include Penny Wise, but Rosa rather reasons that Penny Wise should be seen as some outtake.

Fer cryin' out loud, buddy... You are not writing 'em stories and got no business whatsoever to tell anyone how they should write.

You don't have to be a comic artist to criticize those who are! If that were true, no Internet forum about comics should have any right to exist.

You don't have to be a politician to criticize politics, right? And you don't have to be a soccer player, to criticize your national soccer team at the World Championship, right? With comics, it's no different.

What strikes me, however, is that reasoning like "you're not an artist, so shut up" is never used when discussing comics, *unless* when discussing Rosa. Is this because the Rosa-defenders have no *real* counter-arguments?

GetAGrip wrote:[Lo$]It's been applauded by a huge majority of all duck-fans around the globe.

Like I said above: popularity doesn't say anything about quality. I enjoyed every chapter of Lo$. This was one of my favorites comic series in the 1990's when I was much younger, and even today I enjoy it very much. But does that mean we can't criticize Rosa for leaving important things out? Hell no!

GetAGrip wrote:Every work gets critic, even those winning Eisners or Oscars.

Yes, you're right. Take a movie like -say- Fahrenheit 9/11. It has won the Palm D' Or at the filmfestival at Cannes, and is until today the highest-grossing documentary ever, and has broken record-sales when it appeared on DVD all over the world. Still, the movie has attracked a lot of controversy, and a lot of criticism. Is that wrong? No. Should Rosa's work be treated any different? I can't think of an reason why.

GetAGrip wrote:Your issues do not warrant some special attention in articles, websites and everywhere.

That's just the problem Daniel has with all the praise for Lo$, if I nderstand his posts correct.

GetAGrip wrote:Rosa included almost every Barks "fact", some didn't fit to _his_ or his editor's vision...

Don't blame the editor for what Rosa did. The editor, Byron Erickson, should get a lot of praise for rejecting Rosa's first drafts of Chapters 1 and 8, and make Rosa do it all over again. The result is incredibly better.

Rosa deliberately left out some important facts, without really explaining why, instead coming up with excuses, like 'an editor' changed Barks' Penny Wise-story, with no proof for such a claim.

GetAGrip wrote:and he even tells in those collections that he couldn't fit certain aspects.

Rosa didn't tell about Miss Penny Wise. A reader had to remind him of her existence on DCML! The only thing Rosa 'explains' in those collections, is he left out some contradicting data, but not that he cut out entire stories and characters.

GetAGrip wrote:Much ado about nuthin'

Then why are you even replying?

Come up with a real counter-argment to defend Rosa, instead. That would be much more constructive.


GetAGrip wrote:
Daniel73 wrote:As I understood it, Rosa reasons that he wants to honour Barks as he (Rosa) saw him in his youth, excluding the Barks comics his sister didn't buy. Some so-called Rosa-haters have had a big laugh in amazement. But in fact it's just a shame that a fan-boy like Rosa, can take advantage of a very limited view on master Barks.

Those Rosa haters have then big mental issues.

Why do those Rosa-haters have 'big mental issues'? What's wrong with them, according to you? They're pointing out some absurd part of Rosa's reasoning why to exclude certain characters. Rosa could've easily said: "I don't like the dog, so I leave him out". That would be a normal explanation. But instead Rosa comes up with his sister and her comics as an excuse. Then Rosa-haters can't do anything but have a big laugh. Can you blame them?

Why not saying Rosa has 'big mental issues', for coming up with such a theory, to mask his lack of knowledge about Barks. That's pretty twisted, if you ask me.

GetAGrip wrote:Some guy being greatly influenced by other does not mean he has to become him.

There are two problems with this sentence.

The first is that it's not about 'some guy'. It's about Don Rosa, who is -as you said yourself before- the most popular Disney comics artist of this time. What he says is taken by a lot of uncritical readers, who know nothing about Barks -like you-, as the ultimate truth. Those fans take over Rosa's wrong views on Barks and spread them even further on their fan sites. This way, Rosa is responsible for distorting the Barks-world.

Second, Rosa doesn't have to be Barks. You said that, and I agree with you 100%! If only Rosa would agree. Rosa is pretending he's the next Barks. He has even 'finished' the Barks-story 'Back to the Klondike'. Barks deliberatly left open what happened at Scrooge's claim during that famous month (it even got cut out the first time!). Rosa makes a story about that, as if Barks' story wasn't finished already.

