Jimbo wrote:[ROSA's family tree] Barks and other people were informed about the thing and they could have their say. Rosa took from those contributions those that felt true to his vision and made his own tree, to be used in his own work. You really can't argue against that.
Barks is the creator of Duckburg. Why would Rosa ignore what Barks provided him? And why does Rosa claim that his ROSA family tree is close to Barks, without providing the differences as shown in the "private" correspondence? A correspondence which Rosa has put down as being "cold".
And why would Rosa (mis)use Barks's name for a ROSA family tree, if it's just Rosa's vision anyway?
Jimbo wrote:All I can agree with, except that "communicating with a wall" is your interpretation. Rosa's work is so much inspired by Barks that its just amusing that you claim that he ignores Barks. Obviously, he takes what he likes. Too bad for you, if it does not fit your vision. Majority of readers do enjoy them, hence several different editions and printings.
Majority of readers? Majority of readers still enjoy reading Barks stories, hence several different editions and printings. Many Rosa fans like Rosa because he often refers to Barks stories. Rosa is in a minority, like many other so-called Barks followers.
Jimbo wrote:Entertainment is largely about doing stuff majority of consumers want. That's why Egmont asked Rosa to do Life of Scrooge. They felt he was the man for the job. Results truly are for all to see.
Indeed, entertainment is largely about doing stuff majority of consumers want. By making the 'Life of Scrooge' series on the request of a (commercial) editor, one might say that Rosa is in contradiction when he claims that some Barks stories on the request of the editor should not be counted. One of Rosa's explanations for excluding Scrooge's biggest fear Miss Penny Wise was that Rosa saw it was some request by Barks's editor.
And entertaining by doing stuff majority of consumers want, puts a different light on how much 'Life of Scrooge' has been created from the heart and how much from the wallet.
Jimbo wrote:Daniel73 wrote:So if Barks voluntary helped Rosa with his projects, this can now be used to make Barks part of the Rosa success-story?
Whaddyamean? You mean that my sentence can used as proof that Barks agreed on everything or that Barks involvement made Rosa a success??? I am just saying that Barks voluntarily gave his view about duck-relations. Don´t read too much into it.
I'm just asking you about your statement of Barks voluntarily gaving his view about duck-relations. The fact that Barks helped does not mean he would agree with the results. Especially if the ROSA family free is just only Rosa's view.
Jimbo wrote:You saying that Rosa ignored something Barks sent him, just agrees with my point. Rosa indeed did the Tree himself, he did not force Barks to do it, Barks voluntarily and without asking made those 2 drafts. Rosa never wrote to him saying that "Carl, draw me a duck family tree", he informed Barks about the job he had been given with Lo$ and provided the timeline he had done and ideas about family tree. Barks then decided to make his contribution.
I understand. That's why I'm asking questions about the results. Barks contributed, but his contributions are kept away from the public. The Carl Barks Library contains lots of "private" information from Barks, including the private 1950s family tree draft.
Rosa used "private" Barks material. But when Rosa receives such material himself, he doesn't want that Barks material to be published. How can that be explained?
Jimbo wrote:If you provide someone else's quote that hardly tells anything about you, its just pointing to a readily available information.
Asking readers to come up with Barks references, saves Rosa a lot of research. Which raises the question how much Rosa really knows about Barks. Especially when Rosa says his view on Barks depends on which comics Rosa's sister didn't buy.
By sending some Barks-references to DCML, among other DCMLers, on Rosa's request, I've voluntary helped. Despite my disagreements with Rosa's "view" on Barks. This as an example of voluntary helping someone, without caring about whether the help is used or not.
Jimbo wrote:Daniel73 wrote:Why does Rosa keep his sources for himself, especially if this was some official project? As a result it's easy for Rosa and his "friends" to now make up stories themselves.
There could be number of reasons. It was a private letter.
In the 1990s, Gladstone has published a series of private letters from Barks to people, in articles by Geoffrey Blum. Rosa obviously doesn't understand the importance of Barks's letters.
DCML 11. May 1994 wrote:It's a pity that Barks is so negative about your duck-stories, I could only think of two reasons why he is.
Interesting that you take this message. It shows the influence of Rosa's first-hand account about Barks disliking him and being an "evil genius". On DCML there was a lot of negativity from readere, about how mean old Barks treated poor Rosa. This is just one example of such messages.
DCML 11. May 1994 wrote:[Reasons disliking Rosa] The first one being that Barks probably doesn't like people who put too much depth to his stories and maybe he feels like he's been stolen when people put facts and situations from *his* stories into *their* stories.
Barks has made clear that he didn't like too much depth being put into his stories. He has said his stories are 1% inspiration and 99% transpiration. The cheque-machine being the boss.
DCML 11. May 1994 wrote:The second reason why Barks might be so negative in the media now is that he recently came up with a new story and it's quite possible that people now will prefer *your* stories over *his* new story.
In the media? Outside of internet? That would be interesting.
DCML 11. May 1994 wrote:For Barks, being a comic writer again, you are a real competitor. And the fact that you use much of his stories, also can give him the impression that he is fighting with *himself*. Without your stories it would already be a difficult task to compete with his own old stories."
Being a comic book writer again, Barks had to compete with Rosa's stories that contain references to Barks. Barks is competing to himself, in some way. Especially when Rosa is making a 'Life of Scrooge'-series including Barks references.
In a 1982 interview with Wim van Helden, Barks has said that he wasn't fond of his model-sheets, as other people might imitate him, so people would mix him up with other artists.
Jimbo wrote:Writer clearly indicates that Barks is jealous to Rosa. He sees Rosa as better writer, and just can no longer compete with this new dazzling rival.
As the many Rosa/Barks-mixups have shown since then, it would be a valid reason. Barks competing with himself. People confuse Barks's originals with Rosa's references.
DCML 11. May 1994 wrote:"For me, the only thing I can say is: Keep up doing your stories like you want to do them."
How could a Rosa fan in 1994 know what the effects would be of being so supportive to Rosa? This is a case of a fan being overprotective to an idol, who's publicly complaining about another idol.
Jimbo wrote:Writer clearly wants Rosa to follow his own way. Listening to other people's demands would be just crazy. Rosa should follow his own heart.
And Rosa did. Rosa went further and further away from Barks, while still using references to Barks stories, expanding his "masterpiece" into some never-ending soap, contradicting himself at will.
Jimbo wrote:There you go. All from one single message. Proving without a doubt that writer thinks Rosa should do as he himself sees best. He should ignore people like Daniel van Eijmeren who insist that Rosa should do as Daniel wants.
You give a clear example of the atmosphere at DCML at the time, in 1994. It would be interesting to find even just one example of criticism on DCML to Rosa, for calling Barks an "evil genius". A lot of people believe Rosa on his word, as he gave a first-hand account on how Barks "really" was.
By ignoring criticism and doing mainly just his own way, Rosa's work has become one-dimensional. No matter what I or others want. Rosa's work and writings speak for themselves.
Jimbo wrote:So, who did wrote those quotes. Well, it was Daniel van Eijmeren himself. Now, lets hear how you explain all that and convince me and everyone else that those words still are true. After you're done I pick up some more (there are loads) and you can again explain yourself. Lets see if after eight years of that you learn that not everything written by someone on internet or said in an interview is gospel and reflects that someones eternal opinions.
If you are planning to go analyzing DCML-emails by fans, then count me out. I like to discuss artist, like Barks and Rosa. I can easily give some remarkable quotes of shocked DCML members, as a reply to Rosa's first-hand accounts about Barks. In 1993 and 1994, shortly after Rosa subscribed, there was a dark atmosphere of Rosa complaining and fans supporting him. Would you want to open that box?
Rosa is an artist and his writings are interesting for that. I'm surprised that you're interested in individual readers instead. Doesn't that go too far?
Jimbo wrote:I mean it, explain all that. If one "evil genius" (which I believe was first used by someone else on DCML, and Rosa just quoted that, but that is not important) said in anger defines someone for life then what does those quotes make you to be? Turn-coat of the worst kind?
Rosa's comments on Barks are historical. Any serious biographer should include them, as a matter of fact.
Jimbo wrote:Fan who didn´t get enough attention for providing help (quotes) and went through complete change of character? (see thread about Harry Fluks and INDUCKS for further ideas about how not getting recognition can get someone really angry and starting personal attacks against old friend) I can come up with lots of nasty explanation if I wish. Or I could just simply state that you have changed (a lot!) from those days. Overanalyzing things rarely does you any good, so I am happy with my last theory.
You are overanalyzing contributions by forummers. This topic is about Rosa and Barks and not about forummers. That 1994 DCML message shows just a different perspective, based on Rosa's view. Trusting only one side of the story.
The thread about
COA/Inducks is another topic. And there's a lot of information among it, despite the confusion about who is a troll or not. Some of the suggestions already are in use. So, my "overanalyzing" must at have some worth, I guess.
*EDIT* boardlinking updated to McDrake