If Rosa doesn't want to be compared to Barks, then he should stop trying to become him.

GetAGrip wrote:['Letter from home' not consistent with Lo$]"Fiction (from the Latin fingere, "to form, create") is storytelling of imagined events and stands in contrast to non-fiction, which makes factual claims about reality." - From Wikipedia

Instead of making it all sound very trivial -again: why are you even here then?- you should've come up with real counter-arguments to defend Rosa. But as always, the Rosa-fanboy *can't* defend his idol, because there is no way to defend him. So the Rosa-fanboy has to resort to distracting the attention away from the actual discussion, saying "it's just fiction".

Again, I must point out to you what you're own idol Rosa has said about this. Rosa has always bragged on the Internet how he always keeps all his stories consistent with each other and with Barks. Both claims are untrue. If somebody brags about something, ans it turns out it isn't true, doesn't that deserve a least a critical look?

Rosa claims to be consistent. Then let him be consistent.

GetAGrip wrote:It's like you can alter things for dramatic/comical situations, as opposed to be writing about real happenings [and even then they can do that way].

You can't do both. You can't alter real happenings. Yes, I know that often happens in books, and Hollywood films, and comics, but it's slandering history. And Rosa has always claimed all facts in his historical adventures are right. And that his stories are consistent. So none of these explanations are of any relevance when criticizing Rosa's 'Letter from home'.

GetAGrip wrote:Every writer of fiction makes such choices or errors.

Rosa makes errors.

GetAGrip wrote:[Rosa about 'Prisoner of White Agony Creek']OMG! someone asked him to tell about and he did! And made it sound like it was commercial!

Yes, Rosa said something like: "be sure to catch the new chapter in the Eisner Award-winning series Life of Scrooge". If that isn't a commercial, I don't know what is. He could've said: "My next story is about..." but Rosa hd to brag. As usual.

GetAGrip wrote:Surely that man is evil!

Rosa has said in an e-mail what happened between Scrooge and Goldie in their cabin, including remarks as "Ooooh baby! But I tells it like I sees them." For a Disney artist and a midle-aged man, that's not a healthy way to correspond with his fans, who are usually 20 years younger.

GetAGrip wrote:Cost of Barks reputation? Yeah, right. Earth to Daniël.

Due to Rosa's stories, many people now believe Scrooge and Goldie have been romantically involved in Klondike, and that it was in Barks' original story (which is *not* true). So yes, Rosa is making stories at cost of Barks' reputation. Earth to GetAGrip.

GetAGrip wrote:
Daniel73 wrote:Because Rosa's ranting on internet about having to see Barks in real life?
I'd expect people to shy away.

You are the only one ranting here or in DCML about comic artists. Don't be surprised if people indeed shy away from you.

Rosa's ranting is being discussed here, not Daniel's. Daniel is just a reader. Rosa is a professional Disney artist, whose opinion is heard and read all over the world. Rosa has incredible power, Daniel not. That's the big difference.

And yes, Rosa's ranting has driven me, a former fan, further and further away from him.

GetAGrip wrote:What I've understood they flood in by the hundreds to get signatures everytime he appears in any European city.

But who knows how many people stay clean of Rosa comics? That's never been measured. In theory, for every Rosa-fan, there could be a Rosa-hater. But Rosa-haters aren't going to conventions to tell him they hate him, or make anti-Rosa websites. So we can't really compare, can we?

GetAGrip wrote:You should try "not being bothered at all" approach, and concentrate on Barks.

The problem is that nowadays, it's very hard to concentrate on only Barks. There are always websites which name Barks and Rosa in the same sentence, claim that Rosa is the 'successor' of Barks, and even talk about the 'Barks/Rosa-universe'. Even on Wikipedia, when reading about Barks, one can't avoid Rosa. That's the whole problem!

GetAGrip wrote:People could actually see past your obsession. Someone dedicating so much time on making someone else look bad is not generally doing himself any favors.

Daniel doesn't make Rosa look bad. Rosa makes Rosa look bad. His remarks speak for themselves. It just takes a critical observer like Daniel to point that out. I'm very thankful he pointed it out to me.

GetAGrip wrote:[Bolivar]That dog again! Every character Barks used but Rosa hasn't is a good reason for fans to start having second thoughts? Your view of mankind is severely flawed.

Like I've said before: it's not about Bolivar. It's about Rosa's reasoning. He claims to be the expert on Barks, but doesn't know Barks has used Bolivar in at least 6 comics! Then he comes up with an excuse about his siter buying comics when he was growing up. What do readers care about Rosa's sister? If you don't want to use Bolivar, then don't, but don't come up with these kind of laughable excuses.

GetAGrip wrote:
Daniel73 wrote:Rosa either thinks everyone is crazy, or he has ran out of excuses.

You seem to have lots and lots of pathetic excuses to tell us how bad person someone else is.

You, being a die-hard Rosa-fanboy, call it 'pathetic excuses'. I call it 'rightfull criticism'. And I'm even more certain of that, when I see you can't refute a single of Daniel's points, but are only bust by shootig down him, instead of his message.
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby Ole Damgaard » Sat Aug 05, 2006 7:17 pm

Rockerduck wrote:Popularity doesn't mean anything. Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler were the most beloved political leaders of their times.

This thread has now come to its end, in accordance with Godwin's Law and normal discussion policy.

-Rockerduck lost.


:cool:
Ole Damgaard
Member
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 4:53 pm

Postby Rockerduck » Sat Aug 05, 2006 7:38 pm

Come up with normal counter-arguments, Ole. That's much more constructive than just saying somebody 'lost'.

This isn't about winning and losing, in the first place, but it's about Barks and Rosa.

I think I made a very valid point by pointing out how little popularity means.
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby Ole Damgaard » Sat Aug 05, 2006 7:43 pm

It was a joke, man... lighten up! ;)



(and you did mention hitler)
Ole Damgaard
Member
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 4:53 pm

Postby WB » Sat Aug 05, 2006 8:09 pm

Ole Damgaard wrote:It was a joke, man... lighten up! ;)

I LOL'd!!! XD
WB
Member
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 10:29 am

Postby Daniel73 » Sun Aug 06, 2006 2:50 am

Kai Saarto wrote:[Grandey and Morby] I'm sure that you know Barks sued them as well and kicked them out his house.

This was matter between Barks, Grandey and Morby. There were law-suits from both sides. Barks sued them, and then they sues Barks.

Kai Saarto wrote:Bruce Hamilton sued them also.

As I understood, this is a different matter. One between Hamilton, Grandey and Morby.There were law-suits from both sides. I don't know who was the first. I remember one law-suit against Hamilton, for publishing old magazine cartoons of 1920s/1930s.

As I see it, there were three different series of law-suits:
1. law-suits between Rosa, Grandey and Morby. (1993?-1995)
2. law-suits between Hamilton, Grandey and Morby. (1996?-1997?)
3. law-suits between Barks, Grandey and Morby. (1998?-1999?)

To my knowlegde all law-suits ended in settlements, but I'm not sure about juridical terms. I remember them as being three independent cases on their own, with Grandey and Morby being involved in each case.

Kai Saarto wrote:You say Barks never praised Rosa like he did some other artists. Does that automatically mean he hated Rosa's guts?

No, it certainly doesn't. When Rosa reported DCML that Barks was an "evil genius" on him, it certainly was a shock. Rosa himself was at least catalyzer of the rumour of Barks personally hating him. Making it look valid by complaining about cold correspondence with Barks. Rosa himself made it seem Barks hated Rosa's guts. Rosa took the Atlanta-confusion too personal.
I have never seen any evidence for Barks hating any creator. I've only seen Barks just being critical about Rosa, in for example some published private correspondence. But only from an artistic view. And in private correspondence segments I've seen, Barks seems to have been asked by Rosa to give criticism.

The Carl Barks Studio package I received (1997/1998) contains a pink booklet, titled 'Background information and current events'. The booklet contains xeroxes pages hold together with one staple. Among them some interviews. After quiting with Grandey and Morby, Barks was requested to identify the contents. If only because some interviews have no details on them, just answers and questions. One interview with a question about "curves", was identified by Barks to be one of Grandey's writings.
This raises the question if the interview was completely made up, or written down by memory. Maybe some private conversation. But even then the quotes were only artistic, about work-methods for example.

One of the answers mentions 1994 painting 'Surprise Party at Memory Pond', which means that the text must be from that year or later. It's three numbered pages containing 11 short questions, each being a subject of one or two words. (The first page has 'Carl Barks Studio' logo lettering, with Grandey and Morby mentioned as managers. The bottom of the page contains the adress, telephone number and fax-number.)

As a reply to 5th question "Curves?", the answer is:
"The Disney Duck model sheets are done in rounds. Many current artists are good at this. There is only one artist that consistently goes off model drawing Scrooge. It is hard for me to look at what has been done to him. Fortunately, it has not being printed in Italy and France. My Disney style was developed in many art classes at the Disney Studio. I have Walt to thank for my art as well as storytelling."

The error "has not being printed" appears in the text. I guess that this is an interview by Grandey and Morby (what's her role?). People should judge for themselves if the questions could be done by an interview. That's a matter of text investigation.

Kai Saarto wrote:Sure, he did not share Rosa's vision of a some kind of set history for Scrooge. Barks was a gag-man, Rosa had different vision.

Barks was not just a "gag-man". Barks was a story-teller and good artist.

Kai Saarto wrote:If he had such antipathy towards Rosa, why did they change letters to each other since 70s, why did Barks provide Rosa with story ideas, why did he invite him to his home?

The antipathy towards Rosa looks like being just a business between Rosa, Grandey and Morby, something they mixed up with Barks.
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby H.H.F » Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:30 am

Here is that Bolivar discussion from DCML for your convenience, trimmed for brevity:

Subject: DCML Digest Issue 16
From: Don Rosa xxxxxxxx at xxxx.xxx
Wed Aug 17 15:53:43 CEST 2005

> From: Victor <xxxxxxx at xxxxx.xxx>
> Subject: Bornworthy, Donald's dog.
> This dog was used by Barks some times.
> But I havn't seen Don Rosa using that dog.
> Have he ever used him in a comic (Or will use???) I know many
> other artists use him.

I was VERY anxious to start using Bolivar (Bornworthy) the
dog!!! I had not used him at first since in American comics (which were the
only ones I knew) he had not been seen since the 1940's. I had never grown
up with Barks stories featuring Bolivar -- he had disappeared from the
American stories before my sister started saving her comics. But a few
years later when I went to work for Europe, I saw that Bolivar was still
being used as the Nephews' dog in new stories made in other markets, so I
wanted to start featuring him in my own stories. *Every kid should have a
dog!* Three special kids should have a very special dog!

Okay, but how would I suddenly begin using a dog as a household pet which
clearly had never existed before, either in my stories or in the comics I
had grown up with (which exist from moment to moment in my mind to guide
me)? Since the dog's name was "Bolivar", my solution was that I would do a
story set in South America (as the dog is named after the foremost South
American hero), and Bolivar would appear and become the hero of the
adventure, saving the Ducks and becoming their special pal whom they would
take home to Duckburg. So I designed the story "Last Lord of Eldorado" for
that purpose.

But the editors objected to my use of Bolivar in that fashion. It's been too
many years so I don't recall the exact reason... but probably they didn't
like how I would be presenting Bolivar as a new addition to the Duck family
(even though, to my American mind, he *would* be). So I was directed to
delete all reference to Bolivar from that story and rewrite it without a dog
hero. And that was that. Since I could not start using Bolivar in such a way
that implied he had always been an existing and active member of the Duck
household, any more than I could let myself suddenly start using a fourth
Nephew as if he had always existed, I had no personal choice but to ignore
Bolivar and deprive myself of having a dog in my Duck stories.

... in my own mind I must consider Bolivar "officially... gone" to explain his absence
from every Barks story I grew up with. (Yes, he apparently was used by Barks
in some 1940's stories that I learned of as an adult collector -- perhaps
this Bolivar was lost on a Junior Woodchuck rescue mission, or Donald did
him a mischief while backing 313 out of the garage in 1949? Whatever the
case, he was definitely not a Duck household member in the stories I knew.)
And this is certainly not the first or only instance where my strict
personal view of Barks' Ducks prevents me from doing things in my stories
that I would love to do. But I have no choice but to be true to the version
of these Ducks that has existed in my brain since my youth. And that's
nobody's problem but my own.

So, no, you'll never see Bolivar in one of my Duck stories...

---

Some replies follow mostly about historical Simon Bolivar, then Johan Franzon continues:

When did he pass away? That is, when did Barks tire of making up stories
with him? He made a very memorable appearance as late as 1951, in
"Operation St Bernard", helping the nephews to become generals in the
Junior Woodchucks. He provided a lot of the humor in that story too, as
in the final punchline: "Bornworthy got a medal too, but he thought it
was a cookie, so he ate it". Was this the last appearance of
Bolivar/Bornworthy? Might the medal, with a sharp pin attached, have
been the cause of his "death"?

Surely, in the minds of Donald Duck readers, Bolivar would function much
like every other feature of Donald's house: the fireplace, the garage,
the second floor - sometimes it's there, sometimes it's not.



Rosa's reply:

> What a pity Bolivar cannot be "officially" resurrected.

How do you mean? He is used regularly (so I understand) in Duck stories. I
was only explaining why *I* can't find a way to use him in my few stories My
works represent an almost negligible amount of all the Duck stories
produced!


Johan's:

I was more intrigued by the sentence: "Bolivar - had disappeared from
the American stories before my sisters starting saving the comics". But
Bolivar did make a glorious show of himself in 1951! What happened then?


Rosa replies a joke:

[i]Then my sister missed buying an issue. No reason was given for her action. I
would have complained, but at the time I was preoccupied in waiting to be
born. I tried to mention the matter the first chance I had, but somehow my
best efforts resulted in unintelligible gurgles and drools. (This is the
point at which a better man than me would put a little smiley-face icon.)


Tor Kinlok chimes in now, with a reply that reflects Daniël's and Rockerduck's problem with the issue:

Don, do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that if you
personally missed reading an issue as a child, then somehow that
story never happened? Going back and reading the story as an adult
doesn't count, or doesn't make it "real?"

If so, that's a real shame, because having Bolivar just show up and
tag along with HDL on one of $crooge's quests could be a lot of fun.
In fact the more I think about, the more I am convinced that I've
already read such a story by you? But I must certainly be imagining
things.

I certainly respect and admire your decision to create your own
guidelines and tell your stories as you choose to tell them - but in
this case, I also think that you're one of those little detail-
obsessed continuity freaks like Marvel and DC is afflicted with :-)


And finally Rosa's reply:

As far as I knew as a kid, no, it never happened. How could it have?
And even if I had read that 1951 story then or later, I never saw that dog
in the Duck household again. So in the Duck Universe I grew up with, there
was no family dog. But I *did* grow up with several stories where the
Nephews seemed to have controlling interest in a noble and brilliant
bloodhound named General Snozzie, the Official Woodchuck Hound.

Therefore, Snozzie *is* alive in my heart and mind. I have already used Snozzie several
times in important tales, one being a story showing how important Snozzie is
in HD&L's life soon after they came to live with Donald. Snozzie is not only
the dog *I* associate with the Nephews, but he is also a hound who looks
much more like the Basset Hounds that I adore (the only dogs I've ever owned
-- had 8 so far), so given a choice of dogs in a match between a Hound and a
big furry Saint Bernard, I would take the hound as both a pet and a story
character. Maybe I love Basset Hounds because of Barks' Snozzie (a
bloodhound). So, other writers use Bolivar when they need a Duck-dog, and
I'll use Snozzie. No difference. Something for everyone. And just because I
do it that way in my miniscule share of stories certainly doesn't make it
either right or official, it just makes it the way I do it, so no problem.


Discussion in thread stops after someone mentions recent (in year ago) story by Krohonnen/Nunez where Bolivar's joining with Donald & nephews is explained (Switzerland).
H.H.F
 

Postby H.H.F. » Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:32 pm

My comments to above:

Some people here say Rosa's explanation is an excuse.

I guess its up to a personal preference, but for me its clear that Rosa certainly does explain why he does not use Bolivar and has no reason to lie about such a thing. Rockerduck said that that "I don't like the dog" would be better reason than the one Rosa gave. I wonder why? If he likes the dog but can't fit it to his vision, is that in any way worse explanation?

For us European readers Bolivar is a known part of Donald's household, its apparently not the same for americans, or at least to this one specific american who wrote the story.

Claiming that he does not know Barks because of his choices on what to include in his own stories sounds really unwarranted for.

Since Rosa has spoken his mind about the issue year ago, I'd think it would be more interesting to raise the question about why Barks didn't use Bolivar after 40s except for that one story in 1951 (or can someone find more later stories with it?)

Johan Franzon raised an interesting theory on said thread, but it went largely unnoticed:

He apparently belonged to the Barks of the forties, the domestic
adventures of Donald and his naughty nephews. When the boys became
Junior Woodchucks and they all started traveling with Uncle Scrooge,
Barks found little use of the dog, it seems.

(Come to think of it, were there generally more animals in Barks'
stories in the forties? I remember something about Donald feeding a
lion, training a falcon, exasperating over a sitting schnauzer. Were
those stories "early Barks"?)
H.H.F.
 

Postby Ridder ter Geit » Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:54 pm

I do remember a lot of funny stories with animals from Barks from the earlier years, yes. Those were more gag-based stories then the latter big adventure-stories.
Ridder ter Geit
Member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:25 pm

Postby Daniel73 » Sun Aug 06, 2006 2:14 pm

H.H.F. wrote:Since Rosa has spoken his mind about the issue year ago, I'd think it would be more interesting to raise the question about why Barks didn't use Bolivar after 40s except for that one story in 1951 (or can someone find more later stories with it?)

Neighbour Jones was used in the 1940s. In the early 1960s he reappeared because a fan remembered Barks of his existance.
Barks wrote: "You mentioned Mr. Jones. Glad to have him recalled to memory. I shall certainly use him again if a suitable plot suggests itself. Thanks, too, from Mr. Jones." (December 11, 1960 letter to Larry Ivie)

I think "the question about why Barks didn't use Bolivar after 40s except for that one story in 1951" is wrong, as you already state an exception in it. You put emphasis on the 1940s with the 1950s as exception. That's confusing. There's no reason to isolate "that one story" from the others.
The question could be: Why Barks didn't use Bolivar after 1951 (or can someone find more later stories with it)? And even then it's suggestive, as you ask for a reason for something of which you are unsure.

A 1955 story has a dog that looks like Bolivar. But there the name is Bernie. I've counted three saint bernard dogs named Bolivar, Bornworthy and Bernie. It could be one saint bernard dog having three different names, or two dogs of which one has two different names, but that's a matter of discussion and investigation.
I've understood from DCML that Bolivar was named Bornworthy because of political reasons, but that should be researched.

In The Netherlands, Bolivar/Bornworthy/Bernie is named "Loebas".

So far, I've counted seven Barks stories with saint bernards like Bolivar:
- Three Dirty Little Ducks (WDC 43) ("Bolivar")
- icebox sleep-walking (WDC 56) ("Bolivar")
- parrot joe from singapore (WDC 65) ("Bolivar")
- howlingest cat in the neighborhood (WDC 76) ("Bolivar")
- super-magician (WDC 82) ("Bolivar")
- operation rescue saint bernard (WDC 125) ("Bornworthy")
- christmas bath (WDC 184) ("Bernie")

cover with saint bernards like Bolivar:
- new heat wave due (WDC 95)

painting with saint bernards like Bolivar:
- Snow Fun (1974)
- Heat Wave (May 1996)

Image Image

Submission date of the christmas bath story is 31 March 1955, and the cover date is 1956.
For this this overview I've counted dogs that look remarkably like Bolivar, like the heat wave cover. Principally speaking that could be another saint bernard.

I've heard Barks liked to draw dogs. 'North of the Yukon' (US 59) could be an example of that, which contains the dog Barko. Another remarkable dog is the Official Woodchuck Bloodhound, General Snozzie. (WDC 213)

Someone told me Bolivar/Bornworthy has a son, named Behe, which appears in one Barks story:
- old love letters (WDC 111)

Behe is the dog shown in panels 3.7 and 3.8. In panel 3.7, Donald says: "Track them down, Behe! This case is DESPERATE!"
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Daniel73 » Sun Aug 06, 2006 2:30 pm

Ridder ter Geit wrote:I do remember a lot of funny stories with animals from Barks from the earlier years, yes. Those were more gag-based stories then the latter big adventure-stories.

The story about parrot Joe from Singapore shows Donald having two pets. A cat and a dog. The cat's name is "Tabby", but it could be the type of cat, or both.
In panel 7.3, Donald says: "Tabby! TABBY! What the Sam Hill AILS you? OW!"
In panel 8.2: "Everything seems to be as usual! I guess Tabby and Bolivar were just having nightmares!"

This means that there are two stories in which Donald has a cat:
- parrot joe from singapore (WDC 65)
- howlingest cat in the neighborhood (WDC 76)

There are more types of pets. Several Barks stories contain fishes in bowls. Well-known is a bowl overcrowded with fishes. There's a Barks quote about Garé asking him to stop drawing too many fishes in one one bowl, as children might imitate it.
And there's the chipmunk mascot story (WDC 168). The nephews have a pet chipmunk named Cheltenham, an alligator named Alfred, and later Donald has a talking mynah bird as pet.
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

PreviousNext

Return to Other creators

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron